How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role
Two landmark decisions — Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty.
Two landmark decisions — Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty.
Looking back centuries later, it seems the Marbury case settled that question, but it really didn’t.
In the first decade-plus of its history, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down zero congressional enactments.
Framers of the Constitution never intended the judicial branch to be equal to the other two.
Yep, the whole thing. Or at least its ratification was illegal.
States could pass laws pledging that they will award all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.
Here’s what defenders of the system tend to believe.
Our odd system has resulted in at least one election disaster and several strange results.
Their motives were more complicated than their aristocratic mistrust of the mob.
Here’s a quick list of the problems and potential problems.
The Electoral College system distorts every presidential campaign.
There are several other systems in use around the world, and even around the United States.
Our system provides us with only two meaningful choices in most elections.
Harvard’s Jane Mansbridge makes the case that doing nothing does do something — and it’s not good.
If you’re frustrated with the state of our politics, look at what this system has to offer.
Because of their structures, parliamentary systems are relatively gridlock-proof.
Today MinnPost launches a series by Eric Black called Imperfect Union: The Constitutional Roots of the Mess We’re In.
At the risk of committing sacrilege, this series traces many of our current problems to the system devised by the Framers of the Constitution.