In pursuit of greater taxing power, some progressives want to throw out direct democracy altogether.
Robert G. Natelson
With controversy raging over the Alien Enemies Act, how should we understand the concept it invoked?
USAID grants may have cracked constitutional spending limits.
Even if the outcome was right, the Supreme Court’s procedure in TikTok v. Garland was all wrong.
Neither critics nor defenders of our presidential election system seem to fully understand why the Constitution’s framers constructed it as they did.
Constitutional amendments can protect liberty, but we are too cautious about the procedures to propose them.
Under any version of originalism, the Hylton case is useless, or worse than useless, as evidence of constitutional meaning.
Supreme Court pronouncements on direct and indirect taxes have been conflicting, uncertain—and wrong.
Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant (3rd ed., 2014). He is a contributor to the Heritage Foundation’s “Heritage Guide to the Constitution.”