Filter By:
Date
Topic
- Economic Policy (18) Apply Economic Policy filter
- Education (9) Apply Education filter
- Energy, Science & Technology (3) Apply Energy, Science & Technology filter
- Foreign Affairs & National Security (18) Apply Foreign Affairs & National Security filter
- Health Care (12) Apply Health Care filter
- History (27) Apply History filter
- US Politics (46) Apply US Politics filter
- Values & Social Policy (26) Apply Values & Social Policy filter
Type
Search
James Ceaser is the Harry F. Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, director of the Program for Constitutionalism and Democracy, and was a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of several books on American politics and American political thought, including...
Democratizing the Constitution
Peter Berkowitz on Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution by Stephen Breyer
The Imperial Judiciary—And What Congress Can Do About It
Unelected federal judges are using their awesome power to usurp democracy from the American people.
Preserve, Protect, and Defend
Constitutional principles I promise to uphold
Necessary Impeachments, Necessary Acquittals
Damning facts, dubious laws, and the separation of powers
Of Power and Providence
The old U.S. and the new EU
Big Brother Is Watching
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis suggested some 70 years ago that personal privacy—the right to be left alone—is the right we Americans value most. Alas, in the information age that right is constantly being eroded. By Hoover fellow Charles J. Sykes.
After Michigan
In June the Supreme Court issued a definitive—if narrow—ruling that permits the consideration of race in university admissions. This may have been bad law—but was it a bad decision? By Robert Zelnick.
What Did the Founders Think They Were Doing?
Why do we vote, and what do we get for our trouble? By Harvey C. Mansfield.
The Promise of Choice
Clint Bolick on the fight to transform America’s schools.
Follow the Saudi Money
Untangling a complex courtroom tale: did Saudi funding incubate Islamist terror? By Chris Mondics.
Great Debates
The creation of the new Afghan constitution was rife with conflict. Will it bring peace to this long-suffering country? By J Alexander Thier.
Policymakers in the Dock
Original Thomas, Conventional Souter
What kind of justices should the next president pick?
"High Crimes" After Clinton
Deciding what's impeachable
Forty Years of Originalism
THE HIGH (AND MIGHTY) COURT: Judicial Supremacy
Did the framers of the United States Constitution intend that the Supreme Court be the sole and final interpreter of the Constitution, with the power to place binding decisions on the executive and legislative branches? Or did they intend that the Supreme Court have the final say only on the legal cases that came before it, thus permitting the executive and legislative branches to have wide latitude in interpreting the Constitution for themselves? The former view, that of judicial supremacy, is the dominant view of the Supreme Court today, accepted, for the most part, both within government and in society more generally. Is this view supported by the Constitution? If not, why and when did it arise? Should we support judicial supremacy, or is it time to rein in the Supreme Court?
OUT FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL: The Supreme Court and the Constitution
The Supreme Court has the final authority on all matters of law under the U.S. Constitution. But what legal philosophy should the Supreme Court use to reach its decisions? Should the Court merely hand down rules based on the text of a fixed, or "dead," Constitution? Or should the Court apply standards that are based on interpretations of a "living" Constitution that evolves as our society changes? These fundamentally different approaches to constitutional law have created a rift with the current Supreme Court. How serious is this rift? Who's right? And to what extent are these competing arguments merely covers for ideological positions?
Audio recording of “Out for a Constitutional” (26:48)
ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL: The Separation of Church and State
The First Amendment of the Constitution declares in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What did this amendment mean to the founders who wrote it? Did they intend to establish an inviolate "wall of separation between church and state"? Or was their intent instead to merely preserve religious freedom and prevent the establishment of a national religion?
HEAVEN CAN WAIT: Is the Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?
Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? The original pledge, written in 1892 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy, did not contain the words "under God." Congress added these two words in 1954. And it is these words that caused the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule in June 2002 that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools violated the First Amendment's so-called separation of church and state. Now the case is before the Supreme Court. Will the Court rule that reciting the current pledge in schools is okay, or do the words "under God" have to go?
The Gender Refs
Federal regulators lock arms with college athletic departments to gut men’s sports in the name of equality