Search for: "Rob Natelson" Results 41 - 60 of 61
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2009, 11:02 am by David Kopel
A recent blog post by University of Montana law professor (and Independence Institute Senior Fellow) Rob Natelson explains the issue for laymen: It's not an Equal Protection violation, because Equal Protection does not protect states from discrimination. [read post]
8 May 2011, 5:35 pm
In an open letter to Congress and posts on two Tea Party websites (the Tenth Amendment Center and the Independence Institute) Rob Natelson outlines why H.R. 5 violates both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 2:46 pm by David Kopel
The originalist, Marshallian understanding of the doctrine of incidental powers was the subject of the amicus brief which Rob Natelson, Gary Lawson, and I wrote. [read post]
20 May 2022, 1:56 pm by David Kopel
Koppelman then points to what he considers to be the three prime examples of what he calls "Rules-Reductive Originalism": Randy Barnett on the Commerce Clause, Rob Natelson the Coinage Clause, and Natelson-Kopel on the Necessary and Proper Clause. [read post]
21 May 2017, 12:36 pm by Ilya Somin
In a recent op ed in The Hill, legal scholar Rob Natelson argues that federal power over immigration can instead be derived from Congress’ power to “define and punish . . . [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 12:46 pm by David Kopel
That view is challenged in a new article by Gary Lawson (BU), Guy Seidman (Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel) and Rob Natelson (Independence Institute). [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 11:27 am by David Kopel
Much more extensive discussion of the direct/indirect tax issue (but not of window taxes) can be found in Rob Natelson’s 27 minute podcast on the subject, for iVoices.org. [read post]
18 Jun 2011, 1:42 pm by David Kopel
(For more on Marshall’s views about federal health control, see this article by Rob Natelson and me.)Marshall’s opinion in Gibbon may be considered the outer boundary of any originalist interpretation of the interstate commerce power. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:58 pm by David Kopel
”In a forthcoming article in Engage (the journal of The Federalist Society’s practice groups), Rob Natelson and I penned a hypothetical opinion on a federal health control law, written entirely in Chief Justice Marshall’s voice. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 1:48 pm by David Kopel
 (Incidentally, this may make me the second VC writer–very distantly second after Randy himself–to state in writing that the health control law is unconstitutional under modern law, not just under original meaning. ) My Independence Institute colleague Rob Natelson (U. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 1:42 pm by David Kopel
So argues an amicus brief that Rob Natelson and I filed in the 10th Circuit last week. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 8:15 am by Eugene Volokh
Akhil Amar and Rob Natelson have written more extensively on this.) [4.] [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 3:39 pm by David Kopel
In a reply article for the Michigan Law Review’s on-line supplement, First Impressions, Rob Natelson and I challenge Balkin’s analysis. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 2:17 pm by Jon
One of the better ones was by Rob Natelson, who wrote a response addressing some of the many illogical or inaccurate claims therein. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:05 pm by David Kopel
Another law professor who has raised constitutional questions about Obamcare is Rob Natelson (U. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 7:57 am
Rob Natelson’s extensive historical research finds that these statutes encompassed the times, places and mechanics of voting, registration lists, districting, qualifications of electors and candidates, prohibitions on misconduct at the polls, and the rules of decision (i.e. plurality or majority vote). [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 5:31 am by Eugene Volokh
Akhil Amar and Rob Natelson have written more extensively on this.) [4.] [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 1:01 am by Jack Chin
Prakash extensively, and also perhaps because another scholar whom Justice Thomas relied on (Rob Natelson) cited me so much. [read post]