Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On November 16, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a committee seeking to recall Senator Robert Menendez in advance of the end of his term may not proceed.
In a 4-2 decision, the state's highest court ruled that a constitutional amendment passed in 1993 (along with state laws promulgated subsequently) violates the separation of powers as set forth in the both the state and national constitutions.
Recently an article was published at lewrockwell.com wherein the author, Kirkpatrick Sale, asserts that it was the Founders' evident intention to establish a powerful federal government. In fact, contrary to what many constitutionalists may believe, the Constitution as framed was intended to, and was successful in, paving the way for the massive federal usurpations that plague the United States today.
The vigorous and timely advocacy of the enforcement of the 10th Amendment has been well chronicled in the pages of The New American and elsewhere. There are, in fact, organizations devoted exclusively to that task. While no constitutionalist worthy of the distinction can doubt the vital nature of that mission, there is another amendment whose prominence in recent headlines must concern those dedicated to the advancing of constitutional principles of freedom and good government: the 17th Amendment. That amendment required the direct election of U.S. senators by the people, thereby eliminating the election of U.S. senators by state legislatures.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli understands the difference between unpopular and unconstitutional. During a speech October 21 at the Fall 2020 Legal Strategy Forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, Cuccinelli told attendees, “We don’t sue because we don’t like things. That is what elections are for.”
Sir Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion states: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by some external force.
An article in the Washington Post today relates how Supreme Court justices are spending the early days of the latest session parsing the language of various statutes to determine the merits of the constitutional questions arising from them. One day, says Robert Barnes, author of the piece, the definition of “file” is debated; the next day it’s “unavoidable” that must be defined in constitutional context. Later in the week, the justices pepper counsel with questions over the interplay between verb and adverb in the phrase “necessarily implies.” On that point, Chief Justice John G. Roberts laments, “…the adverb points one way and the verb points another.”
Late last week a federal judge ruled that according to the settled case law undergirding the jurisprudence of the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate of ObamaCare is constitutional.
The vigorous and timely advocacy of the enforcement of the Tenth Amendment has been well chronicled in the pages of The New American and elsewhere. There are, in fact, organizations devoted exclusively to that commendable task. While no constitutionalist worthy of the distinction can doubt the vital nature of that mission, there is another amendment whose prominence in recent headlines must also concern those dedicated to the advancing of constitutional principles of freedom and good government — the 17th Amendment.
Not a single news broadcast passes without mention of the so-called “Tea Party” and its rise to political prominence or the imminent toppling of the Establishment that will be caused by that increasing power. Candidates from Delaware to Kentucky to Colorado to Alaska are banking on the spending power of the Tea Party’s newly minted political capital, and all of that makes for good copy.
On September 9, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the injunction against Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act that was handed down by District Court Judge James Munley on July 26, 2007.