“Constitutional law” on The Daily Caller

On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention’s delegates signed the final draft of the Constitution. That document has stood the test of time, providing both stability and liberty. Just before signing the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin noted that while it was a document written by men with their own failings and prejudices, it was nearly perfect: “Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.” (more)

Not many Americans know it, but today is Constitution Day.  Well, technically, by force of 2004’s Public Law 108-447, it is “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day”—but never mind the fine print. (more)

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer caused a brief firestorm this week after he appeared to suggest that under certain circumstances, burning a Quran would not be protected under the First Amendment because of the violent reaction it could cause. (more)

The First Amendment gives the people the right to exercise freedom of speech, to assemble peaceably, to petition their government for redress of grievances, and to practice one’s religion.  These are rights that should be cherished.  These are rights that should be protected.  These are rights that make our democratic form of government so amazing. (more)

John Eastman has taken me to task for what he calls my misreading of the language and history of the 14th Amendment in a recent op-ed I wrote for The Wall Street Journal.  We’ve known each other for decades, and I consider Eastman a friend, but he’s simply wrong in thinking the children born to illegal immigrants in the United States are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. (more)

“No comment.”  It may be the most useful phrase in a politician’s vocabulary.  So why can’t President Obama bring himself to say it? (more)

A loophole in our nation’s laws is being exploited and consequently costs American taxpayers $5.63 billion annually at the federal level.  What is worse, this same loophole costs state and local taxpayers much more.  In my home state of California, taxpayers are paying $8.3 billion this year for this ongoing problem.  This is at a time when the Golden State has a $20 billion budget shortfall. (more)

The recent behavior of the Obama administration regarding the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) took a new twist a few days ago when the White House resubmitted his name to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration. (more)

Even the most stubborn supporters of SB 1070 will admit that the Justice Department’s decision to challenge the law paid dividends.  A federal court temporarily blocked the most controversial provisions then went on to suggest that the temporary injunction likely will give way to a permanent one.  Even if the court ends up lifting the injunction, the Justice Department will have disrupted Arizona’s enforcement timeline and in the process bought time for the White House. With that said, it is rare for constitutional litigation to produce decisive winners, and rarer still when the suit involves the balance of power between the federal government and a state.  The SB 1070 litigation is no exception. (more)

On July 19, the White House sent to the Senate the nomination of Donald Berwick to be the top administrator of Medicare and Medicaid. The move seemed odd, given that President Obama had already nominated Berwick once, and then on July 7 used executive authority to bypass lawmakers and unilaterally appoint Berwick to the post while the Senate was in recess. Whether lawmakers like it or not, Berwick has the job — a powerful position made even more powerful by the passage of Obamacare — until the end of 2011. So why resubmit his nomination to the Senate? (more)

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Tony West and his team may or may not have a future in constitutional law.  But judging from the government’s brief in their suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s infamous immigration bill, they might just have a future in comedy. (more)

Republicans and Democrats are battling over Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court – and for good reason.  The stakes are high.   Our political leadership realizes that the court has become the most powerful policy-making body in the nation. (more)

The lead sponsor of Arizona’s tough immigration law passed in April said he will pursue a new law that would restrict children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from obtaining citizenship — and his opposition is taking notice. (more)

Anyone born on American soil is an American. (more)

A Texas pipeline tycoon who died two months ago may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free. (more)

FRANKFORT, Ky.—Republican Rand Paul has told a Russian TV station that he would like to block citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. (more)

Watching the liberal media claw at Rand Paul like a pack of rabid hyenas has been particularly frustrating, considering Paul could so easily turn the the fight around on them. (more)

Official Washington is aflutter with the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. And well it should be: Kagan, age 50, a veritable child in SCOTUS terms, could serve three to four decades on the nation’s highest bench before retiring, leaving a long legacy of rulings with profound implications for many facets of American life. (more)

The realm of judicial nominations has a lexicon all its own, where coded Washington language takes on extra layers of complexity. When President Obama nominated his first judge to the Supreme Court last year, the word of the hour was “empathy.” This time, the term is “consensus builder.” Judicial monastery“ and “constitutional core values” have been bandied about. And what would a debate over judges be without use of “judicial activism“? (more)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama, preparing to make his second nominee to the Supreme Court, warned Wednesday of a “conservative” brand of judicial activism in which the courts are often not showing appropriate deference to the decision of lawmakers. (more)