<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: constitutional</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'constitutional'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22constitutional%22&t=%22constitutional%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:30:54 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Sometimes I’m Tempted to Fight My New Passion</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5086260&amp;cid=t_329734_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F07%2F31%2Fsometimes-im-tempted-to-fight-my-new-passion%2F</link>
            <description>For the last month or so, I’ve been possessed with a passionate interest in the sense of smell. I follow the resolution to cultivate good smells &amp;#8212; I’ve read lots of books, I’ve started disciplining myself to be more aware of the smells that I encounter in my day, I’ve been eliminating sources of bad smell in my home (a very worthwhile endeavor, by the way), and I’ve also become interested in perfume.
I’ve never had much interest in perfume, but suddenly I am, because so much of the energy and writing around the subject of smell is related to perfume.
I’m newly fascinated by perfume, but I’m also fascinated by my own process of becoming fascinated. As Virginia Woolf noted in her Diary: “I must remember to write about my clothes next time I have an impulse to write. M...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5086260</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:39:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5086260</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Republicans and the New York Marriage Law</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4975839&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjqIiiUmeSBM%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazSince New York passed a law extending marriage to same-sex couples, Republican presidential candidates have been mostly silent. But not Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has had a long and strong interest in gay rights issues. In an interview on Fox News Sunday she endorsed both New York&amp;#8217;s Tenth Amendment right to make marriage law and the federal government&amp;#8217;s right to override such laws with a constitutional amendment, confusing host Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: You are a strong opponent of same-marriage. What do you think of the law that was just passed in New York state—making it the biggest state to recognize same-sex marriage?
BACHMANN: Well, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I also believe—in Minnesota, for instance, this year, the legislature...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4975839</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:50:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4975839</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Ground-Breaking Constitutional Theories</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4968471&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FttETJmLgxOo%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroLast year I blogged about a fascinating new approach to constitutional interpretation that Georgetown law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz was developing, in a Stanford Law Review article called &amp;#8220;The Subjects of the Constitution.&amp;#8221;  Now Nick has a sequel, titled, naturally, &amp;#8220;The Objects of the Constitution.&amp;#8221;  Here&amp;#8217;s an excerpt from the abstract:   
In short, this Article and its predecessor, The Subjects of the Constitution, amount to a new model of constitutional review, a new lens through which to read the Constitution. This approach begins with a grammatical exercise: identifying the subjects and objects of the Constitution. But this is hardly linguistic casuistry or grammatical fetishism. The subjects and objects of the Constitution ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4968471</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:47:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4968471</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>White House: ‘We Have Never Been at War in Northafrica!’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4934097&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQifV1CO3_to%2F</link>
            <description>By Gene HealyPardon the somewhat trite Orwell reference in the title to this post. But sometimes this administration&amp;#8217;s wordgames make it hard to resist invoking our keenest analyst of politics and the English language.
Some months ago, the Obama team began telling us that the Libyan War wasn&amp;#8217;t a war&amp;#8212;it was a &amp;#8220;kinetic military action.&amp;#8221; (Go here to watch Defense Secretary Robert Gates try&amp;#8212;and fail&amp;#8212;to maintain a straight face selling that line to Katie Couric on 60 Minutes).
In April, the president&amp;#8217;s Office of Legal Counsel made the (bogus) argument that the president hadn&amp;#8217;t violated the War Powers Resolution because the WPR recognized his authority to engage in hostilities for at least 60 days without congressional approval.  We&amp;#8217;re...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4934097</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:40:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4934097</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Extinguish Federal Grants to Firefighters</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4911464&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FYbQmO1Im2Eg%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenLast week, the House passed a $40.6 billion Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal 2012. The Constitutional Authority Statement for the bill cited Congress’s authority to appropriate money and the General Welfare Clause. Citing the General Welfare Clause might be appropriate for activities associated with the common defense of the nation. However, it is not an appropriate justification for something like the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, which distributes federal taxpayer money to local fire departments.
Firefighting is a purely local concern and should be funded by those who benefit from a local fire department’s services. Why in the world am I paying federal taxes in Pennsylvania to a bureaucracy in Washingto...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4911464</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:40:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4911464</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“But He’s Our Imperial President”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4893413&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FrydOQNq3g4U%2F</link>
            <description>By Gene HealyMy Washington Examiner column today closes out a three-part series this week on &amp;#8220;Obama&amp;#8217;s Imperial Presidency&amp;#8221; (also running at Reason.com). Tuesday&amp;#8217;s column covered Obama&amp;#8217;s expansion of executive power abroad, and Wednesday&amp;#8217;s looked at the ways in which Obama has turned the Imperial Presidency inward against the private sector.
Today&amp;#8217;s column begins with a recap of the powers 44 holds:
Abroad, Obama claims the power to start wars at will; scoop up your email and phone records without answering to a judge; assassinate you via drone strike far from any battlefield, and &amp;#8212; should your relatives complain &amp;#8212; keep the whole thing secret in the name of national security.
At home, Obama has summarily fired the CEO of General Motors, ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4893413</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:11:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4893413</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tuesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4862515&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fhu_TAotJGc0%2F</link>
            <description>By George Scoville
&amp;#8220;Vouchers and tax credits differ from one another in important ways, and Pennsylvanians deserve to have their representatives consider them one at a time.&amp;#8221;
&amp;#8220;So, if the Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s precedents defer to Congress&amp;#8217; assessments of its powers, but Congress is relying for &amp;#8216;constitutional authority&amp;#8217; on the Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s precedents, then NO ONE is actually looking at the Constitution itself to see if a bill is within Congress&amp;#8217; enumerated powers.&amp;#8221;
&amp;#8220;Carbon dioxide, thought to be a significant cause of the warming of surface temperature since the mid-1970s, is currently the respiration of the world’s economic civilization. Getting rid of it isn’t as simple as banning CFCs and switching to another refrigerant....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4862515</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 15:23:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4862515</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>VA Mental Health Care is So Bad, It’s Unconstitutional</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4813360&amp;cid=t_329734_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F05%2F11%2Fva-mental-health-care-is-so-bad-its-unconstitutional%2F</link>
            <description>So says a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, after reviewing the evidence about the ability of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to offer an appropriately level of mental health care and treatment to returning soldiers.
In this way, the costs of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been grossly underestimated, because they don&amp;#8217;t take into account the increased needs and costs of the vets&amp;#8217; ongoing and increasing mental health care. The longer we&amp;#8217;re at war, the worse it&amp;#8217;s going to get.
According to the article on TIME.com about the recent ruling, not only do some vets have to wait weeks to get in to see a mental health professional at many VA medical centers, but there&amp;#8217;s often no significant triaging ...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4813360</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 15:30:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4813360</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congress: The Least Dangerous Branch</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4704627&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F37Y-u-NanmY%2F</link>
            <description>By Gene HealyThat&amp;#8217;s the topic of my Washington Examiner column this week. In it, I discuss last week&amp;#8217;s budget battle and the failure of &amp;#8220;policy riders&amp;#8221; designed to rein in the Obama EPA&amp;#8217;s attempts to regulate greenhouse gases without a congressional vote specifically authorizing it. The Obama team believes it has the authority to implement comprehensive climate change regulation, Congress be damned. Worse still, under current constitutional law&amp;#8211;which has little to do with the actual Constitution&amp;#8211;they&amp;#8217;re probably right. Thanks to overbroad congressional delegation, &amp;#8220;the Imperial Presidency Comes in Green, Too.&amp;#8221; At home and abroad, the legislative branch sits on the sidelines as the executive state makes the law and wages war, despi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4704627</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:59:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4704627</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Jersey Canceled for Lack of Funds</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4631463&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FmtdKggUjFKQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Andrew J. CoulsonNew Jersey is broke. In an effort to get the state back on its financial feet, governor Chris Christie has made across-the-board cuts--including cuts to public school spending. This week, a judge ruled that his school cuts are unconstitutional, in light of state supreme court precedents dating back decades.
Basically, New Jersey's highest court has ruled that the state must spend a fantastically large sum of money in order to meet its constitutional requirement of providing a &quot;thorough and efficient&quot; school system.
Slight problem: by definition, a system that spends outrageous sums of money for outcomes that are merely &quot;thorough&quot; cannot also be &quot;efficient.&quot; The courts seem to have resolved this logical contradiction by ignoring the word efficient. So now they just deman...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4631463</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4631463</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Graduating Law Students – Come Work for Liberty!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4631464&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FsfMd0T5kLvU%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroFor almost two year now, Cato has been running a highly successful legal associate program.  Talented recent law school grads have come to work for us during the time that their law firms have &quot;deferred&quot; their start dates (from a few months to a full year), with commensurate stipends.  The firm deferral phenomenon seems to be mostly played out as firms have adjusted their employment policies, but some law schools are now picking up the slack by creating post-grad fellowships with similar conditions.
Now that we're again approaching graduation season, I thought I'd put out another call for more potential legal associates.  We can always use the extra brain, you can always use Cato on your resume, and your firms/schools can always use your getting substantive legal expe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4631464</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:30:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4631464</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My Favorite Constitutional Right</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4507260&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlCuAYwIjR0c%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazBoth the Washington Post and NPR refer to the Tenth Amendment as a &quot;tea party favorite.&quot; I would have thought that tea partiers -- and most of the rest of us -- liked all 10 of the Bill of Rights, and indeed the rest of the Constitution as well. Now, sure, I guess if the ACLU could publish (in the 1970s or 1980s) the poster below, an &quot;illustrated guide to the Bill of Rights&quot; featuring only the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth amendments (and only parts of those), along with the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth amendments, which are not part of the Bill of Rights -- well, then, I guess the Tea Party is entitled to have its own favorite parts of the Bill of Rights. But then, it was NPR and the Washington Post, not tea partiers, who suggested that the Tenth Amendment was ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4507260</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:33:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4507260</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On Egypt’s Transition</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4445776&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FPrWigUj_7XQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday POLITICO Arena asks:
At his press conference this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs distanced the Obama administration from former Egypt envoy Frank Wisner's suggestion over the weekend that Hosni Mubarak should stay in power as Egypt transitions to a new government. Was Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, right about that and about the potential for a power vacuum?
My response:
Wisner was half right, but on the Mubarak half he was almost certainly wrong. Transitions are messy -- at best. Ask the French about theirs two centuries and more ago. Occasionally they're done pursuant to existing constitutions. Ours from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution wasn't, despite which it wasn't all that messy. We were lucky. We had a relatively...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4445776</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:08:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4445776</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who’s Afraid of an Amendments Convention?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4436736&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FYLO-_XEBUf0%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroThose of us who are upset at how &quot;constitutional law&quot; has gotten far away from the text of the Constitution have more options than just hoping the judiciary tosses us an occasional bone and otherwise writing law review articles and op-eds.  We can also amend the Constitution!
Indeed, the Framers provided a method of constitutional amendment that is easy to understand (if not to execute, at least not since the New Deal Congress and FDR began de facto amending the Constitution without bothering to amend it de jure).  Article V says that an amendment can be sent to the states for ratification upon approval by two thirds of both houses of Congress.  In the alternative, two thirds of the state legislatures can call for an amending convention.  Either way, the resulting prop...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4436736</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 04:41:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4436736</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Imaginary Federal Election Commission</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4372025&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCczvZ1ciRyU%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesJeff Patch and Zac Morgan of the Center for Competitive Politics report on the storm that is brewing at the Federal Election Commission over regulations to implement Citizens United. The three Democratic appointees propose regulations that would impose significant elements of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that failed to pass Congress last year. The three Republican appointees, in contrast, propose to clarify existing law and clear away defunct regulations, all with an eye toward the holdings in Citizens United. The FEC seems unlikely to adopt the proposals by the Democratic appointees. After all, the Democratic commissioners do not have and are unlikely to obtain majority support for their agenda.
Imagine if the Federal Election Commission were directed by a seven-member board wh...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4372025</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:38:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4372025</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Constitutional Vision of The New York Times</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4294615&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FskNPPZcFS3g%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonThe editorialists at the The New York Times are out of sorts this morning over a Tea Party backed constitutional amendment that would give state legislatures the power to veto any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of the legislatures approved. Despite the backing of incoming House majority leader Eric Cantor and legislative leaders in 12 states, the proposal has little chance of succeeding, the Times avers, “but it helps explain further the anger-fueled, myth-based politics of the populist new right.” Indeed, it expresses “with bold simplicity the view of the Tea Party and others that the federal government’s influence is far too broad.”
Well? Isn’t that what the election last month was all about? But right there, for the Times, is the problem: “In past ec...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4294615</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:21:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4294615</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Comes Up against the Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4258844&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fsu578fBkHkA%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday POLITICO Arena askes:
How badly does today&amp;#8217;s ObamaCare ruling set back the Democrat&amp;#8217;s signature domestic achievement? Should Tenth Amendment enthusiasts take heart that other federal laws with which state officials disagree can be struck down?
My response:
A quick reading of Judge Henry Hudson&amp;#8217;s opinion today striking the &amp;#8220;individual mandate&amp;#8221; provision of ObamaCare gives hope to those of us who have long urged, more broadly, for a restoration of limited constitutional government. As Judge Hudson put in granting summary judgment to Virginia, &amp;#8220;the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds.&amp;#8221;
The administration had argued that Congress had authority to enact and enforce the individual mandate to buy healt...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4258844</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:47:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4258844</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FDA Expansion and the ‘Arcane’ U.S. Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4233167&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjT_21hU9b7o%2F</link>
            <description>By Walter OlsonLast Tuesday, despite warnings of regulatory overreach, the Senate voted 73-25 in favor of S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, which would greatly expand the powers of the federal Food and Drug Administration and impose extensive new testing and paperwork requirements on farmers and food producers. Almost at once, however, the bill was derailed &amp;#8212; whether temporarily or otherwise remains to be seen &amp;#8212; by what the New York Times called an &amp;#8220;arcane parliamentary mistake&amp;#8221; and the L.A. Times considered a purely &amp;#8220;technical flaw&amp;#8220;. Roll Call put it more bluntly: &amp;#8220;[Senate] Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.&amp;#8221; While the New York Times weirdly cast Senate Republicans as ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4233167</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:33:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4233167</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Little More Support for Killing Fed Ed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4133684&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyEO89mV7tq8%2F</link>
            <description>By Neal McCluskeyYesterday, I wrote that rather than counseling incoming Republican Congress members to bolster federal intrusions in education, now is the time to start dismantling Washington&amp;#8217;s unconstitutional education apparatus.  Exit polling from yesterday&amp;#8217;s election, while certainly not focused on education, offers some support for this.
Quite simply, voters want less government in their lives, not more. Support for the Tea Party was very high considering that many people consider it something of a fringe movement, with 41 percent of voters saying they either &amp;#8220;strongly&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;somewhat support&amp;#8221; the Tea Party. Only 31 percent expressed opposition to the movement. Just as telling, if not more so, 56 percent of respondents said they thought &amp;#8...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4133684</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:11:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4133684</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Evo Morales’ Soccer Behavior Mirrors His Governing Style</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4036632&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FHG8SU1fNj8g%2F</link>
            <description>By Juan Carlos Hidalgo
The video speaks volumes: During a “friendly” game played in La Paz, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales (wearing green jersey number 10) approaches a rival player to confront him for a previous foul. Suddenly, Morales takes justice into his own hands and savagely knees the player in the groin. The referee sees the action but doesn’t red card Morales. Even the teammates of the assaulted player don’t complain. Instead, the referee expels the attacked player. The game goes on and Morales scores the tying goal for a 4-4 match. It was later reported that Morales’ security detail tried to arrest the player.
Evo Morales’ thuggish attitude towards his soccer rivals mirrors his attitude towards political opponents (actually, the team he was playing against was led ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4036632</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:39:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4036632</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Can We Take the Truth?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4031216&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxQVbYtkWPzk%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday POLITICO Arena asks:
Is Alaska Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller correct to suggest that the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional? And beyond that constitutional question, is this a wise political strategy?
My response:
Joe Miller is absolutely right: The federal government has no authority under the Constitution to set a minimum wage &amp;#8212; or to do so many of the countless other things it does today. When Nancy Pelosi was asked where in the Constitution Congress was authorized to order Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, &amp;#8220;Are you serious?&amp;#8221; That&amp;#8217;s a mark of how little America&amp;#8217;s political elites today understand the document they take an oath to uphold.
James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, wrote in Fede...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4031216</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:35:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4031216</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On the “Wisdom” of Obama</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3872539&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FwSHQUwmQwXM%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonThis morning POLITICO Arena asks:
 
Should POTUS show his cards on mosque?
 
My response:
 
Obama&amp;#8217;s inept handling of the Ground Zero mosque controversy is perfectly consistent with so much else he&amp;#8217;s touched during his so-far short presidency. On Friday night he waded into this local matter by miscasting it as one of high constitutional principle. Then as his defenders were shouting &amp;#8220;Bravo!&amp;#8221; on Saturday he pulled the rug out from under them by saying, correctly, that it was really a matter of &amp;#8220;wisdom&amp;#8221; &amp;#8211; about which he wasn&amp;#8217;t going to comment.
 
Maybe he&amp;#8217;s right about that. After all, the president isn&amp;#8217;t, or shouldn&amp;#8217;t be, the moral compass of the nation &amp;#8212; certainly not this president. But it&amp;#8217;s ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3872539</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:35:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3872539</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conservatives vs. Libertarians on Judicial Activism</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3790689&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FJEZztAYnsQQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroI should have posted this earlier, but if anyone interested in legal issues &amp;#8212; should be everyone given that most things coming out of Washington these days have constitutional defects &amp;#8212; hasn&amp;#8217;t yet read Damon Root&amp;#8217;s cover story in the July issue of Reason magazine, drop what you&amp;#8217;re doing now and do so.
While not a J.D. &amp;#8212; or perhaps because he isn&amp;#8217;t &amp;#8212; Damon paints a completely accurate picture on the differences between conservative and libertarian approaches to constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy.  And I don&amp;#8217;t mean a rehash of debates on social issues except in legalese; there are real subtleties involved, particularly when most people adhering to either of these camps call themselves &amp;#8220;originalist...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3790689</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:19:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3790689</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Return of the Principal-in-Chief</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3757851&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FtQ4J8hlm-Pc%2F</link>
            <description>By Neal McCluskeyAccording to a Fort Worth Star-Telegram report, President Obama plans to reprise last year&amp;#8217;s hotly debated role as Principal-in-Chief to help kick off the coming school year.
Will he have the Department of Education once again put out leading and Obama-aggrandizing study guides? Will he again take personal credit for getting computers and other goodies into your kids&amp;#8217; schools? Will this address look as much like a campaign event as the last one? Will he tell all the kids that the really noble thing to do is get government jobs?
We don&amp;#8217;t know the answers to these pressing questions yet, but we do know one thing: If he really does plan to play Principal &amp;#8212; or maybe Motivational-Speaker &amp;#8211; in-Chief again, it will be both unconstitutional, and un...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3757851</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:09:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3757851</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Teachers Suspended for Class about Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3607482&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FHCQMwCn3jHE%2F</link>
            <description>By Tim LynchThis can&amp;#8217;t be happening.  Teachers suspended from their posts for showing students a film about the Constitution!  I can understand the initial parental inquiry&amp;#8211;if a student did say &amp;#8220;I was taught how to hide drugs.&amp;#8221;  There are such films on the market and those would certainly not be appropriate for school.  But instead of gathering the facts, the school authorities seem to have made a terrible and unjust decision to suspend these teachers.  The Busted film is about constitutional law and police encounters&amp;#8211;showing people that they can lawfully stand up to the police and decline to approve a search of their home and belongings, and decline to answer police questions.  Hopefully, the ACLU or FIRE will come to the defense of these teachers and ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3607482</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 16:21:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3607482</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Economist: “Efforts to Challenge Obamacare Are Gaining Momentum”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3599361&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FdoT4DqN5o7s%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonFrom a recent news item in The Economist:
[M]illions of Americans&amp;#8230;think that Barack Obama’s health-insurance laws must be overturned&amp;#8230;[P]olls suggest that many Americans still dislike them&amp;#8230;
At the federal level Republican leaders in Congress have jumped on every bit of negative news—for example, a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office suggesting that the reforms will cost more than originally forecast—as just cause for overturning them&amp;#8230;
The real action is outside Washington, though. Virginia, Utah and Idaho have outlawed the new individual mandate, which will require everyone to purchase health cover, and other states are looking at similar measures. Elsewhere, opponents have taken to the ballot box. Missouri will hold a referen...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3599361</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 16:21:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3599361</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Mark Penn Mourns the Plight of Libertarian Voters</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3542586&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fumh8Dg-358Y%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazMark Penn, who has been a pollster and consultant to the presidential campaigns of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Anderson, and Ross Perot, writes about political discontent in Britain and the United States in the Washington Post today, noting that in this country
socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters believe, especially after what happened with health care, that they have no clear choice: They must sign on with the religious right or the economic left.
Exactly the point that David Kirby and I have been making in our studies on the libertarian vote, as in the first line of this January study:
Libertarian — or fiscally conservative, socially liberal — voters are often torn between their aversions to the Republicans&amp;#8217; social conservatism and the Democrats&amp;#...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3542586</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 15:51:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3542586</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama on ‘Conservative Judicial Activism’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3515333&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3vBUYab2bfI%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonSpeaking to reporters last evening on Air Force One, in the context of his upcoming Supreme Court nomination, President Obama warned of &amp;#8220;conservative judicial activism.&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;In the &amp;#8217;60s and &amp;#8217;70s, the feeling was, is [sic] that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach,&amp;#8221; he said. “What you&amp;#8217;re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.” That error? “Not showing appropriate deference to the decision of lawmakers,” the AP reports.
Really. And which “activist” decisions from the ’60s and ’70s does this former constitutional law instructor have in mind? Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Court found unconstitutional a state statute criminalizing the sale and use of cont...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3515333</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:59:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3515333</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Waking Up at Last</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3471772&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FMnaO7gg739U%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazTony Blankley, former press secretary to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, exults in the Washington Times that Americans are waking up &amp;#8220;to our heritage of freedom&amp;#8221; and to the abuse of the Constitution:
All the following acts have suddenly awakened Americans to their Constitution: (1) The nationalization of car companies and banks; (2) the subordination of the car companies&amp;#8217; legal bondholders to union bosses; (3) the creation of trillion-dollar slush funds (the stimulus package) used for, among other purposes, the corrupt purchase of congressional votes; (4) the mandating of individual health insurance purchase against the will of Americans; (5) the attempt to have Obamacare &amp;#8220;deemed&amp;#8221; to have been enacted, rather than actually publicly voted on by...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3471772</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:20:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3471772</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3424826&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAnyLYO3C5J0%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris Moody
John McCain channels Dick Cheney: On March 4, McCain introduced a bill that  &amp;#8220;would require that anyone anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected of involvement in terrorism &amp;#8212; including &amp;#8216;material support&amp;#8217; (otherwise undefined) &amp;#8212; can be imprisoned by the military on the authority of the president as commander in chief.&amp;#8221;


President Obama declared passage of a major student-aid reform law yesterday. Will it help? Cato education expert Neal McCluskey calls it a mixed bag. 


Thought experiment: Let&amp;#8217;s say for a moment that Congress could actually repeal the health care overhaul. What should they put in its place?


Should Congress pursue a constitutional amendment that would limit federal spending to one-fifth of the...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3424826</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:09:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3424826</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Dealing with Police</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403861&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLl-zruO-5nA%2F</link>
            <description>By Tim Lynch

Yesterday Cato hosted the premiere screening of the new film, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, produced by our friends at Flex Your Rights.  The Washington Post has a nice piece about the film and event here.
10 Rules is a gold mine of useful information (both legal and practical) for handling police encounters.  Legal books are too often impenetrable and just too time-consuming for laypersons. 10 Rules is a media-savvy vehicle that can alleviate the problem of constitutional illiteracy in America.
In less than 45 minutes, you acquire the information you need to know.  Get the dvds and encourage others to show them at high schools, colleges, and other venues.
Catch the trailer below: (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403861</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:00:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403861</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403867&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3rgqfOGlbdM%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris Moody
Idea of the day: Repeal the 16th Amendment, which  gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. Replace it with an amendment that requires each state to remit to the federal government a certain percent of its tax revenue.


Economist Richard Rahn on the necessity of failure in the market: &amp;#8220;When government becomes a player and tries to prevent the failure of market participants, its decisions are almost invariably corrupted by the political process.&amp;#8221;


Read up on Goodwin Liu, Obama&amp;#8217;s nominee for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: &amp;#8220;Liu’s confirmation would compromise the judiciary’s check on legislative overreach and push the courts not only to ratify such constitutional abominations as the individual health insurance mandate but to...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403867</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:16:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403867</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lawrence Lessig’s Constitutional Amendment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3382801&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F9982If77svc%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesLawrence Lessig has proposed a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s decision in Citizens United.  It reads:
&amp;#8220;Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election.&amp;#8221;
﻿﻿In Citizens United, the Court said that the First Amendment concerns speech rather than speakers. Congress has no power to discriminate against speakers; hence, a source of speech &amp;#8211; people organized as a corporation &amp;#8211; could not be prohibited from speaking (or funding speech).
Professor Lessig hopes to introduce a discrimination among speakers into the First Amendment. His proposed discrimination will not ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3382801</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:31:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3382801</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who I’m Not Voting For</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3382803&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FgyutLzFlzco%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazIt&amp;#8217;s that time of year again, when friends start telling me about this or that candidate I should support because he or she is a dedicated defender of liberty and limited government. I&amp;#8217;m a political junkie, so I love getting these recommendations. But I don&amp;#8217;t end up supporting or contributing to many candidates. In my view, it&amp;#8217;s not enough for a candidate to say that he&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8221;committed to slashing wasteful spending, providing tax relief, and eliminating red tape.&amp;#8221; What&amp;#8217;s your actual tax plan? What spending do you propose to cut or eliminate? Not many of them offer clear answers to that.
And liberty involves more than just economics. Often I&amp;#8217;m told, &amp;#8220;Congressman X is a libertarian.&amp;#8221; I always check, and then I say, ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3382803</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:16:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3382803</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Moody’s Mulls Downgrading U.S. Debt</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3382804&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F2b_vIHNsAE8%2F</link>
            <description>By Doug BandowThe U.S. isn&amp;#8217;t Greece.  Yet.
Moody&amp;#8217;s is no longer so sure about the quality of Uncle Sam&amp;#8217;s debt.  Reports the Christian Science Monitor:
The US needs to make significant government spending cuts or else risk losing its gold-plated credit rating that has made extensive borrowing so affordable, Moody’s Investor Service said late Monday.
The announcement was a sobering warning that the country’s burgeoning debt has weakened the country’s economic standing, and that US Treasury Bonds, traditionally a bullet-proof investment, could lose their sterling Aaa-rating if Washington cannot control its federal debt.
If Moody’s were to downgrade the country’s rating, the impact could be severe. It would signal to lenders worldwide that the US is no longer one ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3382804</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:26:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3382804</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Questions for Thoughtful ObamaCare Supporters</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3354303&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F8hO8LijGrCU%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonWhat does it say that the American polity has consistently rejected a wholesale government takeover of health care for 100 years?
What does it say that public opinion has been consistently against the Democrats’ health care takeover since July 2009?
What does it say that Democrats are having this much difficulty enacting their health care legislation despite unified Democratic rule?  Despite large supermajorities in both chambers of Congress, including a once-filibuster-proof Senate majority (see more below)?  Despite an opportunistic change in Massachusetts law that provided that crucial 60th vote at a crucial moment?  Despite a popular and charismatic president?
What does it say that 38 House Democrats voted against the president’s health plan?
What does it say...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3354303</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:40:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3354303</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Six Reasons to Downsize the Federal Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3331275&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fu3lFBBg7i2M%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris Edwards1. Additional federal spending transfers resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive public sector of the economy. The bulk of federal spending goes toward subsidies and benefit payments, which generally do not enhance economic productivity. With lower productivity, average American incomes will fall.
2. As federal spending rises, it creates pressure to raise taxes now and in the future. Higher taxes reduce incentives for productive activities such as working, saving, investing, and starting businesses. Higher taxes also increase incentives to engage in unproductive activities such as tax avoidance.
3. Much federal spending is wasteful and many federal programs are mismanaged. Cost overruns, fraud and abuse, and other bureaucratic failures are e...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3331275</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:34:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3331275</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama: CEO of America, Inc.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3298304&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQtoZq-2OhrU%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday Politico Arena asks:
Will President Obama&amp;#8217;s proposal to block excessive rate increases by insurers help get a health care package through Congress?
My response:
Just where does President Obama think Congress finds the power to authorize the HHS secretary &amp;#8220;to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, potentially superseding state insurance regulators&amp;#8221;?  My colleague David Boaz addresses the politics of this unseemly proposal just below.  And elsewhere our colleague Michael Cannon offers a devastating economic critique of the proposal, citing White House economic advisor Larry Summers, no less, on the folly of it all.  But the constitutional question is what concerns me.
No doubt Obama, a former lecturer in constitutional law, beli...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3298304</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:28:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3298304</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congress Goes After Citizens United</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3269682&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLD7c7mX6C8Y%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesSnowstorm notwithstanding, Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen introduced legislation in response to the Citizens United decision. A summary of their effort can be found here.
Some parts of the proposal are simply pandering to anti-foreign bias (corporations with shareholding by foreigners are prohibited from funding speech) and anger about bailouts (firms receiving TARP money are banned from funding speech). Government contractors are also prohibited from independent spending to support speech. We shall see whether these prohibitions hold up in court. The censorship of government contractors and TARP recipients will likely prove to be an unconstitutional condition upon receiving government benefits.
Despite Citizens United, Congress will try to suppress speech by...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3269682</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:43:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3269682</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Census and the Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3266891&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fo7QfAW-Jra8%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazThe Washington Post profiles Daniel Weinberg, assistant director of the Census, who says:
&amp;#8220;Since the decennial census is in our Constitution, it is the most important task a government statistician can undertake. The census is key to our democratic society by making sure that our congressional districts are equal in size so that we have representative democracy. To be involved in something that is central to our democracy is pretty exciting.&amp;#8221;
Good point. The census is indeed in the Constitution, Article I, Section 2. The Constitution provides that every ten years an enumeration of the population of each state shall be made in order to allocate members of the House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, the census has been loaded down with intrusive questions not author...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3266891</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:45:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3266891</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Keeping Pandora’s Box Sealed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3082392&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSbBHybuqw1E%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroIn today&amp;#8217;s Washington Times, Ken Klukowski and Ken Blackwell co-authored an op-ed about McDonald v. Chicago and the Privileges or Immunities Clause titled, &amp;#8220;A gun case or Pandora’s box?&amp;#8221;
If that title sounds familiar, it should. Josh Blackman and I have co-authored a forthcoming article called &amp;#8220;Opening Pandora’s Box? Privileges or Immunities, The Constitution in 2020, and Properly Incorporating the Second Amendment.&amp;#8220;  As Josh put it in his reply to the Kens, &amp;#8220;imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.&amp;#8221;
Going beyond the title, there are several errors in the piece,  which I will briefly recap:
First, the Kens argue that the Supreme Court should uphold the Slaughter-House Cases, out of a fear that reversal &amp;#8212; and thereb...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3082392</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:29:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3082392</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>10 Rules for Dealing With the Police</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3075481&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQJ01U7Zu34A%2F</link>
            <description>By Tim LynchOur friends at Flex Your Rights have a new film that is about to be released.  It&amp;#8217;s called 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. Trailer for the film here.  I have seen the entire film and it is an outstanding work&amp;#8211;accurate and useful information, great screenplay, and great acting.

Believe it or not, the police can lie to you and can try to trick you into giving up your constitutional rights.  Happens every day.  In less than 45 minutes, this film teaches you what you need to know about police encounters.  Every citizen should take an interest in learning about constitutional rights.  And experienced lawyers will tell you that you can save thousands of bucks in legal fees by avoiding common mistakes.  But you need to know the traps.   If you have teenagers in...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3075481</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:19:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3075481</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Flex Your Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2908566&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F-VSft0Vydnk%2F</link>
            <description>Friends of the Cato Institute who closely follow the news about search and seizure and other civil liberties issues will probably know that there are simple, practical steps one can take to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed liberties, even when confronted by the police. 
For everyone else, there&amp;#8217;s Flex Your Rights. Founded by former Cato intern Steven Silverman, Flex Your Rights aims to teach ordinary citizens how to make good use of their civil liberties:

The vast majority of people are mystified by the basic rules of search and seizure and due process of law. Consequentially, they&amp;#8217;re likely to be tricked or intimidated by police into waiving their constitutional rights, resulting in a greater likelihood of regrettable outcomes.
The sum of these outcomes flow into all ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2908566</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:29:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2908566</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Online Privacy and the Commerce Clause</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2908571&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLng-lFKeSu0%2F</link>
            <description>I fear that with the PATRIOT Act on the brain, I&amp;#8217;ve been remiss in continuing the colloquy on behavioral ads and privacy regulation that I&amp;#8217;d been having with Jim Harper—who flattered me by responding in a long and thoughtful essay a couple weeks back. Because there&amp;#8217;s so much interesting stuff there, I hope he won&amp;#8217;t mind if I restrict myself to the first part of his reply here, in the interest of making this all a bit more digestible to those whose fascination with the topic may not be quite as consuming as ours. I&amp;#8217;ll consider briefly the constitutional issue Jim raises, and turn to some of the specifics of the issue—and the relative merits of the common law alternative—in another post.
So like every good dorm room bull session, we begin in the weeds of ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2908571</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:06:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2908571</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A New Court Term: Big Cases, Questions About the New Justice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2862467&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FRj9LnW-2nBo%2F</link>
            <description>Today is the first Monday in October, and so is First Monday, the traditional start of the Supreme Court term.  The Court already heard one argument &amp;#8211; in the Citizens United campaign finance case &amp;#8212; but it had been carried over from last year, so it doesn&amp;#8217;t really count.
In any event, continuing its trend from last term, the Court has further front-loaded its caseload &amp;#8212; with nearly 60 arguments on its docket already.  Fortunately, unlike last year, we’ll see many blockbuster cases, including:

the application of the Second Amendment to state gun regulations;
First Amendment challenges to national park monuments and a statute criminalizing the depiction of animal cruelty;
an Eighth Amendment challenge to life sentences for juveniles; a potential revisiting of ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2862467</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:59:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2862467</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Honduras’ Interim Government Falls Into Zelaya’s Trap</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2838901&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FkecpPdRlnz8%2F</link>
            <description>Once again, and as a response to the return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to Tegucigalpa, the interim government of Honduras has overreacted by decreeing a 45-day suspension of constitutional guarantees such as the freedom to move around the country and the right to assemble. The government is even imposing some restrictions on freedom of the press. More disturbingly, today the army shut down a radio station and a TV station supportive of Zelaya.
As I’ve written before, these measures are unnecessary, counterproductive and unjustified. While Zelaya’s supporters are known for repeatedly relying on violence, their actions have been so far contained by the police and the army. Zelaya himself is secluded at the Brazilian Embassy, and while he is using it as a command center to make co...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2838901</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:23:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2838901</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Report: Honduras Acted Constitutionally</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2832132&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FfWV15UIGerg%2F</link>
            <description>A new report by the non-partisan Law Library of Congress now publicly available reviews the legal and constitutional issues surrounding Honduran President Zelaya’s removal from office. The report concludes that both the Supreme Court of Honduras and the Congress acted in full accordance with the constitution in removing the president from power. The study, first reported by Mary O’Grady in the Wall Street Journal this Monday, is consistent with the point she, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, and others have made with regard to Washington’s unbelievable policy of undermining Honduras’ rule of law by insisting on Zelaya’s return to power, calling his removal a coup, and otherwise sanctioning the small nation’s Supreme Court by suspending the visas of its justices. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2832132</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:51:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2832132</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NYT: We Don’t Deserve First Amendment Protection!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2828182&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjJGQste2RS8%2F</link>
            <description>I assume others have pointed this out already, but there&amp;#8217;s something very odd about a Tuesday editorial in The New York Times arguing that campaign finance regulations that stifle the political speech of corporations must be upheld in the Citizens United case currently under consideration before the Supreme Court:
The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people.
In that case, surely it&amp;#8217;s time to revisit some of the 20th century&amp;#8217;s seminal free speech rulings. The idea that public figures cannot u...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2828182</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:42:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2828182</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lack of Deep Thinking = Belief in the Living Constitution?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2605939&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FHgOj_NwmI5A%2F</link>
            <description>In a twist on the “lack of deep thinking” idea, part of what might be going on in Sotomayor’s head—why she keeps answering questions about judicial philosophy with reference to precedent rather than constitutional first principles is because she’s not an originalist. How can we hope for her to tell us her understanding of the meaning of the constitutional text, after all, if that text’s meaning changes with the times?
For example, Stuart Smalley Al Franken asked Sotomayor point blank, “do you believe the right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion?” The nominee began here response with: “The Court has said….” That is, it is not the Constitution—whatever your view of it may be, whether you think it contains a right to abortion or not—that is the supreme...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2605939</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:00:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2605939</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“We Don’t Want Venezuela to Become a Totalitarian Communist State”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2441162&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FaMWIjAh3UkY%2F</link>
            <description>“We don’t want Venezuela to become a totalitarian communist state,” declared Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa yesterday in Caracas at the opening of a major conference organized by the market-liberal think tank, CEDICE. I’m in Venezuela this week with my Cato colleagues Juan Carlos Hidalgo and Gabriela Calderon to participate in the event and to run a seminar for 60 students and young leaders from Venezuela, which took place earlier this week.
Vargas Llosa’s concern is not about some remote possibility. Nor is it the opinion of an isolated intellectual detached from reality. His comments received sustained applause from the over-flow crowd of the 600 people in attendance and he has been mobbed by the press since he arrived here yesterday. Venezuela is not yet a full fledged d...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2441162</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 20:03:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2441162</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cheney’s Worldview</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2441166&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FADUEJ6bOFEg%2F</link>
            <description>Former vice president Richard Cheney gave his big address on national security (pdf) over at AEI last week.   He covered a lot of ground, but this passage, I think, tells us quite a bit about Cheney&amp;#8217;s worldview:
If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move [al-Qaeda], the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field.  And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don&amp;#8217;t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along.  Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for — our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted.  In short, they see weakness and oppor...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2441166</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 11:47:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2441166</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Handicapping the Justicial Horserace</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2405039&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FsrV6gqPFfCk%2F</link>
            <description>The increase in chatter in Washington about Justice Souter’s replacement is a clear signal  that pundits have gotten about as much mileage as they can over speculation and want to have an actual nominee to dissect.
Even though the administration has been evaluating candidates since the inauguration (and before), there’s no real reason for President Obama to announce a replacement before the Court’s term ends in late June.
The only limiting factor is that the president needs to have a new justice in place by the time the Court resumes hearing cases in October. So, clearly, this politically savvy president will be weighing his legislative priorities against the relative amount of political capital he’ll have to spend to confirm possible nominees. Similarly, Republicans seem to be ke...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2405039</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 14:53:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2405039</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Republican Strategy on the Supreme Court Vacancy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2382261&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FL5E-Hh7pQ-w%2F</link>
            <description>President Obama is not the only one with a difficult decision to make in the face of mounting pressure from various groups.  The Republicans will have to decide what posture to take: combative or deferential, political or analytical.
With Obama still at the height of his popularity, and with solid Democratic control of the Senate (even without Arlen Specter and Al Franken), the GOP is unlikely to sustain a filibuster or generate significant opposition to any but the most extreme nominee — such as the radical transnationalist Harold Koh, whose nomination to be the State Department’s head lawyer is currently pending.
What Republicans should do instead is force a full public debate about constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy, laying out in vivid detail what kind of judges...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2382261</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 15:28:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2382261</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Yes, California, There Is an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2347775&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FuZgmGhQTKSM%2F</link>
            <description>Last June, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual&amp;#8217;s right to keep and bear arms, at least in the home for self-defense.  Here&amp;#8217;s our own Bob Levy, who masterminded the Heller litigation, talking about that decision:

While the Court&amp;#8217;s ruling was a watershed in constitutional interpretation, it technically applied only to D.C., striking down the District&amp;#8217;s draconian gun ban but not having a direct effect in the rest of the country.
Well, today the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate court covering most Western states) ruled that the Second Amendment restricts the power of state and local governments to interfere with individual right to have guns for personal use.  That is, the Fourteenth Amen...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2347775</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:21:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2347775</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Era of Unlimited Federal Power</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2284350&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F5o14D6KkKj4%2F</link>
            <description>The House has passed a measure imposing a special punitive tax of 90% on certain employee compensation in response to the AIG scandal. As others have noted, this raises serious constitutional issues. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 says simply and directly: &amp;#8220;No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.&amp;#8221; The congressional bill being considered in response to the AIG bonuses seems to violate both those prohibitions at least in spirit.
The Constitution&amp;#8217;s Framers apparently considered (page 154) this clause to be very important in guarding against legislative tyranny, and James Madison noted in Federalist 44:
Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, an...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2284350</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:20:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2284350</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s First Signing Statement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2284357&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSwgtLSFVNR0%2F</link>
            <description>President Obama issued his first signing statement last week. While approving the $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, he reserved the right to reinterpret, evade, or ignore a number of the bill&amp;#8217;s provisions. To some conservatives, that smelled like vindication; and some liberals found it fishy. Who&amp;#8217;s right? Both, to some extent.
During the Bush years, &amp;#8220;signing statements&amp;#8221; came to stand for a much broader set of issues than the practice itself. After President Bush used one to basically announce that, veto-proof majority or no, he didn’t have to follow the McCain Detainee Treatment Act, “signing statements” in the public mind became shorthand for the Bush theory that the president is sole constitutional “decider” on all matters related to national sec...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2284357</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:34:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2284357</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>No Taxation Without Representation?  OK, I’ll Take the No Taxation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217419&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FnHtAJ0f6gKY%2F</link>
            <description>The Senate is taking up, and looks ready to pass, legislation granting the District of Columbia full representation in the House of Representatives.  And the bill is co-sponsored by Utah&amp;#8217;s Orrin Hatch, whose state would also get one additional House member &amp;#8212; but only until 2012, when the new census will again reapportion representatives nationwide.
The problem (setting aside the cheap politics of adding one safe seat for each party) is that the DC Voting Rights Act is facially unconstitutional. The plain text of Article I limits representation in Congress to voters residing in &amp;#8220;states&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212; a species of jurisdiction that the District of Columbia is not.
Now, this simple legal fact does not affect the moral argument that the voices of D.C. residents should reso...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217419</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:36:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217419</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Situation of Constitutional Beliefs - Abstract</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1773356&amp;cid=t_329734_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F07%2Fthe-situation-of-constitutional-beliefs-abstract%2F</link>
            <description>Joshua Furgeson, Linda Babcock, and Peter Shane have a new article that will be of interest to many readers of the Situationist: &amp;#8220;Do a Law’s Policy Implications Affect Beliefs About Its Constitutionality? An Experimental Test,&amp;#8221; 32 Law Hum. Behav. 219 (2008). Here&amp;#8217;s the abstract.
* * *
Although a substantial empirical literature has found associations between judges’ political orientation and their judicial decisions, the nature of the relationship between policy preferences and constitutional reasoning remains unclear. In this experimental study, law students were asked to determine the constitutionality of a hypothetical law, where the policy implications of the law were manipulated while holding all legal evidence constant. The data indicate that, even with an incen...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1773356</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:31:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1773356</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Florida High Court Defeats Threat to its Sovereignty</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1764468&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F382629377%2F</link>
            <description>With barely a moment&amp;#8217;s reflection, the Florida Supreme Court has stricken two amendment questions from the state&amp;#8217;s November ballot. The first would have allowed religious institutions to participate in state programs, subject to the limits imposed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second would have overturned a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision that essentially forbids the legislature from creating any alternative education programs alongside the required public school system.
The written decision has yet to be published, but whatever it says, it will be hard not to see this ruling as the latest turf battle between the Court and the voters &amp;#8212; with the Court coming out on top yet again. This is bad news for Florida families, whose elected representative...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1764468</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:10:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1764468</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Response to Professor Barron’s Critique of “The Dirty Dozen”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1710048&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F365062790%2F</link>
            <description>Prior commitments prevented me from participating with Professor David Barron in the Cato / American Constitution Society forum on The Dirty Dozen, which I co-authored with William Mellor.  I’m especially gratified, therefore, to have this second opportunity, which I will use to document seven errors by Professor Barron in his blog postings here and here.  Of course, the best and most complete rebuttal is the book itself, available for the shamefully low price of $17.13 at Amazon.           
Barron #1:  “The crime of the Supreme Court since the 1930s, so says this book, has been its refusal to lock in the laissez faire constitutional philosophy that reigned supreme in the decades leading up to the New Deal.”
Facts:  Laissez faire is never mentioned in the book – not once...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1710048</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1710048</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Juror Becomes Fly in the Ointment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1710051&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F364940945%2F</link>
            <description>It was supposed to be just another federal drug prosecution.  The federal prosecutors introduced evidence that the man on trial was involved in the black market drug trade.  The defense attorney said the government agents entrapped his client.  And then the twelve citizen-jurors retired to deliberate the outcome of the case.
But then something unusual happened.  The jury sent a note to the trial judge with the following query: Since the Constitution needed to be amended in 1919 to authorize federal criminal prosecutions for manufacturing and smuggling alcohol, a juror wanted to know from the judge where &amp;#8220;is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?&amp;#8221; 
That&amp;#8217;s a fair question.  It is a point that has been made in Cato&amp;#8217...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1710051</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:58:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1710051</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Another Police Raid; More Dead Dogs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1677548&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F353651114%2F</link>
            <description>Just north of D.C., in the small suburb of Berwyn Heights, a county SWAT team raided a house last week after a shipping service delivered a large quantity of illegal drugs to the front door.
Good police work in the war on drugs? Probably not.
The house is home to Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo and his wife Trinity Tomsic, and their two black Labs (pictured left). Though the package containing more than 30 lbs. of marijuana was addressed to Tomsic, the couple may have had nothing to do with the drugs. In recent months there have been incidents in which large quantities of drugs were delivered to homes in the D.C. area, where they were then supposed to be intercepted by drug dealers — all without the package addressees&amp;#8217; knowledge or involvement. Calvo and Tomsic may have been ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1677548</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:48:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1677548</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“Reforming Fourth Amendment Privacy Doctrine”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1655885&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F346273872%2F</link>
            <description>Frankly, I don&amp;#8217;t expect the scholars, lawyers, and judges who have been steeping in traditional Fourth Amendment doctrine their entire careers to get the thesis of my recent American University Law Review article. But you can! And, eventually, if I do enough work, they will.
Here are some highlights from the introduction to &amp;#8220;Reforming Fourth Amendment Privacy Doctrine&amp;#8220;:
Since 1967, the Supreme Court and lower courts have relied too heavily on an unreliable test that arose from the leading Fourth Amendment case, Katz v. United States. Distracted by Justice Harlan’s concurrence in the case and befuddled by the concept of &amp;#8220;privacy,&amp;#8221; courts have ignored the simple rule of the actual holding in Katz and conditioned Fourth Amendment rights on surmises about privac...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1655885</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:54:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1655885</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Bloggingheads of the Conservative Legal Movement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1652815&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F345215053%2F</link>
            <description>On May 14 I ran a book forum for Steve Teles&amp;#8217;s insightful and provocative new book, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement.  The book is groundbreaking, in part because Teles is neither a lawyer nor a conservative &amp;#8212; yet remains completely objective and analytical toward his subject matter.  Well, it seems that the book tour/publicity train keeps going, and yesterday Steve appeared on that vaunted new media institution, bloggingheads, opposite Newsday columnist and Fox News commentator Jim Pinkerton.    I&amp;#8217;ve only watched a brief bit so far, but it looks pretty good. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1652815</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:29:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1652815</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>When the Police ‘Take the Fifth’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1575796&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F326107183%2F</link>
            <description>Local incident here in the DC suburb of Prince George&amp;#8217;s County:  The police are trying to solve a murder, but they can&amp;#8217;t get useful information from certain key witnesses&amp;#8211;even though those witnesses are themselves law enforcement officers. 
It sounds quite odd until you hear the additional details.  The murder victim was suspected of killing a police officer in the line of duty.  Seems like police vigilantism.  Marc Fisher has a good column about the death of Ron White here.  And the Washington Post has an editorial here.
This incident provides me with a rare opportunity to criticize the Supreme Court for carrying a provision of the Bill of Rights too far.  To briefly digress, never accept the blithe assertion that &amp;#8220;sometimes the courts mistakenly expand...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1575796</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:58:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1575796</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Time to Skedaddle?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1575804&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F325874291%2F</link>
            <description>ABC News reports that the Bush administration may be on the verge of closing Guantanamo.  This is because the recent Boumediene ruling will be bringing judicial scrutiny to the facility.  In other words, from the standpoint of Bush administration lawyers, if the law pertaining to habeas corpus is coming to Guantanamo Bay, it may be time to get out of Dodge!  Quick, move the prisoners to places where the judiciary can&amp;#8217;t find them.  This might be called the &amp;#8220;executive flight privilege&amp;#8221; because when a person (who is not in the employment of the state) tries to evade the course of justice by leaving town to avoid arrest or the institution or continuance of legal proceedings, prosecutors say it is unlawful flight.
This turn of events was foreseeable.  Too much ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1575804</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:23:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1575804</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>McCain and Our Fundamental Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1552305&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F321769618%2F</link>
            <description>Sen. John McCain issued a ringing endorsement of the Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s Heller decision:
Today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right &amp;#8211; sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
You can&amp;#8217;t get much stronger than that. Except . . .  wait . . . what was it McCain said about our sacred right to free speech? Oh, right, two years ago on the Don Imus show he said, &amp;#8220;I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt.&amp;#8221; So when McCain says that our Second Amendment rights are just as fundamental and sacred as our First Amendment rights, maybe he&amp;#8217;s pulling a bait-and-switch. Because he&amp;#8217;s thoroughly indifferent to the First Amendment.
In his state...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1552305</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:12:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1552305</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>For His Own Good</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1552306&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F321576071%2F</link>
            <description>It&amp;#8217;s not one of the big cases decided by the Supreme Court this term, but Indiana v. Edwards  shows how these justices are all over the map &amp;#8212; from a libertarian legal perspective.  The issue was whether a person can choose to represent himself in court in a criminal case.  This corner of the law was in pretty good shape &amp;#8212; the rule that courts followed was this: If the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to counsel, he can proceed to defend himself (so long as he is orderly and follows the judge&amp;#8217;s rules as all attorneys must do).  Some liberals object and say he&amp;#8217;ll just screw up and the trial will not be fair.  The response has been that the trial judge should warn the defendant about such risks at the outset, but it&amp;#8217;s his cas...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1552306</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:19:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1552306</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1552308&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F321530317%2F</link>
            <description>To echo Tim Lynch&amp;#8217;s previous post . . .
Bob Levy, Alan Gura, Dick Heller, and the other original plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller are to be commended for securing a landmark Supreme Court ruling affirming that the Second Amendment protects the right of law abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.  It&amp;#8217;s silly and sad that we needed such a ruling, and we should not forget the uncertainty and the threats to liberty that were made possible by so much constitutional revisionism over the past 40 years.
Levy and Gura deserve special recognition for their foresight and courage in pursuing this ruling despite considerable resistance.  That resistance came from a lot of people, with a lot of knowledge about the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court, a lot of influenc...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1552308</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:57:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1552308</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Still Split</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1552311&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F321377206%2F</link>
            <description>Those who just days ago were proclaiming a new &amp;#8220;era of good feelings&amp;#8221; on the Court have been definitively proven wrong. Indeed, the last two weeks have seen more 5-4 divisions than the entire rest of the year to that point. While we have seen more unanimous rulings and fewer narrow splits than last term &amp;#8212; when a full third of the cases came out 5-4 &amp;#8212; this is clearly a function of the vagaries of the docket and not any shift in ideologies, judicial philosophies, or voting strategies. True, the Court under Chief Justice Roberts&amp;#8217; direction has increased the portion of business cases (typically more technical and therefore less divisive), but still the constitutional cases that catch the public&amp;#8217;s eye &amp;#8212; relating to social issues, civil rights, and natio...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1552311</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:38:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1552311</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Good Day for the Bill of Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1552312&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F321354966%2F</link>
            <description>Congrats to Bob Levy, the prime mover behind yesterday&amp;#8217;s landmark ruling concerning the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Congrats also to his legal team of Alan Gura and Clark Neily.  And congrats to Eugene Volokh (of the Volokh Conspiracy blog) who had three of his law review articles cited in the majority opinion.
Brian Doherty, author of the forthcoming Cato book, Gun Control On Trial, has this piece in today&amp;#8217;s Los Angeles Times. Cato associate policy analyst (and gun control expert) David Kopel offers his quick take here.  The Washington Post offers full coverage here.  More Cato analysis here. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1552312</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:12:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1552312</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Stephen Colbert and the Supreme Court</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1547337&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F320753446%2F</link>
            <description>In the interview touted below by Jim Harper, the faux-neocon character played by Stephen Colbert asks constitutional scholar Neal Katyal, &amp;#8220;Where does the Constitution get off telling the government what it can and cannot do?&amp;#8221;
He&amp;#8217;s ostensibly speaking for the four conservative justices who dissented in the Boumediene v. Bush case. But today he could be channeling the four liberal justices who dissented in the D.C. v. Heller case. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that he couldn&amp;#8217;t imagine that the Constitution would &amp;#8220;limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.&amp;#8221;
It is sadly hard to find justices who don&amp;#8217;t, in some cases, sound like &amp;#8220;Stephen Colbert&amp;#8221;:
&amp;#8220;Where does the Constitution get off ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1547337</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:52:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1547337</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Crack-Up (and Down with Punitive Damages)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1547345&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F320125889%2F</link>
            <description>Certain commentators are noting the relative dearth of 5-4 decisions this term after a full third of last year&amp;#8217;s cases were decided by that narrowest of margins (with Justice Kennedy in the majority in all of them).  That&amp;#8217;s a bit premature, however, as already the last ten days have produced more 5-4 cases than the term leading up to them.  Tomorrow &amp;#8212; with the contentious issues of energy deregulation, campaign finance, and, of course, the D.C. gun ban &amp;#8212; will no doubt have even more.  They always leave the close cases for the end, folks, and none of today&amp;#8217;s four cases were anywhere near unanimous. The two decisions that got all the attention, of course, were Kennedy v. Louisiana (capital child rape) and Exxon v. Baker (punitive damages from the Valdez spil...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1547345</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:46:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1547345</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Reaction to Boumediene Ruling</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1538531&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F318380107%2F</link>
            <description>Jonathan Turley: What citizens need to understand is that it is meaningless how many rights are contained in a Constitution, if the government can deny you access to the courts to vindicate those rights.
Richard Epstein: Boumediene v. Bush is not a license to allow hardened terrorists to go free. It is a rejection of the alarmist view that our fragile geopolitical position requires abandoning our commitment to preventing Star Chamber proceedings that result in arbitrary incarceration.
Robyn Blumner: Upholding the Constitution doesn&amp;#8217;t make us less safe, only more careful with the lives of other people. Affording timely due process to those we suspect is an honorable endeavor engendering goodwill and worldwide respect, and serving, ultimately, as great a protective shield against attac...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1538531</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:10:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1538531</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Happy Kelo Day</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1538532&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F318370935%2F</link>
            <description>As our friends at the Institute for Justice will tell you, today is the third anniversary of Kelo v. New London, the property rights case that made my colleague Bob Levy&amp;#8217;s list of the &amp;#8220;Dirty Dozen&amp;#8221; worst cases in modern Supreme Court history.  This was the case where the Fifth Amendment&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8220;public use&amp;#8221; requirement was found to impose essentially no restriction on the government&amp;#8217;s eminent domain power.  In some senses this was a lost battle leading to great progress in the war to preserve property rights, with legislatures in numerous states enacting anti-Kelo legislation in the wake of concerted grassroots activism against the decision.
This morning the Supreme Court found a curious way of winking at Kelo Day.  As I was scrolling down the orde...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1538532</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:53:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1538532</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>No News Is No News</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1538535&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F318170370%2F</link>
            <description>The Court did not issue Heller today, which means it will do so Wednesday (or Thursday if, as expected, it does not get through its 7 remaining opinions on Wednesday).  The encouraging news from today is that Heller is the only opinion outstanding from the cases argued in March, and Justice Scalia is the only justice who has not yet written a majority opinion from that sitting.  That&amp;#8217;s no guarantee, but the smart money is he will be the author.
The discouraging news from today is that the Court denied cert in Baylor v. United States, a federalism case in which Cato filed an amicus brief.  Briefly, we supported a pizza-shop robber who was prosecuted not in state court for, say, robbery, but in federal court for &amp;#8221;interfering with interstate commerce&amp;#8221; and therefore v...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1538535</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:16:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1538535</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Stands Up for Free Speech in California</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1532152&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F315493259%2F</link>
            <description>Today, by a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court overturned a California statute that prohibited employers from speaking out on issues relating to unions and labor policy.  The restriction even applied to the payment of salaries, speaking about unions to employees working on state contracts, and meeting with employees on state property to discuss union-related issues.  The statute, passed after intense lobbying by the AFL-CIO, applied to any employers who received over $10,000 in state program funds &amp;#8211; including everything from MediCal reimbursements to payments for building roads and schools.  The only significant exceptions all relate to employer speech favoring union activity.
Cato filed a brief supporting the petitioners in this case &amp;#8212; the Chamber of Commerce and a grou...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1532152</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:15:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1532152</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lawyers Write Laws to Protect Lawyers… I’m Shocked!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1527348&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F314903499%2F</link>
            <description>As my colleague Tim Lynch, product of Marquette Law School, can attest, graduates of Wisconsin law schools become members of that state&amp;#8217;s bar without having to take an exam.  Understandably, out-of-staters (or even Wisconsonians who go elsewhere for law school and then want to return home) might be jealous.  Now a federal judge has granted class status to a group of law school graduates who have earned law degrees outside Wisconsin and want the same right as in-state grads to practice in the state without passing a bar exam.  (The judge also dismissed the suit as moot because the plaintiff had since passed the bar exam, but apparently this plaintiff has since added his wife and another recent law grad and hopes to take another bite at that apple.)
Wisconsin&amp;#8217;s policy is ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1527348</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:58:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1527348</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Al Gore and the Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1527353&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F313896782%2F</link>
            <description>Endorsing Barack Obama, Al Gore proclaims:
After eight years in which our constitution has been dishonored and disrespected, we need change.
He has a point. But he should have said sixteen years. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1527353</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1527353</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Some Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Ruling About Habeas Corpus and Guantanamo</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1527355&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F313820527%2F</link>
            <description>Today George Will slams John McCain for his &amp;#8220;extravagant condemnation&amp;#8221; of last weeks ruling concerning habeas corpus and Guantanamo.
Here&amp;#8217;s an excerpt:
The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it &amp;#8220;one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.&amp;#8221; Well&amp;#8230;.
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo&amp;#8217;s approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous &amp;#8220;enemy combatants.&amp;#8221; Some probably are not. None will be released by the court&amp;#8217;s decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it g...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1527355</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:48:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1527355</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>But What About the Children?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1522690&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F313412289%2F</link>
            <description>Sometimes the Supreme Court makes news for the cases it doesn&amp;#8217;t take, not just the opinions it produces in cases it hears.  Today marked one such occasion, when the Court denied cert in Dupuy v. McEwen, in which Cato filed an amicus brief.
For more than a decade, the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services has investigated parents based on anonymous tips of abuse or neglect, and deemed them “indicated” after a cursory investigation by state officials who have no effective check on their unilateral authority. Unlike actual child abuse cases, in which the State removes children from abusive situations with judicial approval, the State takes a different route with “indicated” parents – threatening them with what it calls a “Safety Plan.” In so doing, the State de...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1522690</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:38:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1522690</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Boumediene Ruling</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1512488&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F310503907%2F</link>
            <description>The Supreme Court issued a very important ruling regarding the &amp;#8220;Great Writ&amp;#8221; of habeas corpus today.
Lengthy ruling &amp;#8230; which I&amp;#8217;m still studying, but the key line thus far is this: &amp;#8220;The test for determining the scope of this [habeas] provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.&amp;#8221; George W. Bush and his lawyers purposely kept prisoners off of U.S. soil and argued that habeas was not available to non-citizens beyond U.S. territory (Gitmo).  Today, the Supreme Court rejected that claim.
More here and here. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1512488</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1512488</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Virginia Is for Lov(ing)ers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1512490&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F310392664%2F</link>
            <description>Happy Loving Day. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1512490</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:51:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1512490</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Truth is Stranger Than Fiction Even in Hollywood</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1512493&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F310376102%2F</link>
            <description>The LA Times yesterday revealed that Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, one of the highest-profile jurists this side of the Supreme Court, has stored various sorts of pornography (to put it mildly) on a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.  (The site is now down.)  Kozinski conceded in the LAT interview that some of the material was inappropriate, but defended other sexually explicit content as &amp;#8220;funny.&amp;#8221;  The story came out because &amp;#8212; from the department of &amp;#8220;you can&amp;#8217;t make this up&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212; Kozinski was slated to preside over the obscenity trial of a filmmaker whose movies featured, among other things, bestiality and defecation.
Kozinski, who is a staunch defender of the First Amendment and general...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1512493</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:35:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1512493</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>If the D.C. Gun Ban Works So Well . . .</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1500583&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F306052730%2F</link>
            <description>. . . then why do we see stories like this? And this? (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1500583</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:51:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1500583</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Rules on Money Laundering</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1489184&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F303220263%2F</link>
            <description>Interesting voting pattern in a Supreme Court ruling today.  Instead of the usual conservative &amp; liberal voting blocs, we find Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens in the majority&amp;#8211;while Breyer, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts dissent.
The case is called United States v. Santos and the issue was how to interpret the term &amp;#8220;proceeds&amp;#8221; in the federal money laundering statute.  The case was easy and should have been unanimous.  When a term in a criminal law is unclear, the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt, not the rule-making, rule-enforcing state.  That&amp;#8217;s a legal doctrine called the &amp;#8220;rule of lenity.&amp;#8221;  Unfortunately, the Supremes do not apply that rule consistently.  Happily, the Court reached the correct outcome today.  Here&amp;#82...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1489184</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:32:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1489184</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kerr Defends the Third-Party Doctrine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1482699&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F301833078%2F</link>
            <description>Orin Kerr is a law professor at George Washington University and a blogger on the popular Volokh Conspiracy. He is a thoughtful, open-minded legal scholar, but I don’t think it’s unfair to say that he reliably sides with law enforcement on Fourth Amendment issues.
He recently posted a draft article defending the third-party doctrine, which is an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment holding that a person sharing information with a third party cannot make a Fourth Amendment claim to protection of that information. Use an ISP to transmit your email? No Fourth Amendment protection for its contents. Have a bank account? No Fourth Amendment protection for your banking records. Etc.
He treats as similar two issues that I see as separate: revelations gleaned from informants/agents and from b...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1482699</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 12:07:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1482699</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“Dog Bites Man” Passes for Legal News These Days</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1478418&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F300712611%2F</link>
            <description>&amp;#8220;The Supreme Court this week made big news because it hardly changed the law at all,&amp;#8221; reports The Washington Post. &amp;#8220;The court broke no new ground in deciding that workers are protected from retaliation for complaining about discrimination, just as they are protected from discrimination itself.&amp;#8221;  The story goes on to quote part of this press release that I wrote yesterday:
The Gómez-Pérez and Humphries rulings reinforce what should be readily apparent to objective Court-watchers: The Roberts Court is neither necessarily &amp;#8220;pro-business&amp;#8221; nor &amp;#8220;conservative.&amp;#8221; Instead, the Court evaluates the legal merits of each case and rules accordingly. Even where the Chief Justice disagreed with his colleagues (and notably with an opinion written by Justi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1478418</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 18:25:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1478418</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Don’t Talk to the Police?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1472853&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F299217158%2F</link>
            <description>Professor James Duane has posted a terrific lecture about the Fifth Amendment&amp;#8217;s safeguard concerning self-incrimination and the risk of &amp;#8220;waiving&amp;#8221; that right by speaking to the police.
If you want to divulge your Social Security number and other personal information to a stranger who telephones your home, that&amp;#8217;s your choice.  You can choose to ignore common sense and risk identity theft.  Dealing with the police raises similar risks, as Prof. Duane shows.  It&amp;#8217;s one thing for you to initiate the encounter, such as by calling the police about your stolen car.  But when the police initiate the encounter, it&amp;#8217;s a minefield.   Watch out. 
The Supreme Court should make it as plain as possible that people have the right to remain silent.  Unfortuna...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1472853</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 16:56:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1472853</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Health Fed?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1464452&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F296030483%2F</link>
            <description>Lots of people, on both the Left and the Right, want government to plan economic activity.  Honest central planners recognize that highly concentrated and well-organized groups of producers and consumers typically hijack the plan&amp;#8217;s new taxes, subsidies, and regulations.  The central planners are typically horrified to see what their carefully laid plans look like after being put through the political grinder.
Clever central planners look for ways to protect their plans from the influence of their fellow citizens.  For example, some planners seek to restrict their fellow citizens&amp;#8217; right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  (I have often remarked that if you can&amp;#8217;t implement your plans without taking away someone else&amp;#8217;s First Amendment rights, m...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1464452</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 18:51:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1464452</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The D.C. Gun Ban Works Soooo Well . . .</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1461429&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F295273394%2F</link>
            <description>. . . that D.C. police have to carry around increasingly more-powerful firearms while walking the beat.
June 30 can&amp;#8217;t come soon enough. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1461429</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 19:13:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1461429</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>DC Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1459061&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F294494536%2F</link>
            <description>DC Police Chief rehires bad apples and gives them semiautomatic rifles.
The bad apples will now help to investigate and arrest any resident who keeps a gun in his/her home for purposes of self-defense.  Great. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1459061</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 19:14:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1459061</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lieberman: Censor</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1455141&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F294324153%2F</link>
            <description>The Google Public Policy blog has a write up of the company&amp;#8217;s recent interactions with Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and his staff regarding some videos hosted on YouTube.
Senator Lieberman thinks that certain terrorism videos shouldn&amp;#8217;t be displayed. Well, actually, a U.S. Senator has no business telling anyone what information should or shouldn&amp;#8217;t be published. Congress can pass a law on the subject, which law would never pass First Amendment muster.
Perhaps Senator Lieberman thinks that censoring communications is some kind of anti-terrorism policy. Advocacy of terrorism of glorification of terrorist acts is stupid and dastardly, but the cure for bad speech is more speech or better speech, not censorship. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1455141</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 14:34:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1455141</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Secret Laws?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1455146&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F293655672%2F</link>
            <description>Nat Hentoff and Robyn Blumner blast the recent testimony of John Elwood of the Department of Justice.
For related Cato work, go here and here. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1455146</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 17:48:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1455146</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Drew Carey on Cory Maye</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1433032&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F287036164%2F</link>
            <description>Drew Carey and our friends at Reason have produced a great 25 minute documentary about the Corey Maye case.
For additional background on the Maye case, go here. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1433032</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 18:56:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1433032</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Signs of Free Speech</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1404321&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F279589407%2F</link>
            <description>George Will has another great column on threats to political speech in modern America. He reports the story of some people in Parker North, Colo., who didn&amp;#8217;t want to be annexed to the larger town of Parker. When some residents proposed annexation, others
began trying to persuade the rest to oppose annexation. They printed lawn signs and fliers, started an online discussion group and canvassed neighbors, little knowing that they were provoking Colorado&amp;#8217;s speech police.
One proponent of annexation sued them. This tactic &amp;#8212; wielding campaign finance regulations to suppress opponents&amp;#8217; speech &amp;#8212; is common in the America of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The complaint did not just threaten the Parker Six for any &amp;#8220;illegal activities.&amp;#8221; It also sai...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1404321</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:15:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1404321</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Texas Nightmare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1396597&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F276895176%2F</link>
            <description>Good column on the seizure of 400+ children from the FLDS ranch in Texas. (HT: Volokh).
As I said in this Cato podcast,  I think it is telling that no young adult or child has been found saying &amp;#8220;Thank you so much for rescuing me!  It is nice to be in a place where I am not beaten up!&amp;#8221;  The absence of proof is now considered evidence of massive &amp;#8220;cult&amp;#8221; brainwashing.  If a child says &amp;#8220;I love my parents and want to go home,&amp;#8221; it means he has been brainwashed by the &amp;#8220;cult.&amp;#8221;  And if a child says &amp;#8220;I like my foster parents a lot.  They give me candy and the video games are awesome,&amp;#8221; it means the child&amp;#8217;s actual parents are unfit.
State authorities talk a lot about rape and forced marriages, but 300 children are ages 4...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1396597</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:03:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1396597</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Campaign Finance Reform Meets Kurt Vonnegut</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1391475&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F275622809%2F</link>
            <description>This morning, as Pennsylvania Democrats went to the polls in the last large primary before their nominating convention, the Supreme Court heard the latest challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: Davis v. FEC, in which Cato filed an amicus brief, questions the &amp;#8220;Millionaires&amp;#8217; Amendment,&amp;#8221; which attempts to discourage candidates for election to Congress from spending more than $350,000 from their own personal funds. It penalizes campaign spending above that threshold by enhacing the political speech of the self-financing candidate&amp;#8217;s opponent through increased contribution limits and unlimited coordinated party expenditures. This penalty unconstitutionally chills candidates from engaging in protected political speech beyond that personal funds ceiling, and...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1391475</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:40:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1391475</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>McCain on Judges</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1384112&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F273169179%2F</link>
            <description>Cato scholars have increasingly been evaluating the respective policies of John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The trade shop understandably prefers McCain (see my colleague Sallie James&amp;#8217;s new paper), as does, cautiously, our director of health and welfare studies, Michael Tanner. The foreign policy shop, meanwhile, doesn&amp;#8217;t like McCain because he is &amp;#8221;wedded to perpetual war&amp;#8221; and generally given to neoconservative tendencies.
On judges, I&amp;#8217;ll go with the trade and health care folks: While John McCain&amp;#8217;s views on  the First Amendment are unacceptable to freedom-lovers of any stripe, he has at least promised to nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito (who have ruled against campaign finance restrictions...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1384112</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:34:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1384112</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court to Nation: Happy Tax Day!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1374046&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F270858395%2F</link>
            <description>In a fit of either highly coincidental timing or good humor, the Supreme Court today released opinions in two tax cases. In MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, the Court limited the power of states to tax the money that a company based in another state earns when it sells off an investment in a division involved in a separate line of business. In U.S. v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., the Court decided that a taxpayer seeking a refund for an invalid tax under the Constitution&amp;#8217;s Export Clause must seek a refund from the government before bringing a lawsuit.
So the taxpayers went 1-1 today, but the cases were both technical and not worth getting into. Perhaps the only interesting thing about them &amp;#8212; aside from this whole Tax Day thing &amp;#8212; is that they were bot...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1374046</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:31:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1374046</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>John Yoo’s Neoconstitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1361437&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F267123468%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;ve read through most of the John Yoo torture memo released last week (Part 1, Part 2 [.pdfs]). As I&amp;#8217;d gathered from the news reports, there&amp;#8217;s not much new here: the core of the argument has been known since at least 2004, with the release of the infamous August 1, 2002 torture memo, also drafted by Yoo. At the Justice Department&amp;#8217;s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003, Yoo was the key figure in advising the executive branch as to the limits&amp;#8211;if any&amp;#8211;to its powers. As Georgetown’s David Cole has put it, Yoo &amp;#8220;was the right person in the right place at the right time…. Here was someone who had made his career developing arguments for unchecked power, who could cut-and-paste from his law review articles into memos that essentially told the pres...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1361437</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:38:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1361437</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Arrogance of Power</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1354349&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F265851937%2F</link>
            <description>Federal prosecutor wants a federal judge to order citizens to stop talking to the media about a case.  In extraordinary circumstances, a judge can order the attorneys in a particular case to stop talking to the media &amp;#8230; but a censorship order to other people?!  Even if the judge promptly rejects this request, we should all be troubled that this was even attempted.  This prosecutor should be shown the door right away.
More here, here, and here.    (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1354349</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:51:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1354349</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1354350&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F265821530%2F</link>
            <description>I just finished Steven Teles&amp;#8217;s important new book, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement.  As far as legal nonfiction goes, this is not going to be the bestseller that Jeffrey Toobin&amp;#8217;s or Jan Crawford Greenburg&amp;#8217;s recent tomes on the Supreme Court have  become, let alone Clarence Thomas&amp;#8217;s memoirs.  In part this is because more people are interested in the intense Kremlinology of the least public branch of government &amp;#8211; the nine black-robed magistrates in their marble palace at One First Street &amp;#8212; than in the nuts and bolts of the reaction to the left-wing excesses of the legal academy.
But more than that, this worthy study will fly under the radar more than it otherwise should because it is an academic book, written with the research methodolog...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1354350</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:20:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1354350</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bush Opponents Upset That Bush Lost in the Supreme Court</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1330075&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F258960888%2F</link>
            <description>In an interesting side-note to the Medellin decision, the case&amp;#8217;s convoluted procedural history made for some rather strange political bed fellows.  The Court&amp;#8217;s decision, anchored by the &amp;#8220;conservative wing&amp;#8221; (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and joined by the &amp;#8220;moderate&amp;#8221; Kennedy and (writing separately) the &amp;#8220;liberal&amp;#8221; Stevens effectively clears the last remaining roadblock to Texas&amp;#8217;s imposition of the death penalty on the murderer Jose Erenesto Medellin.  Consequently, Tuesday&amp;#8217;s result disappointed death penalty abolitionists, who join on the losing side those who want international law to have direct applicability in the United States.  That&amp;#8217;s right, by ruling against President Bush&amp;#8217;s executive overreach &amp;#8212; whic...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1330075</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:45:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1330075</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>I Am the Very Model of a Modern Attorney General</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1329353&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F258449824%2F</link>
            <description>Yesterday, in addition to announcing its decision in the Medellin case (which I blogged about here), the Supreme Court heard argument in two cases relating to the War on Terror. 
First, in Munaf v. Geren, two U.S. citizens (also citizens of Jordan and Iraq, respectively) held captive in Iraq by U.S. forces &amp;#8212; as part of Multi-National Force-Iraq, which may but should be a key determinant &amp;#8211; challenged their detention and potential transfer to Iraqi authorities for what they fear will be torture as part of criminal prosecution in Iraqi courts.  This seems to be an easier case than Boumediene, a case argued in December wherein Guantanamo detainees challenge their containment and the military commissions by which they are to be tried.  (My colleague Tim Lynch blogged abou...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1329353</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:33:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1329353</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court to President Bush: Don’t Mess With Texas</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1327710&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F258287336%2F</link>
            <description>Tuesday the Supreme Court slipped the Gordian knot of a case that could have come straight from a law school exam, involving federalism, treaty interpretation, the scope of executive power, criminal procedure, and conflicts between international and domestic law.  The issues in Medellin v. Texas boiled down to: 1) Whether a particular decision of the International Court of Justice is automatically binding on Texas courts and, if not, 2) Whether President Bush made it binding by issuing a memorandum to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  The Court answered in the negative on both counts by a 6-3 margin.
The result of this decision is that neither the ICJ (the so-called “World Court”) nor the president acting alone can force states to review criminal cases involving foreign nation...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1327710</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:35:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1327710</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Newseum Opens April 11th - Will it Keep Up?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1323316&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F257118927%2F</link>
            <description>The new Newseum opens April 11th, and its an impressive project in many respects.
It&amp;#8217;s a striking but tasteful modern building, with the text of the First Amendment inscribed on its front. The location on Pennsylvania Avenue close to the Capitol has a defiant quality that I admire.
As I walked past yesterday, I observed its display along the sidewalk of current front pages from newspapers around the country and world. It&amp;#8217;s a tribute to the importance and vibrancy of the newsgathering enterprise and free speech. Tourists were gathered along the front of the building taking in the headlines.
But I don&amp;#8217;t read newspapers. I get my news from a wide array of sources almost entirely online. Sooner or later, I thought as I walked, some state is going to punch a hole in the Newseu...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1323316</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:25:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1323316</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>DC’s Apathetic, Complacent Nonproducers ♥ Snow Jobs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1322481&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F256797028%2F</link>
            <description>I just came across this letter I wrote to the editor of the Washington Post.  Sadly, the editor declined to publish it.  Since the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments about the D.C. gun ban and the meaning of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, it remains relevant:
On January 5, we learned that District officials filed a brief with the Supreme Court [&amp;#8221;Gun Law Prevents Harm, D.C. Argues,&amp;#8221; Jan. 5] defending the city&amp;#8217;s gun ban on the grounds that: the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms; the ban &amp;#8220;does not deprive the people of reasonable means to defend themselves;&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;less restrictive approaches would not be adequate.&amp;#8221;
Fifteen pages later, Colbert I. King [&amp;#8221;Outfoxed In the Dist...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1322481</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:45:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1322481</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NYT Gets It Wrong, Story at 11</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1320611&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F255811205%2F</link>
            <description>The New York Times Magazine’s most recent issue (March 16, 2008) simultaneously features a shariah apologetic and an accusation that the Supreme Court is in the pocket of big business. 
In the former, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman prescribes the election of Islamist parties and entrenchment of Allah’s law (as interpreted by a council of scholars) as the cure to the Muslim world’s ailments. In the latter, GW law professor Jeffrey Rosen contends that liberal and conservative elites — like NYT readers? — have colluded to do in the common man. There is so much wrong with these analyses, one hardly knows where to begin.  (For a point-by-point takedown of the Rosen piece, see Eric Posner&amp;#8217;s post on Slate&amp;#8217;s new legal blog.)
Feldman, who “had a small role advising...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1320611</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:47:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1320611</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Victim Shot While Calling 911</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1319732&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F255511268%2F</link>
            <description>A California woman was shot to death as she pleaded with emergency dispatchers to come and help her. Her death will not make the network news programs this evening, but this is the latest reminder that we must take responsibility for our own safety and not rely on the police. 
Bill Masters, a libertarian and sheriff of a Colorado county tells the residents of his county, &amp;#8220;It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family from criminals. If you rely on the government for protection, you are going to be at least disappointed and at worst injured or killed.&amp;#8221; 
Gun control puts honest citizens in the position of having to choose between protecting their lives or respecting the law. What kind of government would do such a thing? 
More on gun control here and here. ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1319732</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:50:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1319732</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>California Attempts to Silence State Contractors</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1315488&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F254674431%2F</link>
            <description>Imagine that you do business in California.  Maybe you&amp;#8217;re in construction, or health care, or auto repair.  Now imagine some or all of your income comes from state contracts; using the above examples, perhaps you build schools, or take care of patients on Medi-Cal, or fix broken-down LAPD squad cars.  Now imagine that the state comes in and says, aha, because we pay your bills &amp;#8212; again, on contracts relating to construction, health care, auto repair, etc. &amp;#8212; and we love unions, you can&amp;#8217;t talk to your employees about any negative aspects of unionization.  Ridiculous, right?  Who is a customer to tell you what to do with money that&amp;#8217;s already in your pocket?
Well, that&amp;#8217;s precisely what the great state of California is trying to do with a new statute tha...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1315488</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:31:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1315488</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Militia Theory?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1314619&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F254331717%2F</link>
            <description>Here is an excerpt from today&amp;#8217;s Washington Post regarding the arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday:
A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia&amp;#8217;s ban on private handgun possession, the country&amp;#8217;s toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation&amp;#8217;s political battles over gun control.
During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the constitutionality of the District&amp;#8217;s ban on private handgun ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1314619</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:36:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1314619</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Hears Second Amendment Case Today</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1311665&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F253663246%2F</link>
            <description>This morning the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in the landmark Second Amendment case, DC v. Heller. People started getting in line last night. (HT: Volokh Conspiracy). Here&amp;#8217;s the story from today&amp;#8217;s Washington Post. An audio of the argument will be released around 11:30 am EST for those of us who could not attend the live event. The attorneys who present the arguments must be prepared for three scenarios. Scenario I is a &amp;#8220;cold bench&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212; which means few questions. In that scenario, the attorney must be ready to speak persuasively for about 30 minutes. Scenario II is the &amp;#8220;hot bench&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212; which means lots of questions. In that scenario, the attorney must be ready for a barrage of questions and just hope that he/she can make a strong op...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1311665</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:26:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1311665</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Keystone Cops, D.C. Auxiliary</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1300879&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F250737388%2F</link>
            <description>In a new plan to combat crime on the streets of our fair city, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Police Chief Cathy Lanier are encouraging residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if the residents have illegal guns (or drugs).  (&amp;#8221;Excuse me, ma&amp;#8217;am, mind if I take a look around&amp;#8230; &amp;#8220;)
Well, this isn&amp;#8217;t illegal &amp;#8212; consent is, after all, one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement &amp;#8212; but it is head-scratchingly poor public policy.  Those who don&amp;#8217;t want to give up their contraband won&amp;#8217;t consent to searches, those who want to get rid of it will find a way to do that without signaling &amp;#8220;check here again next week,&amp;#8221; and the police will waste their resources rifling through the homes of people with nothin...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1300879</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:35:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1300879</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Laurence Tribe and the Second Amendment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1281156&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F246218217%2F</link>
            <description>Cato associate policy analyst Dave Kopel has some observations about Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and the Second Amendment case pending before the Supreme Court.
Go here to read the Cato amicus brief in the case. More here. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1281156</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:26:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1281156</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Don’t Make a Federal Case Out of It</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1265479&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F242948661%2F</link>
            <description>Federal agents investigate, arrest, and prosecute local law enforcement agents on a fairly regular basis.  Unfortunately, state and local police rarely investigate, arrest, and prosecute federal agents.  I suspect the locals are just intimidated by the FBI, Secret Service, IRS, etc.  When something suspicious or questionable happens, the feds tell the locals something to the effect of &amp;#8220;Back off.  We&amp;#8217;ll handle this ourselves-internally.&amp;#8221; 
So Arizona officials deserve some credit for pressing ahead and treating Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett like any other suspect.  According to the local prosecutor, Corbett&amp;#8217;s story does not hold up and sufficient evidence points toward his guilt.  If that is indeed the situation, this case should be simple: Prosecute. ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1265479</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:30:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1265479</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Candor With the Court</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1265482&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F242821261%2F</link>
            <description>President Bush and Attorney General Michael Mukasey owe the Supreme Court an explanation.  Four years ago, one of Bush’s top lawyers, Solicitor General Paul Clement, told the Supreme Court that the administration did not use coercive methods on prisoners to extract information.  Given the recent admission by CIA Director Michael Hayden that three prisoners were waterboarded, we now know that the Supreme Court was misled.  If Mukasey hopes to get the Justice Department back on track, he must find out how this happened and take corrective action.
In the spring of 2004, the Bush administration was advancing its sweeping vision of executive power before the Supreme Court.  An American citizen, Jose Padilla, a suspected terrorist, had been arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.  Padil...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1265482</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:57:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1265482</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Inside the Sausage Factory</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1242549&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F237561895%2F</link>
            <description>The cover story of this week&amp;#8217;s Washington Post Magazine offers a fantastic look at how lobbyists make a living by helping some people take from others.  Every citizen should read it.  Casual observers of government may be surprised (and nauseated) to see how elaborate, expensive, and disingenuous such efforts have become.  (Students of public choice economics will not be.)  As author Jeffrey H. Birnbaum notes, it&amp;#8217;s usually the wealthy who are trying to do the taking.
The article is about the travel industry trying to force taxpayers to fund the industry&amp;#8217;s advertising campaigns.  (Birnbaum includes such gems as: &amp;#8220;One thing everyone agreed on: The travel industry did not want to pay for the ads itself.&amp;#8221;)  But the story could have been written about nearly...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1242549</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:27:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1242549</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Right to Bear… Um…</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1234981&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F235649219%2F</link>
            <description>This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is based in New Orleans and covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, struck down a Texas statute that criminalized the promotion and sale of sex toys. The Fifth Circuit — where I clerked my first year out of law school — thus became the first and only jurisdiction in the country to recognize the individual right to bear both arms (in the 2001 case of U.S. v. Emerson) and dildoes. (Yes, the statute actually uses the word &amp;#8220;dildo&amp;#8221; as an example of a prohibited &amp;#8221;obscene device,&amp;#8221; which is otherwise defined as a device &amp;#8220;designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.&amp;#8221;)
The Fifth Circuit&amp;#8217;s analysis correctly rests on the Supreme Court&amp;#821...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1234981</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:54:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1234981</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bogus Claims of Limitless Executive Power</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1234985&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F235606884%2F</link>
            <description>Cato founder/president/CEO Ed Crane and Board member/senior fellow Bob Levy take on &amp;#8220;the president&amp;#8217;s bogus claims of limitless executive power&amp;#8221; in his battle with Congress over the Terrorist Surveillance Program:
Abiding by the Constitution will not always shield us from bad laws. Nonetheless, even if the Constitution is not a sufficient guidepost, it is certainly a necessary guidepost.
For many years, we were at risk of losing important civil liberties through unchecked transgressions by the executive branch. Maybe we are still at risk. But thanks to the media, the courts and — belatedly — an energized opposition in Congress, the administration has finally resigned itself to a semblance of congressional oversight, even if judicial scrutiny remains inadequate.
The p...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1234985</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:33:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1234985</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>McCain Undone?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1196121&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F227495856%2F</link>
            <description>John McCain has a campaign finance problem. When his campaign was down and out, he agreed to take public funding for the primaries. Public funding comes with spending limits overall and by state. Also, a candidate who accepts funding cannot raise money from private sources. Now that it is possible he will be the nominee, McCain will want to be free of those fundraising and spending limits, but he cannot withdraw from the public system. Or perhaps he could but only with the approval of the FEC, which is not operating because of a struggle over its nominees. The FEC does not now have a quorum to meet and regulate. (The lack of a quorum was caused by Barack Obama&amp;#8217;s hold on a nominee to the FEC, but never mind).
McCain will want out of the public system because he is probably close to h...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1196121</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:25:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1196121</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Work Goes On, the Cause Endures, the Hope Still Lives, Etc., Etc.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1195126&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F227348885%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;ve taken issue with plenty of things Ted Kennedy has done in the past, most recently his suggested reforms to the judicial confirmation system.  My response [$] to his proposals was essentially that he ought to go back to Civics 101 and learn the difference between law and politics, and between the respective powers of the judicial and legislative branches.
Apparently, someone on Kennedy&amp;#8217;s staff has done just that because this week the good senator introduced two bills designed essentially to remedy what he sees as Supreme Court error in the field of employment discrimination.  This action naturally caught the attention of the New York Times editorial page:
One of the most troubling rulings was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubbe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1195126</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1195126</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Padilla Gets 17 Years</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1170533&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F221202663%2F</link>
            <description>Jose Padilla received a 17-year prison sentence today.  Padilla&amp;#8217;s criminal trial and sentence were fairly straightforward.  It was Padilla&amp;#8217;s imprisonment in a military brig between 2002 and 2005 that raised profoundly important questions concerning the power of the presidency.  Can the president lock up any person in the world and then deny that person access to family, defense counsel, and civilian court review?  And what about the use of &amp;#8220;harsh conditions&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;environmental stresses&amp;#8221;?  Can such techniques be employed against anyone once the president gives an order?  Those legal questions remain unsettled even today.  By abruptly moving Padilla from the military brig and into the ordinary criminal justice system, the Bush administration was ab...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1170533</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:50:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1170533</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Supreme Court Helps Out the Economy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1154135&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F217422035%2F</link>
            <description>Today the Supreme Court, in one of the most important securities law rulings in years, Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, decided that fraud claims are not allowed against third parties who did not directly mislead investors but were business partners with those who did. Investors, the Court said in a narrow 5-3 ruling (Justice Breyer took no part in the case), may only sue those who issued statements or otherwise took direct action that the investors had relied upon in buying or selling stock – whether that involved public statements, omissions of key facts, manipulative trading, or other deceptive conduct. One impact of the decision is likely to be the end of a $40 billion lawsuit against financial institutions growing out of the Enron scandal.
Although this was the ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1154135</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:15:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1154135</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Campaign Finance Regulation without Romance</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1147119&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F215133665%2F</link>
            <description>Candidates are in hot pursuit of the party nominations and eventually the presidency. That means they are defining enemies, inducing fear, and offering voters hope — that their enemies will be punished and their fears relieved.
The rhetoric of campaign finance regulation is replete with such  enemies — the special interests, “Big Money,” the rich and so on — and one set of friends, “reformers.” Barack Obama has been especially skillful practicing this politics of fear to pave the way for additional restrictions on money in politics.
However, the reality of campaign finance regulation is a lot different from the rhetoric, and the 2008 campaign has already brought an exemplar of regulation absent romance.
Unity08 is an organization that tried to put together a “centrist, bi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1147119</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:32:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1147119</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Capital Waste of Time</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1137438&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F213240520%2F</link>
            <description>Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in Baze v. Rees, otherwise known as the &amp;#8220;lethal injection case.&amp;#8221;  Contrary to popular perception—and the wishes of certain activist groups—Baze considers neither the constitutionality of lethal injection as a method of execution nor the validity of the death penalty itself.  Instead, the issue is whether the particular three-chemical formula used by most states that employ lethal injection causes undue pain and suffering such that the method violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of “cruel and unusual punishment.”  The Court’s decision—likely to be 5-4 with Justice Kennedy the swing vote as always—may turn on what weight the justices place on the availability of other “ drug cocktails” that purportedly acco...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1137438</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:15:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1137438</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Big Money Lurches Left</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1100452&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F201834120%2F</link>
            <description>Last Friday, the Federal Election Commission ruled that money raised for John Edwards&amp;#8217; presidential bid by an organization called ActBlue was not eligible for matching funds from taxpayers. ActBlue is registered as a federal political action committee which means its fundraising cannot be matched by the presidential taxpayer financing program. The loss is not trivial for Edwards. ActBlue’s fundraising composed 15 percent of his total fundraising.
The facts of this case and the FEC’s technical ruling are not especially important. Edwards was unlikely to become the Democratic nominee, and this turn of events will not change the race for the presidency.
But the world is changing. The traditional story about money in politics goes like this. Rich people and corporations – overwhel...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1100452</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:35:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1100452</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bill of Rights Day</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1097357&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F200791339%2F</link>
            <description>Since today is Bill of Rights Day, it seems like an appropriate time to pause and consider the condition of the safeguards set forth in our fundamental legal charter.
Let&amp;#8217;s consider each amendment in turn.
The First Amendment says that Congress &amp;#8220;shall make no law &amp;#8230; abridging the freedom of speech.&amp;#8221; Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to mention the name of a political candidate in an ad in the weeks preceding an election.
The Second Amendment says the people have the right &amp;#8220;to keep and bear arms.&amp;#8221; Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to keep and bear arms.
The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is doing so ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1097357</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:04:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1097357</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The End of the Year (but not the Term) at the Supreme Court</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1084583&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F198249444%2F</link>
            <description>Today marks the last day of official business for 2007 at the Supreme Court.  The Court released opinions in three cases that were argued this term,  which join the two last week as the only rulings on the merits so far.  (The very first case argued this term, NY School Bd. v. Tom F., was affirmed without an opinion because the court split 4-4.)
Two of the cases decided this morning definitively clarified that the Sentencing Guidelines are really not binding on the sentencing court.  In Kimbrough v. U.S., the Court, by a 7-2 majority speaking through Justice Ginsburg, reversed the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit and found that a district court may impose a sentence for a crack cocaine offense that departs downward from the Guidelines&amp;#8217; 100-to-1 ratio for crack versus powder coca...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1084583</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:49:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1084583</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Media Bias</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1079989&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F196824339%2F</link>
            <description>There&amp;#8217;s an interesting new blog called The Monkey Cage written by three political scientists at the George Washington University.  Any blog that takes its motto from H.L. Mencken deserves a look from libertarians, even if the authors are not libertarians (I have no idea whether they are or not).
The blog has only been up for a few days, but it already has some interesting posts on voter ID, campaign finance, and negative advertising in campaigns. The authors don&amp;#8217;t follow the conventional wisdom on those issues. For example, they praise the work of Cato visiting research fellow John Mueller on the bias in threat assessments of terrorism. (You can find the short version of Mueller&amp;#8217;s work here).
One of the group, John Sides, has a concise and interesting post on media...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1079989</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:38:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1079989</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court and GITMO (Part 2)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1075325&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F196155999%2F</link>
            <description>Because of widespread interest in yesterday&amp;#8217;s Guantanamo case, the Supreme Court released the audio of the oral argument.  Since Justice Anthony Kennedy is considered to be the deciding vote in what will be a 5-4 decision, I thought the most interesting and perhaps pivotal moment came at the very end of the oral argument.  If you have any interest in this debate at all, click on the audio link above and then skip to the good part at the 1 hour, 21 minute mark and just listen to the final three minutes. 
Justice Kennedy asks a question and attorney Seth Waxman begins his response, explaining the &amp;#8220;Kafkaesque&amp;#8221; procedures that are supposed to be a &amp;#8220;substitute&amp;#8221; for the writ of habeas corpus.  But then Waxman&amp;#8217;s alloted time expires! Had the late Ch...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1075325</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:54:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1075325</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court and GITMO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1071196&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F195529638%2F</link>
            <description>Today, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in the case of Boumediene v. Bush.   The case represents an important battle over the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the &amp;#8220;Great Writ&amp;#8221; of habeas corpus.
This isn&amp;#8217;t the place to lay out all the details, but I will try to boil it down.  The case is about two things: (a) the power of government to put people in prison; and (b) a power clash between the three branches of our government. 
President Bush says the entire world, including every inch of U.S. territory, is a battlefield.  As Commander-in-Chief, Mr. Bush and his military and intelligence agents will decide who must be imprisoned (sometimes the prisoners are called &amp;#8220;enemy combatants,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;POWs,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;high value...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1071196</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:37:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1071196</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Politics of Free Speech Change for the Better</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1065027&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F194080958%2F</link>
            <description>The politics of free speech are changing fast.
The presidential public financing system is all but dead, largely because the candidates are raising so much money they don’t need to dun the taxpayers for campaign cash. The Democrats have raised a lot more money for the coming election than the Republicans. The Supreme Court is starting to favor free speech in campaign finance cases and casting a cold eye on laws like McCain-Feingold.
For most of the past three decades, so-called “reform” groups have dominated DC battles about campaign finance. These special interest groups lobbied Congress while their lawyers practiced the art of restricting speech before the Federal Election Commission.
Now that too is changing. A new group, SpeechNow.org, has formed to fight restrictions on speech....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1065027</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:08:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1065027</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Judicial Restraint and the Second Amendment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1060256&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F192529261%2F</link>
            <description>Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has a column on HuffingtonPost and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution arguing that the Supreme Court should uphold the D.C. gun ban and reject the idea that when the Constitution says &amp;#8220;the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,&amp;#8221; it means that people have the right to keep and bear arms. His basic argument, summed up in the title, is that &amp;#8220;The will of the people must not be overruled.&amp;#8221; He pounds away at that theme:

Last March, the District of Columbia saw judicial activism replace the will of the people&amp;#8230;.
More than 30 years ago, the elected representatives on the D.C. City Council decided to enact a system of strict gun laws to help protect public safety. The people ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1060256</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:15:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1060256</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Hyde Will Be Missed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1060257&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F192494366%2F</link>
            <description>Former Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, who died this morning in Chicago at the age of 83, was a friend of the Cato Institute who worked closely with us in our efforts to put a spotlight on the abuses flowing from America’s civil asset forfeiture law. A staunch defender of the war on drugs, Rep. Hyde saw nonetheless that not every tactic the government used in that war could be justified. In particular, the government’s seizure for itself of private property that merely “facilitated” a crime, often from completely innocent people, drove him to do whatever he could to end such abuses. He called hearings, at which Cato scholars were invited to testify. Then in 1995 Cato published his book, Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe from Seizure? The tone of the book was...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1060257</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1060257</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Henry Hyde, RIP</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1060258&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F192487859%2F</link>
            <description>Rep. Henry Hyde died this morning. He was one of the &amp;#8220;elder statesmen&amp;#8221; in the GOP and, as this article says, was known around the capital for his courtly manners. Hyde and Cato found common ground in the mid-1990s as the government was seizing property left and right under the guise of civil forfeiture laws. Cato published his book, Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe from Seizure?

Here&amp;#8217;s a brief excerpt from that book:
I think it evident that an individual&amp;#8217;s free nature indicates clearly that we are self-providers, that we naturally want to support ourselves and our families. But when an individual is robbed of his or her property, of the right to ownership of material goods, that individual then becomes subject to the will, caprice, and power ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1060258</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:38:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1060258</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Constitutional Reform in Latin America?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1057606&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F192017193%2F</link>
            <description>Yesterday I went over to the Organization of American States (OAS) for a roundtable on &amp;#8220;Constitutional Reform in the Americas.&amp;#8221; The event featured opening remarks by the OAS Secretary General, followed by country-specific presentations by experts on Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
I won&amp;#8217;t bore you with the details, but three themes emerged:
1) The ever-expanding constitutions of many Latin American countries, both to strengthen strongmen (Chavez) and to add to the copious list of positive rights (Brazil). This is not good for either constitutionalism or rule of law because on the one hand you have the country&amp;#8217;s founding document being changed at the whim of a single man and on the other a constitution bloated with such things as the fundamen...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1057606</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:20:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1057606</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>This Week at the Supreme Court</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1051447&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F190911329%2F</link>
            <description>Notwithstanding last week&amp;#8217;s agreement to hear the D.C. guns case &amp;#8212; the announcement of which managed to be both later than originally expected and earlier than expected after the decision&amp;#8217;s postponement &amp;#8211; the Court has gone back to putting itself out of business by reducing its workload to nothingness.  (How&amp;#8217;s that for judicial restraint?) 
The Court has granted review to 51 cases this term, putting it about at the same pace as last year, when only 68 cases were decided after argument.  This is down from the 70-low-80s of the previous 15 years (except 92 in 1997-98), which itself is down from the 100-110 pace before that (and, for example, 129 in 1973).
But forgetting the numbers game, this week the Court is hearing four arguments, in cases involving...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1051447</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:33:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1051447</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Naomi Wolf, Second Amendment Sister?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1049131&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F190377436%2F</link>
            <description>Naomi Wolf has an article in today&amp;#8217;s Washington Post tied to her new book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. The essay is actually a lot less leftist than the book. She deplores the civic illiteracy among young people that leaves them feeling &amp;#8221;depressed, cynical and powerless.&amp;#8221; And she blames influences on both left and right: the Bush administration&amp;#8217;s portrayal of &amp;#8220;freedom and checks and balances as threats to national security,&amp;#8221; of course, and also the No Child Left Behind Act&amp;#8217;s emphasis on math and reading rather than civics and history. But also, she notes, &amp;#8220;When New Left activists of the 1960s started the antiwar and free speech student movements, they didn&amp;#8217;t get their intellectual framework from Montesq...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1049131</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:39:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1049131</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court To Hear Landmark Case</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1040381&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F187837063%2F</link>
            <description>The Supreme Court just announced that it will decide a landmark lawsuit concerning the constitutionality of the District of Columbia&amp;#8217;s ban on guns. This is terrific news. My colleague, Bob Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies here at Cato, is the prime mover behind the lawsuit. The whole idea of challenging the DC ban several years ago was to get a good Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court, i.e. plaintiffs who were responsible people who simply wanted to keep a handgun in their home for self-defense purposes. The Court will be hearing arguments in the case early next year and we can expect a ruling in the case by late June.
For a quick podcast interview with Bob Levy about the lawsuit, go here (or subscribe via iTunes). To listen to or watch a Cato policy forum about t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1040381</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:17:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1040381</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Post Script to Reason Letter; Non-Coercive Alternatives to Prohibiting Abortion</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1033213&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F185935589%2F</link>
            <description>I have four acquaintances raising grandchildren as if they were their own.
Some charities will pay a woman’s medical costs if covering such expenses will help her decide to carry the baby to term.
From a libertarian perspective, individuals or charities paying a woman beyond her medical expenses should also be a viable solution. Remuneration would be for the woman&amp;#8217;s time and physical effort (labor), not a &amp;#8220;purchase price&amp;#8221; for the child. The arrangement could stipulate, as surrogate motherhood contracts usually do, that payment is contingent on her putting the child up for adoption. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1033213</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:10:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1033213</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What about Fetal Rights?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1031311&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F185806692%2F</link>
            <description>In response to my letter on abortion recently published in Reason Magazine, several people have asked me, “What about fetal rights?” I addressed that issue in my original letter but it was edited out. Below is the letter I submitted with the portions that were deleted in bold.
Libertarian and Mother of Four
As a libertarian and a mother of four, I take issue with Radley Balko’s characterization of the abortion debate in “Getting Beyond Roe” (Aug/Sep) as being about “setting community standards” and that issues such as abortion “are best dealt with in those diverse laboratories of democracy, the states.” Abortion should no more be a question for local politics than slavery.
Community standards are the greatest threat to individual liberty there is. They have led to witch t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1031311</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:52:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1031311</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Constitutional Academy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=998916&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F178310080%2F</link>
            <description>Do you know any bright high school students that are interested in law, government, and current affairs?  Check out the Constitutional Academy.
Cato University covers an array of subjects and now there is a home study course available. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=998916</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:38:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">998916</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>White House ‘Orders’ on the Way</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=995261&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F177888595%2F</link>
            <description>Today&amp;#8217;s Washington Post reports that the White House is increasingly frustrated with the Congress because the president and congressional leaders just can&amp;#8217;t agree on a legislative agenda. To get around this &amp;#8220;problem,&amp;#8221; White House officials say the president is going to step up the issuance of &amp;#8220;administrative orders,&amp;#8221; which is probably a euphemism for Clintonian executive orders.
When a Republican Congress put the brakes on Bill Clinton&amp;#8217;s ambitions, Clinton&amp;#8217;s people came up with the idea of executive orders. It wasn&amp;#8217;t a new idea, but they were going to take it to whole new level. Conservatives were rightly fuming when a boastful Paul Begala said, &amp;#8220;Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.&amp;#8221;  If Dick Cheney or Karl Rove r...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=995261</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:27:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">995261</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Inspector General at the Door?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=992201&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F177270111%2F</link>
            <description>How many federal police agencies can you name?
The list is getting longer. CIA, FBI, NSA, ATF, DEA, INS, TSA, Secret Service, Customs, Border Patrol, U.S. Marshals Service, to name a few. But there are many more. IRS agents are armed. So are EPA agents. Agents with the Bureau of Land Management are not only armed, they have a SWAT team.  Now agents with the Office of the Inspector General are getting into the police business, as Ryan Scott found out when his dog was shot and killed by an unnamed investigator.
Expect more stories like this. The number of federal criminal laws has been steadily expanding (pdf). To enforce those laws, Congress hires more agents. The agents, in turn, conduct more raids. To process the cases, Congress hires more prosecutors. And then, of course, Congress builds...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=992201</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:07:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">992201</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Surveillance and Doublespeak</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=956397&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F170698975%2F</link>
            <description>The Washington Post has a story today about the government&amp;#8217;s data collection activities. Unfortunately, the article repeatedly says the FBI is &amp;#8220;requesting&amp;#8221; information from the phone companies. That&amp;#8217;s misleading. The FBI is using subpoenas and national security letters. Thus, federal agents are demanding information from the businesspeople. A refusal to comply means fines and jail. This is an area of law and policy that needs much more attention. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=956397</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:33:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">956397</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Hillary: “I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all.”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=952647&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F170167755%2F</link>
            <description>&amp;#8216;Nuff said. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=952647</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:39:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">952647</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Universal Coverage: Check Your Freedom at the Door</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=952649&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F170162082%2F</link>
            <description>Today, the Cato Institute releases a study by attorney Kent Masterson Brown titled, &amp;#8220;The Freedom to Spend Your Own Money on Medical Care: A Common Casualty of Universal Coverage.&amp;#8221;  Brown addresses a dark side of universal coverage that proponents tend to de-emphasize:

Most people would agree that a patient should always be able to spend his own money on the health care services he desires. Yet that freedom is often threatened or denied when government tries to provide universal health insurance coverage, as in the U.S. Medicare program, which provides health insurance to seniors and people with disabilities. Over the past 20 years, the Medicare bureaucracy—and to a lesser extent Congress itself—has limited the freedom of Medicare beneficiaries to purchase medical services...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=952649</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:14:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">952649</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Reckless Raids?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=928183&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F165239081%2F</link>
            <description>Today&amp;#8217;s NYT reports on reckless pre-dawn raids by immigration officials in New York. Excerpt:
“These were like dragnets being cast over entire houses,” said Nadia Marin-Molina, director of the Workplace Project, an immigrant advocacy organization in Hempstead that has gathered many of the complaints.
The complaints echo a federal lawsuit filed last month in Manhattan contending that immigration agents unlawfully force their way into the homes of Latino families in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches.
“We have been inundated with calls,” said Cesar Perales, director of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed the lawsuit. “People are terrified by these indiscriminate raids.”
It is a familiar tale of agents burst...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=928183</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:42:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">928183</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Civil Society</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=925595&amp;cid=t_329734_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F164858412%2F</link>
            <description>A developer can&amp;#8217;t persuade 86-year old Edith Macefield to sell her home, so they build around her. And the construction workers help her out by picking up her lunch and taking her to the hair salon. In stark contrast, read about what arrogant federal agents did to Frank Robbins when they could not persuade him to surrender his property rights. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=925595</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:05:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">925595</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

