There were plenty of infringement on people’s rights during the COVID scamdemic, and censorship was rampant. Not only did we have members of our own government colluding to censor information they didn’t like, but we’ve had professional associations joining in. Worst of all, the so-called medical professionals seemed to be at the forefront, violating the central tenant of the hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”.

There are a lot of things I'd like to see done better in this country. On that list, education is right up near the top. But is it right to break the law to improve education? That's the question I asked myself when I read the text of H.R. 5349, The "Crucial Communism Teaching Act’’. You see, while teaching the truth about communism's history is important, should this bill pass Congress and be signed, it cannot be the supreme law of the land, because it was not made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States.

For many, New Year's Eve is a time for drinking and partying, which frequently makes New Year's Day a time for dealing with a hang over. For others, New Years is a time for making resolutions, promises to ourselves to be better. I rarely drink, so hang overs are not a problem for me. I also do not make New Year's resolutions, not because I don't think there are ways I can be better, but because I don't wait until the New Year to act on them. That said, a new year is a good time to look at where we are and make plans for the future.

There are many things most Americans will take for granted this Christmas Holiday. For example, even that fact that it is a holiday is something most of us don’t even think about. Let’s take a look at this federal holiday in America.

One of the reasons I like answering questions is they prompt me to look at things I hadn't thought about before. Take for example the recent request I had to review the Federal Tort Claims Procedure. While I review lawsuits regularly here, I'd never taken the time to look at this particular legislation.

I don't believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the documents. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius. These essays are collectively known as the Federalist Papers. Meanwhile, several authors published articles and essays opposing, or at least cautioning a rush to adopt the proposed Constitution, under many pseudonyms. In this article, we'll look at the first papers from each group. Both Federalist #1 and Antifederalist #1 deal with the same topic, should the states ratify the newly proposed Constitution?

How much pollution is too much? We all want clean air and water, but we still want our cars and flush toilets as well. The question in San Francisco v. EPA is how specific does the EPA need to be when it tells cities how much waste they can discharge into our nation’s waterways. From a constitutional standpoint, this case is not about waste water, but whether or not executive agencies have to follow the laws as written.