Here we go again. The Left’s latest attempt to defame the Tea Party movement appears in the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine. In the article, “Debt and Dumb,” the authors distort the founding era record and our Constitution to vilify Tea Partiers. As we’ve seen recently, the Constitution is back in vogue and even the Left is using it to further their big government agenda. (”What’d the founders think? Well, look at Hamilton!”)

Um, okay. Let’s look at him.

Rob Natelson deconstructs the Vanity Fair article in this constitution.i2i.org blogpost. As Rob notes, VF does a great job revising history to fit their beliefs. Over on iVoices.org, Rob sits down with one of my minions to talk about the VF article and why it’s dead wrong. Podcast here.

Ok, maybe my title is a bit of an overstatement. Granted, podcasts on issues surrounding the law are rarely outside the confines of “wonk,” somehow our resident Constitutional Law scholar Professor Rob Natelson makes constitutional law, legal matters and history consumable even at my level. His latest iVoices.org podcast is on judicial federalism. …Judicial whaaaattt?

Let me explain. Like the Founders themselves, the center-right today is a big fan of federalism – aka states’ rights. The Constitution is a document that outlines enumerated federal powers. Whatever not enumerated is left to the states and people. This way, we have 50 separate locations for testing public policies. 50 “test tubes of innovation” reveal what policies work and what policies fail miserably. (i.e. Romney-care in Massachusetts anyone?) Conservatives rightly point to federalism’s rich history and practical advantages when it comes to things like commerce and regulating economic affairs. However, federalism as it pertains to the law, civil justice, and the courts rarely, if ever, gets discussed. This is where Professor Rob Natelson comes in.

He argues in his blogpost that the Colonists were just as likely to be heard screaming, “leave our law alone” as they were “no taxation without representation!” The idea that the Crown ought not to interfere in Colonial civil justice matters was essential to the early patriots. Indeed, early pamphleteers mentioned among the many grievances against the King the injustice of British interference in strictly American judicial matters. Consequently, these early cries for judicial federalism were woven into our nation’s founding documents.

Today, “conservatives” in Congress are pushing for a federal medical malpractice reform bill – HR5. In other words, they like federalism and states rights – except when it comes to judicial matters. Then they want Washington, DC to impose its will on state law. Of course this is nonsense and Rob explains exactly why in this important paper, The Roots of American Judicial Federalism. As Rob says in the podcast, “what’s Constitutional isn’t always what I like. And what’s unconstitutional isn’t always what I don’t like.”

By now we’ve had some time to reflect on the beating the Prop 103 tax increase received from Colorado voters a couple weeks ago. It’s pretty amazing isn’t it? We were outspent around 6 to 1 but we managed to destroy the tax hike nearly 2 to 1. Granted, Prop 103 probably would have gone down even if we did nothing, but our side working well together ensured that the beating would resonate for a long time. Like I told Colorado Peak Politics, this tax hike unified us and instead of embarrassing ourselves like we normally do, we worked together to embarrass the enemies of limited government. It proved that we can work together for a common cause. Let Prop 103’s gross failure be our guiding light for the future.

Let’s talk about that future.

Senior Fellow Penn Pfiffner was a guest on the Tax Foundation’s podcast show the other day to talk about Prop 103’s failure and what we need to do to fortify our state against the barrage of calls for bigger and bigger government. Yes, it’s heartening to score such a resounding victory against big government, but it wasn’t the first proposed tax increase and it certainly won’t be the last. It’s a matter of time until we hear about the next government expansion “for the kids.” Likewise, it won’t be long until we hear the next round of sob stories that are designed to pry open our wallets. One victory will not shut down the Left’s super highway into our bank accounts. Penn knows this and does a good job of explaining that we must change our tactics if we are to ensure long-term success. As long as we continue to play only defense, it’s just a matter of time until they break off a big play and dance in our end zone. Even a good defense has holes and weaknesses. Stopping 99% of scoring drives means that 1% are getting through. Therefore, it doesn’t hurt to be on offense every now and again. As the old saying goes, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Just ask Tom Brady and Bill Belichick.

Colorado’s online schools have been taking a bit of a PR beating lately. This iVoices.org podcast is a response. Here is an excerpt from podcast host Ben DeGrow:

An investigative report and a requested legislative audit have shined a negative light on K-12 online education in Colorado. Michael Horn, executive director of education at the Innosight Institute, makes the case that students will benefit far more from updated funding, accountability and teacher policies than from an additional regulatory burden. Colorado can learn from recent changes made in Utah and from the new Nation’s Digital Learning Report Card that promote blended and full-time online learning options.

Listen to the iVoices podcast here.

Those sympathetic to the British Crown spent a lot of time hurling insults and demonizing the American Patriots of the 18th century. Today many on the left, sympathetic to the centralization of power in Washington, DC hurl insults at the modern day Tea Party. The similarities between the two are striking says Rob Natelson in his blog post. Rob sat down with one of my minions on iVoices.org to talk about the attacks heard back in the 18th century and how they relate to the attacks on the Tea Party in the 21st century. (Side note: the attacks in the 18th century were much more creative and clever). Listen to Professor Rob Natelson explain the similarities in sentiment between the attacks then and now. Take pride Tea Parties, if John Hancock could take it, so can you.

Last week a Denver District court judge ruled to stop the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Program (voucher program). Education Policy Center director Pam Benigno spoke with Douglas County School District board president John Carson this morning on iVoices.org. Take a listen to this iVoices podcast to hear how the school district is dealing with the ruling and what their plans are for the future.

I’ve talked a number of times about how we can tackle our federal government’s spending problem. Each time the subject gets brought up, I must make mention of the Constitution’s solution to the problem. Our Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson puts it like this: the Founders envisioned a time when the problem would be Congress itself. So what to do when Congress is out of control and won’t rein in itself? Well then it’s up to the states to take control.

The next logical question is: how do the states take control? Answer: A convention for proposing amendments! The states must come together and address the issue of runaway spending by our runaway Congress. Rob has been talking about this solution for quite some time, but after a couple years of incredibly in-depth scholarship, he’s written his masterpiece for Tennessee Law Review: Proposing Constitutional Amendments By Convention: Rules Governing The Process.

Rob’s article contains the most in-depth look at our Founding era’s historical record on Article V conventions ever put down on paper. I suggest giving it a read if you’d like to become educated on this topic so riddled with fallacies and misconceptions. Additionally, check out this iVoices.org podcast Rob did this morning with my minion. It’s probably the best overview of the subject you could get in around 20 minutes time.

Even though the whole debt ceiling fiasco is on its way out, I want to point this iVoices.org podcast in your direction. Last week a new narrative emerged from the debt ceiling = default storyline. It advanced the idea that the president could raise the debt ceiling unilaterally – Congress be damned! As you might have guessed, our constitutional scholar Professor Rob Natelson had some serious constitutional issues with this narrative. It’s no accident that the president does not enjoy both the power of the “sword” and the power of the “purse” at the same time. The Founders rightfully feared a president who was both commander and chief and guardian of the nation’s checkbook. Thus, the idea that President Obama could raise the debt ceiling by himself would have angered (and frightened) the Founders. Professor Rob Natelson addressed this issue in a blogpost on constitution.i2i.org and in this iVoices.org podcast.

Exactly who is Chief Justice John Marshall? That question has special importance today. Due to a belief that Chief Justice Marshall was a progressive judicial activist, many today are using his words as ammunition in the case for our overbearing and clearly unconstitutional federal regulatory state. However, like he’s often done many times before, Professor Rob Natelson is here to set the record straight. In a recent blog post on constitution.i2i.org and this iVoices.org podcast, Rob explains why Marshall may have gotten this ill deserved reputation and also why it’s wrong. Rob explores three cases which, when taken in the context of the law and language of the time, irrefutably dispel the notion that Marshall would have ever been in favor of the vast regulatory state we have now – let alone the health control law. In fact, Rob and Dave Kopel let Marshall refute Obamacare in his own words! How’d they do that? With a little research and a dash of creativity. In this article, “Health Laws of Every Description”: John Marshall’s Ruling on a Federal Health Care Law,” Rob and Dave use Marshall’s own words to help destroy another pro-Obamacare argument.

Rob Natelson must spend his days and nights repelling the incessant, research-free, and totally weak arguments for Obamacare’s constitutionality. This latest example of poor 18th century scholarship points to a 1798 statute that allegedly shows that the original understanding of the Constitution is broad enough to authorize federal health care programs. No way says Rob. You can read Rob’s full response to this nonsense on his blog and listen to Rob on the latest podcast from iVoices.org.