Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston looks at the current debate over the Electoral College and why history, as well as contemporary politics, may be stacked against its elimination.
The high-stakes fight now unfolding in the Supreme Court over the 2020 census, testing whether everyone in America should be asked about their citizenship, is now intensifying into a major constitutional controversy.
On Monday morning, a crowd – no one knows for sure how big it will be – will gather at a church in Phoenix to start a three-day, 38-mile hike to visit sites symbolic in the history of Arizona women. The distance of the event is itself a symbol: 38 is the number of states it will take to ratify the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In nearly 28 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has been its most unwavering “originalist.” That means that he reads the Constitution as meaning today what he believes those who wrote it meant back then, no matter how conditions may have changed in America in the meantime.
A group of 16 states asked a federal court in California on Monday night to block the federal government from building a wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico unless Congress explicitly approves money to pay for it.
Convinced that it must act quickly to settle the issue, the Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide the legality of adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
Moving with unusual speed, the Supreme Court on Monday set the stage for acting soon – probably on Friday – on the constitutional controversy over asking everyone living in America about their citizenship, as part of the 2020 census.
Over the dissents of four Justices, the Supreme Court on Thursday night temporarily barred the state of Louisiana from enforcing a law that has the potential for making abortion unavailable to many and perhaps most women in the state.
Saying the Supreme Court needs time to ponder the issue, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., on Friday evening delayed for six days a Louisiana law regulating abortion doctors – a law closely similar to one that the Court struck down by a narrow vote three years ago.
An attempt by the state of Maryland to get a federal judge to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), in order to offset another federal judge’s earlier decision to strike down the entire law, faltered on Friday.