As recent events have demonstrated, there is very little constitutional difference between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
There may have been more talk about dogs at the U.S. Supreme Court than at the American Kennel Club Wednesday, as the justices heard arguments in two cases involving the state of Florida and drug-sniffing police dogs.
In the final installment of this three-part series we examine the constitutional considerations of a national popular vote initiative.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to allow a constitutional challenge to the government's warrantless surveillance to go forward.
In Part 1 of this series, we reported on the efforts underway by many to abolish the electoral college and to have the winner of the upcoming presidential election decided by a national popular vote (NPV). Several states have passed — and many others are considering — bills that would effect a de facto destruction of the Constitution's mandate regarding the method for election of the president.
In a three-part series, we explore the threat to the Constitution posed by a call for the winner of the presidential election to be decided by a national popular vote.
As the national scandal over United Nations-linked “elections monitors” continues to grow after Texas threatened potential prosecutions, the international outfit deploying “observers” demanded that the Obama administration come to its aid. The State Department promptly claimed that the UN-affiliated monitors would have “full” diplomatic immunity. But in the Lone Star State, officials fired back and upped the ante: Don’t mess with Texas.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not unlawful to ban licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21. The decision proved to be a blow for the National Rifle Association, who brought the issue to court. The court’s decision upheld a September 2011 ruling by District Judge Sam Cummings in Texas.
The National Security Agency (NSA) says Americans should trust them to use their surveillance powers only for good. This from the group whose leader refused to say how many Americans they are spying on because it was “beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission.”