:: welcome to

NINOMANIA

:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::


"Scalialicious!"
-- Eve Tushnet


"Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter."
-- Mark Tushnet
(I agree, and commented here.)


"The preeminent Scalia blog"
-- Underneath Their Robes


 Subscribe in a reader



Site Feed


Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter



    Bloglinks:

    Above the Law, by David Lat

    Balkinization

    CrimLaw

    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis

    Opinio Juris

    Overlawyered.com

    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Public Discourse

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog





    Other fine sites:

    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Family Defense Center

    The Federalist Society

    The Founders' Constitution

    George Mason University School of Law

    Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center

    Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence

    JURIST

    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Supreme Court decisions

    The Weekly Standard



    Something I wrote about marriage


    lawyer blogs


    [::..archive..::]
    ::

    :: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 ::
    "Guarantee"-ed failure

    Boston Globe: U.S. Justices Won't Hear Mass. Case, i.e. an appeal from Goodridge. Well of course not. This appeal was based on the "guarantee" clause, Article IV, Section 3: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...." This is the archtypal non-justiciable clause, ever since 1849. Everyone is reasonably sure the clause does not mean that all states have to have GOP governors and legislative majorities, tee hee, but no one knows what it does mean.

    (I have a hunch there's an anti-Catholic kick behind it: rule by a Catholic monarch was considered the antithesis of "a Republican Form of Government," and the Founders could not forget that the country was bordered by territories belonging to the crowns of France and Spain. Notice the "Invasion" clause that comes right after the Guarantee clause, separated only by a comma, which is less than separated New England and New York from Quebec, or Georgia from Florida.)

    The suit the Supremes turned aside asked them to hold, basically, that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court deprived Massachusetts of a "Republican Form of Government" by taking it upon itself to redefine marriage in that state. Courts violate the Guarantee Clause when they make decisions best left to legislatures? Oh yeah, I can see the U.S. Supreme Court holding that....

    :: David M. Wagner 3:08 PM [+] ::
    ...

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?