Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On Wednesday, officials from the Department of the Treasury removed a hurdle from the path of two organizations seeking to challenge the constitutionality of a government directive authorizing the use of lethal force against American citizens.
A recent story published by the respected online political magazine, Politico, proposes to set forth similarities between the philosophies of constitutional interpretation espoused by Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
Several key GOP senators are calling for congressional hearings into the 14th Amendment’s supposed grant of citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are illegal aliens.
Apart from the question of whether there exists an enumerated power in Congress to legislate in matters of immigration policy, there is the question of the legality of the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration against the State of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer. There is evidence that the suit is proscribed by the Constitution and accordingly should be dismissed upon appropriate motion of the defendants.
In Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling granting the federal government partial preliminary injunction of several key provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070, she made specific reference to the exclusivity of federal power to regulate immigration. Arizona, she held, should be prohibited from legislating in an arena that the Constitution meant to be within the zone of federal power.
The ink on S.B. 1070 hadn’t dried before motions to enjoin its enforcement were filed in federal district court. One of those motions, a motion for a preliminary injunction, was filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the government of the United States. Wednesday, the court ruled on that motion.
Elena Kagan has a problem with fundamentalism — Christian fundamentalism. Kagan has no similar qualms about Sharia, the jurisprudential expression of Islamic fundamentalism, however.
Reports from the Empire State indicate that the National Guard is assisting local law enforcement in Albany, that state's capital city, to search and seize weapons from citizens — an apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act.
President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan on May 10 to occupy the chair that would be soon left vacant by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced on April 9 that he would retire at the conclusion of the Court's summer term.
Elena Kagan's responses to the questions put to her by the Senate are worthy of comment since she has been nominated for a significant position. A companion piece to this article will review some of her answers and check them against the standard handed down to us by our noble Founding Fathers — namely, the Constitution of the United States. Apart from that analysis, however, there is the equally compelling question of just whether this whole business of the modern nomination hearing circus was ever anticipated by the Framers or provided for by the provisions of the Constitution itself.