Recent content by SuMuKong

seoul would be destroyed Of course, this would happen whether the U.S. is there or not. Eventually, South Korea would surely prevail because of their economic might. The main reason that the U.S. is there is to serve as a trip-wire, so that if the North attacks (exceedingly unlikely), the...

As currently interpreted by the SCOTUS, the Constitution does give the federal government authority over business and labor through the interstate commerce clause. Without knowing more, my guess is that RP would be in favor of a hands-off treatment of labor unions, unless a situation arose...

The thing is, though, that many people have irrational beliefs. The question that should be posed, IMHO, is whether these irrational beliefs are relevant to other decisions that that person will make in the future. If RP was going in for a job interview as a biology teacher or professor, then...

Consider what would happen if the shareholders did not give CEOs high salaries. Suppose that I am the CEO at K-Mart: I've done a great job, I have strong support within the company, and I'm making 50+ million per year. Why might I earn so much money? Well, 50 million may actually be much...

Corporations are interesting from a legal perspective, because they are essentially structured as mini-States. I've often said, and have often heard from other people, that the study of corporate law is quite similar to the study of Constitutional law. You have a charter, voting shareholders...

Several differences come immediately to mind: (1) theoretical and (2) practical. Theoretical Differences: The smaller the Sovereign, the more power you have over it as an individual. For example, suppose that you live in a State which prohibits gambling / prostitution. Suppose that you are...

B.S. in engineering, J.D. (predominantly in criminal theory).

CNN says that RP is "battling it out" for 2nd place http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ Great to see some acknowledgement from the MSM!

In a true free-market, the airliners would not be subsidized by government money. Thus the government would remain neutral on the question of segregation within airplanes. However, I doubt that the market would remain neutral. I wouldn't want to buy my tickets from a segregated airline. What...

How strict? Even conservative justices like Scalia and (the late) Rehnquist probably wouldn't strike down the application of federal law to something like a lightbulb, especially if the statute has a jurisdictional hook (e.g. "all lightbulbs shipped in interstate commerce . . ." etc.)

No, it would be constitutional under current jurisprudence.

Whenever you use a textual intepretation, one of the first steps is to ask what the common usage of the phrase would entail. If you replace "Commerce . . . among the several States . . . " with "Commerce among Russia, China, and the United States," it's going to be hard to argue that the...

I was thinking that we could consolidate material to put in a white paper on RP's newsletter/character issue. Ideally, the white paper would be carefully footnoted, would present both sides of the issue, and would be edited every once in a while as new developments come to light.

That depends whether you are asking if it should be a violation or whether it is a violation of the law. Obviously, under current circumstances, it is (see, e.g. drug and prostitution statutes, general taxation on transactions). Whether it should be is a deeper question that further turns on...

Good post. I have one small quibble. If there were no Constitutional barrier to a prohibition on abortion, the federal government could plausibly enact a federal statute prohibiting abortion under the Commerce Clause, unless the Court takes a radical liberatarian turn.