:: welcome to


:: 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 ::

-- 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


    Above the Law, by David Lat



    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


    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


    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


    :: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 ::
    Chicago Tribune: Schiavo statute unusual but not necessarily unconstitutional.
    "The biggest criticism I might have is that I've never seen anything like it," said Akhil Amar, a professor at Yale Law School. "But that doesn't automatically mean it's unconstitutional."

    Stephen Presser, a law professor at the Northwestern University Law School, said he initially had thought the law would fail constitutional review, but ultimately concluded, "It's a closer call."

    "I go back and forth," he said.
    I'm very disappointed with Prof. Douglas Kmiec (quoted further along in the article), whose con law casebook I'm using -- for now. Hey, students, let's go back and review the part where the editors strongly imply that the Dred Scott case should have been resolved on the basis of natural law as declared in the Declaration of Independence! The U.S. Constitution protects certain inalienable rights, including life -- that is your position, isn't it, Doug? If it were 1856 and the federal courts had refused to hear Dred Scott's appeal, and Congress had passed a statute requiring that they do so (but not directing the outcome), would that have been an "abomination," Doug? Undoubtedly the fault is mine, but I must say that I Do Not Get It.

    ACLJ's amicus brief in support of preliminary injunctive relief.

    :: David M. Wagner 12:14 AM [+] ::

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