The federal debt keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I’ve written before on the constitutional and historical problems with the theory of nullification. The Heritage Foundation just released both a fact sheet and essay going into more detail than I did.
A Pennsylvania court ruled last week that Islamic Sharia law trumps the First Amendment.
The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article advocating post-birth abortions. Apparently that’s not quite the slippery slope conclusion the pro-choice crowd wishes to believe.
Romney and Santorum each won an equal number of districts in Michigan, but the two at-large delegates in Michigan are being awarded to Romney. This gives him 16 delegates from Michigan, while Santorum has 14.
I’ve already expressed my support for Romney and concerns with Santorum, but I want the Friday post to remain relatively neutral between the two. However, as articles come up, I reserve the right to post them. With that in mind, Salon explores Santorum’s history with publicly funded homeschooling, and Ann Coulter argues that he makes a poor conservative spokesman because he doesn’t understand federalism.
With Coulter’s argument in mind, people are noticing that Paul and Romney are leaving each other alone. Might it be because, despite other disagreements, they agree on many federalism issues? This article also demonstrates both Paul’s difficulty seeing how his “friends” differ from him (newsletters, conspiracy theorists, etc.) and Romney’s ability to win over someone who by all counts should be hostile.
So to be fair, I should now post something critical of Romney; he keeps faltering after victories.
This is a really good article for anyone considering law school (and yes, I recommend it as a current law student).
Articles like this always fascinate me, partly because they go against the prevailing theory of human migration. So often we presume we’re more advanced than our ancestors thousands of years ago. What if we underestimate them?
And finally, some historical perspective on attack ads.
I’ve written before on the constitutional and historical problems with the theory of nullification. The Heritage Foundation just released both a fact sheet and essay going into more detail than I did.
A Pennsylvania court ruled last week that Islamic Sharia law trumps the First Amendment.
The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article advocating post-birth abortions. Apparently that’s not quite the slippery slope conclusion the pro-choice crowd wishes to believe.
Romney and Santorum each won an equal number of districts in Michigan, but the two at-large delegates in Michigan are being awarded to Romney. This gives him 16 delegates from Michigan, while Santorum has 14.
I’ve already expressed my support for Romney and concerns with Santorum, but I want the Friday post to remain relatively neutral between the two. However, as articles come up, I reserve the right to post them. With that in mind, Salon explores Santorum’s history with publicly funded homeschooling, and Ann Coulter argues that he makes a poor conservative spokesman because he doesn’t understand federalism.
With Coulter’s argument in mind, people are noticing that Paul and Romney are leaving each other alone. Might it be because, despite other disagreements, they agree on many federalism issues? This article also demonstrates both Paul’s difficulty seeing how his “friends” differ from him (newsletters, conspiracy theorists, etc.) and Romney’s ability to win over someone who by all counts should be hostile.
So to be fair, I should now post something critical of Romney; he keeps faltering after victories.
This is a really good article for anyone considering law school (and yes, I recommend it as a current law student).
Articles like this always fascinate me, partly because they go against the prevailing theory of human migration. So often we presume we’re more advanced than our ancestors thousands of years ago. What if we underestimate them?
And finally, some historical perspective on attack ads.
Not that I think the judge should have lit into the defendant, but it looks like his ruling was actually correct - the Muslim guy was prosecuted for harassment, not assault. And when, wrongly or not, the defendant's intent was to rectify a perceived insult to his prophet, the Commonwealth really hadn't proved an intent to cause that particular victim the types of apprehension listed in 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2709. Without claiming special knowledge of Pennsylvania criminal law, it looks like the CA made a charging error, and the defense took advantage of it. Not that the judge's admonition to the poor atheist was called for.
ReplyDelete