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 ::
:: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 ::
Fruits of socialized medicine: public officials get to decide whether to deny you medical care based on your unhealthy habits, such as smoking, drinking, eating too much -- or getting older.
:: David M. Wagner 5:40 PM [+] ::
...
:: Monday, January 28, 2008 ::
Our little symposium last month on Standing, mentioned by my bff Jon, here at the Volokh Conspiracy -- many thanks to Prof. Adler for his participation!
:: David M. Wagner 12:26 PM [+] ::
...
:: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 ::
In Britain, a court challenge to the potentially sovereignty-ending Lisbon Treaty -- John Gouriet writes:We believe that [U.K. government] ministers are limited by the confines of the Constitution; that they have no authority to surrender, or lend, sovereignty to another power, especially one that is unelected, unaccountable, irremovable and owes no allegiance to the British Crown.
They have no power to assume Royal prerogative or the right to break their oaths of allegiance and office, or cause the Sovereign to break his or her contract (Coronation Oath) with the people to govern according to their laws and customs.
If ministers try to enact bad or damaging law, the Crown, one of the three legs of governance, has a duty to refuse assent. Anyway, how can the strictly impartial Crown accept partial advice based on political whim?
We belive parliamentary "supremacy" and the doctrine of no government "binding its successor" are confined to the statutes of administrative law, not constitutional law.
We also believe that constitutional law cannot simply be repealed by introducing a new act. If it can be repealed at all, it must be repealed expressly in full and normal procedure.
Furthermore if the doctrine that Parliament may not destroy its own "omnipotence" is correct, by adopting permanent subservience to Brussels, from which already nearly 80% of our laws originate, its so-called "omnipotence" would indeed be destroyed.
In 1803 in the United States in a significant case, Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court Judge, Marshall, held that the US Constitution, based on the English original, was superior to a certain ill-conceived Act introduced by Congress and he declared the offending statute void.
We urgently need a Marbury v. Madison type case here and every one in Britain should be thankful that Stuart Wheeler is to ask the courts urgently whether there is any lawful authority for our government to over-ride our existing Constitution and impose the EU version.
I know counsel have assembled a powerful case to argue that the Government has no such authority and Mr. Wheeler is prepared to go all the way to the House of Lords to obtain justice for the British people and mark out the constitutional limits of parliamentary power. Without this the people no longer have any remedy against misfeasance or tyranny.
The case naturally is likely to be very expensive and all possible support is needed. Please send contributions marked DT and payable to, CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE c/o This England, PO Box 52, Cheltenham GL50 1YQ.John Gouriet was a co-founder of the Freedom and is Chairman of Defenders of the Realm, which challenged the Nice Treaty in 2003 and with This England Magazine raised 1,125 million signatures in 2004 to petition the Queen not to grant assent to an EU constitution without support of the majority of the electorate.
:: David M. Wagner 10:27 PM [+] ::
...
:: Monday, January 21, 2008 ::
Well, what a long time it's been. The Christmas break wasn't an easy one for me this year. I want to thank my many students and colleagues who helped, and are helping, to make it easier.
There's so much to write about; esp. SCOTUS oral arguments that need commenting. I'll probably focus, at least at first on Medellin. (How do you know when claims of executive authority in foreign policy have gone too far? When John Yoo files a brief on the other side.)
In the meantime, as I bid farewell for the time being to criminal law, I note that the Florida Bankers Association is trying to cut down on robberies by curbing the robbers' standard kit:SARASOTA, Fla. — Responding to a more than one-third hike in bank robbery, the Florida Bankers Association is urging its members to adopt new rules.Not additional guards or cameras, but a dress code for customers.
The group rolled out a "No Hats, No Hoods, No Sunglasses" program, which includes lobby signs asking customers to remove those items before approaching a teller.
No striped jersies? No masks? No laundry bags with dollar signs? The story goes on:Those who refuse would be directed to an area with more security or a more experienced teller.
Yeah... named Moose. After all, doesn't say what he's experienced with.
:: David M. Wagner 5:56 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 5:40 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 12:26 PM [+] ::
...
We believe that [U.K. government] ministers are limited by the confines of the Constitution; that they have no authority to surrender, or lend, sovereignty to another power, especially one that is unelected, unaccountable, irremovable and owes no allegiance to the British Crown.
They have no power to assume Royal prerogative or the right to break their oaths of allegiance and office, or cause the Sovereign to break his or her contract (Coronation Oath) with the people to govern according to their laws and customs.
If ministers try to enact bad or damaging law, the Crown, one of the three legs of governance, has a duty to refuse assent. Anyway, how can the strictly impartial Crown accept partial advice based on political whim?
We belive parliamentary "supremacy" and the doctrine of no government "binding its successor" are confined to the statutes of administrative law, not constitutional law.
We also believe that constitutional law cannot simply be repealed by introducing a new act. If it can be repealed at all, it must be repealed expressly in full and normal procedure.
Furthermore if the doctrine that Parliament may not destroy its own "omnipotence" is correct, by adopting permanent subservience to Brussels, from which already nearly 80% of our laws originate, its so-called "omnipotence" would indeed be destroyed.
In 1803 in the United States in a significant case, Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court Judge, Marshall, held that the US Constitution, based on the English original, was superior to a certain ill-conceived Act introduced by Congress and he declared the offending statute void.
We urgently need a Marbury v. Madison type case here and every one in Britain should be thankful that Stuart Wheeler is to ask the courts urgently whether there is any lawful authority for our government to over-ride our existing Constitution and impose the EU version.
I know counsel have assembled a powerful case to argue that the Government has no such authority and Mr. Wheeler is prepared to go all the way to the House of Lords to obtain justice for the British people and mark out the constitutional limits of parliamentary power. Without this the people no longer have any remedy against misfeasance or tyranny.
The case naturally is likely to be very expensive and all possible support is needed. Please send contributions marked DT and payable to, CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE c/o This England, PO Box 52, Cheltenham GL50 1YQ.
John Gouriet was a co-founder of the Freedom and is Chairman of Defenders of the Realm, which challenged the Nice Treaty in 2003 and with This England Magazine raised 1,125 million signatures in 2004 to petition the Queen not to grant assent to an EU constitution without support of the majority of the electorate.
:: David M. Wagner 10:27 PM [+] ::
...
There's so much to write about; esp. SCOTUS oral arguments that need commenting. I'll probably focus, at least at first on Medellin. (How do you know when claims of executive authority in foreign policy have gone too far? When John Yoo files a brief on the other side.)
In the meantime, as I bid farewell for the time being to criminal law, I note that the Florida Bankers Association is trying to cut down on robberies by curbing the robbers' standard kit:
SARASOTA, Fla. — Responding to a more than one-third hike in bank robbery, the Florida Bankers Association is urging its members to adopt new rules.No striped jersies? No masks? No laundry bags with dollar signs? The story goes on:Not additional guards or cameras, but a dress code for customers.
The group rolled out a "No Hats, No Hoods, No Sunglasses" program, which includes lobby signs asking customers to remove those items before approaching a teller.
Those who refuse would be directed to an area with more security or a more experienced teller.Yeah... named Moose. After all, doesn't say what he's experienced with.
:: David M. Wagner 5:56 PM [+] ::
...
