The Constitution: Does the Necessary and Proper Clause Grant “Broad Authority” to Congress? Actually, None at All

by Rob Natelson | 10:54 am, May 18, 2011

Probably no part of the Constitution has been so misunderstood as the Necessary and Proper Clause, which is located at Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. The Necessary and Proper Clause has been called both an “elastic clause” and a “sweeping clause,” and many have claimed it grants vast power to Congress. For [...]

Amendments Convention: Answering Those Not-So-Tough Questions

by Rob Natelson | 12:30 pm, February 22, 2011

Using the Constitution’s system of a “convention to propose amendments” is likely the only way we’ll ever get a balanced budget amendment, a federal single-subject rule, or other reforms Congress won’t pass. Opponents of the process, however, try to convince people that a convention to propose amendments is a “constitutional convention” (which it is [...]

Another “economic development” fiasco

by Rob Natelson | 4:17 pm, December 28, 2010

A story in today’s Denver Post illustrates the waste in many, if not most, of government’s so-called “economic development” handouts.
In 2008, the City of Aurora, Colorado gave a theater company a $250,000, fully-forgivable urban-renewal loan. The company promised to bring 12,000 people a year into what the city, in its planning wisdom, had decreed [...]

Yet ANOTHER Constitutional Fumble at the Denver Post

by Rob Natelson | 2:29 pm, December 20, 2010

The constitutional whiz kids at the Denver Post are at it again.
Their latest batch of constitutional miscues appears on page 5A of the December 20 edition, in a story on the “Repeal Amendment.” The Repeal Amendment would change the U.S Constitution to allow two-thirds of state legislatures to veto federal laws and regulations. [...]

Election Results: More Standing Up for “States’ Rights?”

by Rob Natelson | 10:42 am, November 3, 2010

One of the big under-covered stories in this election is the huge shift toward Republicans in state legislatures. The change could portend big changes for national politics, because Republican state lawmakers are more likely to sign onto federalism (“states rights”) initiatives than Democrats are. Even though the U.S. House is now Republican, a [...]

Correcting yet more constitutional mistakes at the Denver Post

by Rob Natelson | 1:28 pm, October 27, 2010

Constitutional mistakes just keep coming out of the Denver Post.
One was the editorial board’s assessment that “ObamaCare” is somehow constitutional.
Two more mistakes have just come from Post columnist Mike Littwin. In his Oct. 23 profile of the Tea Party Littwin wrote, that “the founders’ visions were often in complete opposition.”
Actually, the Founders’ visions were [...]

ConLaw 101 for the Post Editorial Board

by Rob Natelson | 12:12 pm, September 30, 2010

The legal whizzes on the editorial board of the Denver Post have spoken: Amendment 63, the Right to Health Care Choice Initiative, is bad because Obama Care is constitutional. Today’s editorial reads:
[W]e believe [Obama Care] will survive legal challenges and will be found to be constitutional. The Constitution provides Congress authority to impose an [...]

Finally — what the Constitution was REALLY supposed to mean (or, why I haven’t been posting much on The Cauldron recently)

by Rob Natelson | 8:59 am, May 30, 2010

One question I often get (that is, I, Rob Natelson, not Jon Caldara, although he may get the question, too)  is “Can you recommend a book I that will tell me in simple language what the entire Constitution was originally supposed to mean?”
I haven’t been able to recommend one, so I wrote The Original Constitution: [...]

The Modern Sophists: “Power to Regulate Commerce” Means “Power to Regulate Non-Commerce”

by Rob Natelson | 1:50 pm, April 30, 2010

A few law professors have been arguing that it’s constitutional to force people to buy health insurance, because the Constitution gives Congress power to “regulate Commerce among the several States.”
Under the very broad formulation of the federal Commerce Power issued by the modern Supreme Court, Congress can regulate not just interstate commerce and certain related [...]

Had Enough?

by Rob Natelson | 12:05 pm, March 22, 2010

If there were any doubt that our constitutional protection has been lost, that doubt should be removed by the congressional vote subjecting the personal health care decisions of every American to central governmental authority.
By an extremely narrow majority, the House of Representatives has crammed a profoundly unpopular and unconstitutional measure down the throats of the [...]

keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either

  Of course not! Why would anyone conclude that errors are geographical? Errors are errors and attempts to reinflate the British economy using the same hot air compressors that we use here aren’t going to work any better over there than they have here.

• Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
• Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
• Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
• The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience
• Rich Americans Are Fleeing the Country
• ObamaCare Advisers Predict Death of Health Insurance Companies