Constitutional attorney David Rivkin discussed the legal implications of President Obama’s announcement on gun control on Fox and Friends on January 16, 2013.
“We did not know for sure, we clearly know one thing, he cannot do by executive order anything that Congress has not delegated. […] He cannot ban high capacity magazines by executive order. ” – Rivkin in response to Brian Kilmeade’s question on what to expect today.
The Constitution commands that public debts be repaid. There is no such obligation to fund entitlement programs.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Three false arguments, pushed hard by the Obama administration and accepted on faith by the media and much of the political establishment, must be laid to rest if the American people are to understand the issues at stake in the federal “debt ceiling” debate.
The first is that Congress’s failure to raise the debt ceiling—the amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow at any given time—will cause a default on the national debt. The second is that federal entitlement programs are constitutionally protected from spending cuts. The third is that the president can raise the debt ceiling on his own authority.
Has the United States Constitution become outdated and obsolete? Constitutional attorney David Rivkin debates Constitutional Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman on whether or not it’s time to ditch the Constitution.
Appellate and international attorney David Rivkin joins a panel at the Cato Institute’s annual publication of its review of the Supreme Court and its Constitution Day celebration in Washington D.C.
The following highlight’s David Rivkin and his remarks on the 2011 Supreme Court term review and health care law to the panel and audience members.
Appellate and international attorney David Rivkin joins a panel at the Cato Institute’s annual publication of its review of the Supreme Court and its Constitution Day celebration in Washington D.C.
The following segment highlight’s David Rivkin and his remarks on the 2011 Supreme Court term review and health care law.
Democrats regard federalism as quaint, Republicans at least pay lip service to it
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley
In the presidential debates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney ranged across dozens of topics, but an important one didn’t come up: federalism. And no wonder.
The idea that the Constitution grants only limited and enumerated powers and leaves the remainder to the states is foreign to those who believe that the national government should or even could address voters’ every concern. But contrary to the view widely shared by the political class, Washington—in particular, Congress—does not have the power to pass any law it wants in the name of the “general welfare.”
Politicians should take heed. Voters are increasingly focused on the proper role of government in society: Witness the rise of the tea party and unease over the massive debt caused by entitlements and other government handouts. The continuing loud objection to ObamaCare’s takeover of health care shows that voters want to preserve the Constitution’s architecture of limited federal power.