Last night, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, but who is Judge Kavanaugh?  He is married with two daughters. He is Catholic and went to a D.C. area Jesuit high school, Georgetown Prep, which is the same Jesuit high school as two other Trump appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. He earned his undergraduate and law degree at Yale and teaches at Yale, Harvard, and Georgetown. Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Kennedy, the same Justice for whom Gorsuch clerked. And he's been serving on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for over a decade. Glean from this what you will, if anything.

For an in-depth look at Judge Kavanaugh's adjudicative history, head over to the SCOTUS Blog. Liberty Fund also has an article discussing Judge Kavanaugh.

Law and Liberty, part of Liberty Fund, Inc., posted an interesting article today discussing the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and its treatment in modern jurisprudence. 

The Contracts Clause is found in Article I of the Constitution which states,

Or, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ..." 

In the early history of our nation, this clause of the Constitution was respected and enforced.  Unfortunately, as is the case with much of the Constitution, the trend of modern jurisprudence has been away from strict adherence and respect for the law toward a more subjective, personal, results-based approach. Observers of the judicial branch from all along the political spectrum, have accused judges and justices of ignoring the clear and plain language of the Constitution, or even intentionally misinterpreting that language, in order to reach their own desired outcome. That is, their own subjective idea of "justice".  This is a movement away from justice under the law and the rule of law toward the capricious rule of men, but I am veering off topic.

You can read John O. McGinnis' article here.

SB 21 calling for an Article V Convention of States was sent to the Texas House in March and was read and referred to the Select Committee on State & Federal Power & Responsibility today. The identical companion bill HB 506 is scheduled for public hearing this Thursday April 13th.

In gun law, a Bill is being considered that would eliminate the licensing requirement for the carrying of handguns in the state. HB 375 is pending in the Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee since March 28th.

In immigration law, SB 23 would require all Texas employers to use the e-verify system to ensure the workers they hire are legally authorized to work in the United States. SB 280 would empower Texas law enforcement officers to arrest illegal immigrants.

The Texas Senate has just voted to adopt Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 2) calling for an Article V Convention of States to consider certain amendments to the United States Constitution. Shortly before the vote on SJR 2, the Texas Senate voted to adopt Senate Bill 21 (SB 21) which provides for the qualifications of Texas delegates and other guidelines in the event of an Article V Convention.

Texas is calling for an Article V Convention to impose fiscal restraints on the national government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the national government, and limit the terms of office of national officials and members of Congress. Another Article V Convention calling for a balanced budget amendment has already been passed by 28 states, 6 states away from the number needed to require the U.S. Congress to call an Article V Convention.

The texts of SB 21 and SJR 2, without amendments, are provided below.  More information can be found on the Texas Legislature's website.

Tomorrow, the Texas Senate is expected to vote  on Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2) calling for a convention of states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of the Article V Convention would be to impose fiscal restraints on the national government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the national government, and limit the terms of office of national officials and members of Congress.

It's interesting to note that while the national government continues to spend beyond its means, 45 states have balanced budget requirements. States balance their budgets. We're expected to balance our budgets. Why should the national government, with all its power and responsibility, be free to act so irresponsibly?

The identical companion Bill, HJR 39, has gone nowhere since it was filed December, 06, 2016.

The Court in reaching its opinion, noted other changes in the institution of marriage such as the decline of arranged marriages, invalidation of bans on interracial marriage and use of contraception, and abandonment of the law of coverture. Referring to other fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that, under our current jurisprudence, extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs, The Court held that The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.

Read the Full Opinion Here.

 Is privacy dead? With today's frequent advances in technology, commentators on television and radio often opine on the "death of privacy". Their reasoning is usually something to the effect that, because so much technology that enables individuals, organizations, and the government to spy on us is readily available, privacy is dead, or at least dying. Spy satellites, drones, thermal imaging cameras, listening devices, spy cameras, GPS in our cell phones, NSA spy programs, etc. all signal the end of privacy. 

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

I won't endeavor to define privacy here; I think we all have the same general understanding of what privacy is, what it means. But, what is the right to privacy? Most people who read this article probably don't realize that the right to privacy does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Nor does the right to privacy appear in the Declaration of Independence. Or at least, these words do not appear in the founding documents. So, where do we get this right to privacy as it is recognized today? 

The right to privacy, at least the term, is a creation of U.S. Supreme Court case law. That is to say it was first given legal recognition by the judicial branch through its interpretation of the Constitution and its meaning along with the intent of the founding fathers. Although the specific word "privacy" and the phrase "right to privacy" do not appear in the founding documents, it is argued that the idea is there; the right exists, and it was understood by the framers that the right exists.