Publishers Weekly Calls it a “No Holds Barred Defense of Originalism”

Freedman . . . offers a no-holds-barred defense of originalism, which he defines as the proposition that the Constitution should retain the meaning it had when it was ratified in 1789.  . . . Freedman is an entertaining writer and conservative readers will be amused by his use of sarcasm, hyperbole, and inflammatory attacks on liberals.
–  Publishers Weekly

An originalist manifesto, The Naked Constitution presents a compelling response to the “Living Constitution” theory that allows judges to change the Constitution at will.  In this book, Adam Freedman shows how fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution is the only way to save the Founder Fathers’ ideal of liberty, federalism, and pluralism.

Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million,  Indie-Bound, or wherever fine books are sold!

Affirmative Action vs. Equal Protection

A few minutes into yesterday’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas — a case involving affirmative action — Justice Breyer impatiently blurted out “I want to know whether you [Fisher’s lawyer] are asking us to overrule Grutter,” referring to Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision which upheld University of Michigan Law School’s race-conscious admission program.

Heading into yesterday’s argument, Breyer, Sotomayor, the media, and all of the nation’s professional diversity mongers were freaking out about the possibility that the Court might overrule Grutter, which has has attained a Roe-like status as a sacred cow.  Unfortunately, Fisher’s lawyer played it safe, reassuring the Court’s liberals that they didn’t have to overrule Grutter.

But the truth is that Grutter — which holds that “diversity” is a “compelling state interest” that trumps Equal Protection — is a travesty or, as our own John Yoo recently wrote, a “blemish” on our constitutional law.   The Equal Protection Clause provides “no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”   If the framers of that amendment wanted to make an exception for “diversity” they could have found the words to do so.

For my detailed analysis of the Supreme Court argument, and why Grutter must go, see my piece on NRO’s Bench Memos.

Author and Radio Host Mark Levin Salutes The Naked Constitution

“At a time when our liberties are under attack by politicians and judges who treat the Constitution as a decorative prop, Adam Freedman delivers a much needed counterattack.  In The Naked Constitution, Freedman demolishes the bogus theories taught at elite law schools and explains how we can return to the Founders’ principles of individual liberty and limited government.”

– Mark Levin, Syndicated Talk Show Host and author of Liberty and Tyranny

An originalist manifesto, The Naked Constitution presents a compelling response to the “Living Constitution” theory that allows judges to change the Constitution at will.  In this book, Adam Freedman shows how fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution is the only way to save the Founder Fathers’ ideal of liberty, federalism, and pluralism.

Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million,  Indie-Bound, or wherever fine books are sold!

The Naked Constitution Podcast – The Executive Branch

Another episode of my podcast is now live on Ricochet.com.  This episode is all about the presidency — or what’s left of it.  Host Adam Freedman welcomes two of our most esteemed contributors:  Law Talk’s Professor John Yoo (and Berkeley Law) and Professor Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution.  The president still matters, of course, but maybe not as much as the Framers intended.  We ask where does “the buck stop” now that Congress has dispersed executive powers among dozens of beloved “independent administrative agencies.” We explain why the “unitary executive” is not a crazy theory conjured up by Dick Cheney, but is actually the originalist answer to administrative tyranny.  And finally, we cross swords on presidential war powers, with Professor Yoo presenting his robust defense of executive initiative – sending Adam into retreat.

My book, The Naked Constitution goes on sale Tuesday, October 9.  Order it here.

You can subscribe to this podcast by following the instructions here. Direct link fans, click here.

Property Rights Under Water

Over at the Bloomberg View, I call attention to the Obama administration’s attempt to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government can deny landowners the use of their property for years — decades if need be — without ever paying compensation.

The issue arose in Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. US, a case under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows the government to take private property for public use, provided that it provides “just compensation.” As I reported earlier, the government maintains that it does not owe compensation to landowners for flooding their land because the flooding went on for “only” six years.

That was bad enough, but at oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler insisted that when the federal government adjusts the “benefits and burdens” of living along a river, it can never be liable for compensation, even if its actions cause permanent flooding of private property.  Why?  Because people who live near a river know they might get flooded.  If the Court buys this argument, the Takings Clause will suffer a mortal blow.  You can read the full analysis here.

Strip SCOTUS of Jurisdiction over State Courts

Under Article III of the US Constitution, Congress has complete discretion to define the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (there is a much smaller category of cases over which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction,” that is, it acts like a trial court.

Yesterday, I spoke on a panel for Huffington Post advocating that Congress should pass legislation to remove Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over decisions of state supreme courts.  This is permissible under Article III.  In fact, until 1914, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from state supreme courts.

Proposals to strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court have been floating around Congress since the early 1980s, but without success.  It’s time to return to a system in which states can enact their own social and educational policies without getting trumped by unelected judges invoked made-up “penumbral” rights.  Listen to the segment here.

 

%d bloggers like this: