:: 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..::]
    ::

    :: Monday, September 05, 2011 ::
    SCForum and Ron Paul's Constitutional Problems

    Although Ron Paul probably thinks harder about the Constitution than any candidate, that's only good if you don't get the answers majorly screwed up. RP commits two major screw-ups: he seems to think only the anti-Federalists count as "Framers" (they actually opposed ratification of the Const. b/c it gave us, ahem, big govt); and he thinks the Const. is the Philadelphia '87 document + Bill of Rights. His colloquy with Prof. George on the 14th Am. shows he has no clue how that Am. works and doesn't really want to get any.

    The Anti-Federalists were co-Framers, but they were the losers in the ratification debate. To them we owe the Bill of Rights, but if we view the process of making the U.S. Constitution exclusively through their eyes, we will fail utterly to see what it transparently was: a last-ditch effort to save a federation that was tottering because its national government was too weak and too feckless. The need in 1787-88 was for MORE GOVERNMENT. The only question was, HOW MUCH. And that debate was won by the MORE side of that era, not the LESS side. Delight in that, or deplore it, but don't construct fantasies in which it didn't happen.

    Then there's Ron's refusal to allow that the 14th Amendment says what it says, which is to give a vague but obviously large quantum of NEW power to Congress, via the combination of its 1st and 5th Sections. HOW MUCH power is a matter of opinion and legal argumentation; that a federal power augmentation occurred is a FACT, and repeating the coequal fact (not disputed) that the 9th and 10th Ams still exist doesn't change that. (In fact, by the universally accepted later-in-time rule, a later Amendment prevails over an earlier whenever there is an irreconcilable conflict; tho' of course an interpreter's first job is to reconcile the two and avoid the conflict.)

    We have a lot of Republican candidates this year who talk a lot about the Constitution. I'll give Ron Paul this: he goes farther than the others in specifying what he means. And he's right that the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause need some re-think. But in some areas I worry not about what he doesn't know, but about what does know that ain't so.



    :: David M. Wagner 8:37 PM [+] ::
    ...

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