Search for: "Robert Natelson"
Results 1 - 20
of 56
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2022, 4:45 pm
Here is the abstract: This short piece builds on my earlier response to Robert Natelson's purported "cite check" of my 2015 Yale Law Journal article by addressing some of the arguments in his new Federalist Society Review article. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 1:45 am
Professor Robert Natelson of the University of Montana has posted a 2007 article from the Ohio State Law Journal on "The Founders' Hermeneutic: The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 10:32 pm
Robert G. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 12:20 pm
I’m delighted to report that Robert Natelson will be guest-blogging this week about constitutional conventions, a matter that has come up on many occasions over the past years. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 4:22 am
Gregory Ablavsky’s “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause: Robert Natelson’s Problematic ‘Cite-Check’” is at the Stanford Law School blog, Legal Aggregate. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 7:30 am
ROBERT NATELSON: Time Magazine’s Constitutional Baby Babble. [read post]
13 Oct 2022, 6:59 pm
Here is an abstract: As part of an ongoing and often heated academic disagreement, Robert Natelson recently purported to "cite check" my 2015 Yale Law Journal article Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause. [read post]
17 May 2022, 9:27 am
Here's the abstract: Robert Natelson recently responded to a three-paragraph critique of his 2007 law review article that I offered in an amicus brief in the ongoing Brackeen litigation. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 11:15 am
I’m delighted to report that Robert Natelson, who retired a few years ago from the University of Montana School of Law and who is now Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute, will be guest-blogging this week about the original meaning of the Constitution’s financial terms — “tax,” “direct tax,” “impost,” “excise,” “tonnage” and “duty. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 6:21 am
Natelson know? [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 11:00 am
Here’s how Natelson describes Yates’s view (Natelson relies on an older strain of scholarship that attributed “Sydney” to Robert Yates, but newer scholarship attributes it to Abraham, Robert’s uncle; emphasis added). [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 9:32 am
Natelson's scholarship has been cited by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 4:18 am
The abstract: This short piece builds on my earlier response to Robert Natelson’s purported “cite check” of my 2015 Yale Law Journal article by addressing some of the arguments in his new Federalist Society Review article. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 3:00 am
Miller, Robert G. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 9:22 am
The first such article was Robert Natelson's, The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause, 85 Denver U.L. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 3:00 am
" The abstract:This short piece builds on my earlier response to Robert Natelson's purported "cite check" of my 2015 Yale Law Journal article by addressing some of the arguments in his new Federalist Society Review article. [read post]
21 May 2016, 2:58 pm
My first candidates would be Randy Barnett Roger Pilon Janice Rogers Brown Alex Kozinski David Sentelle William Baude Larry Becraft Stephen Calabresi Elizabeth Price Foley Michaek Greve Kurt Lash Gary Larson Andrew Napolitano Robert Natelson Roger Roots Lawrence Solum These are taken from http://constitution.org/cs_peopl.htm , not including some who are social conservative or too old. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 11:27 am
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]
28 Oct 2015, 7:56 am
[From Eugene Volokh: Following up on Professor Robert Natelson’s series of posts last week on the Constitution’s original meaning, here’s one more, though dealing with qualifications for office rather than financial matters.] [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 6:22 pm
Robert Natelson, while not quite endorsing McManamon’s conclusion, writes an extensive post explaining why such arguments need to be taken seriously, particularly by originalists. [read post]
