July/August 2001

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made much of the word “originalist” during a stimulating and at times provocative lecture I heard him give last September at the University of British Columbia Law School in Vancouver. He had scathing comments for a judicial view of the Constitution as a “living document.” This view, he maintains, has often cut us loose from the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. In his inimitable style he railed against the “Pollyanna-ish” interpretations of rights granted by courts in the complete absence of any constitutional specific, and at times in contradiction of assumptions we know were held by society at the time the nation was formed.

What's one to make of Liberty?

The United States Constitution, Article I, states specifically that Congress and only Congress shall maintain the power to make federal laws. However, every president has presumed a type of lawmaking power. This is accomplished by means of what is known as “executive orders.” For example under the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1733 the President was given the authority to declare a “national emergency.” That might seem necessary only in times of crisis. But this order actually provides the potential for almost dictatorial power—certainly a bypassing of the usual democratic methods.

Supreme Court activism and the First Amendment

Charles I and the modern United States

Is the Faith Based Initiative a Good Idea?

Spiritual duty and public service at work