Government can be freedom’s best friend when it protects citizens’ constitutional rights. Here’s how the Goldwater Institute is ensuring your rights are protected.
Words like crisis and pain describe the state budget. The revenue shortfall for this fiscal year, once thought to be as high as $600 million, now looks to be somewhere north of $800 million. Next year looks even worse.
But trouble can be the mother of opportunity. Lawmakers may, for the first time, have a realistic chance to reform one of the structural anomalies that caused the problem in the first place. Its time to fix the Voter Protection Act.
Mark Twain once quipped, No mans life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. That is often true, but as the lawmaking branch of government, the legislature also has a great capacity to protect life, liberty, and property.
Dr. Byron Schlomach discusses how Arizona can reduce health insurance costs by introducing market reforms. The Arizona state legislature should stop protecting insurance companies in Arizona from competition and allow Arizonans to purchase health insurance from anywhere in the United States. It makes so much sense, it just may not happen.
Watch Mark Steyn on Horizon discuss a pressing issue facing America from abroad.
Phoenix--Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Clint Bolick has received the June 2007 Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty, for his latest book, David's Hammer: The Case for an Activist Judiciary.
"To have David's Hammer recognized as advancing liberty is hugely gratifying, because the purpose of the book is to demonstrate the crucial role of courts in protecting freedom," said Clint Bolick.
P.J. O'Rourke and fellow Irishman Pat McMahon talk current events, politics, and P.J.'s new book, On the Wealth of Nations.
Report Offers Blueprint for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Judicial interpretations of the Arizona Constitution have often been inconsistent and conflicting. Instead of developing a sound and authentically independent reading of the Arizona Constitution, the Arizona judiciary frequently relies on federal constitutional analyses to resolve matters of state constitutional interpretation. As a result, differences in the state constitution are often read out of the constitutional text to achieve uniformity with federal constitutional trends.
While there are many things wrong with the Second Circuit’s reasoning and result, this brief will focus primarily on the two interests relied upon by the court to uphold the candidate expenditure limits.
When this Court first created the contribution and express advocacy exceptions to protections for political speech, it recognized the questionable nature of the enterprise and strove to limit it, finding only in the most narrow of circumstances that a governmental interest in preventing corruption could trump protected speech. The government has since inverted the process, looking first for any proximity to an election as the preeminent question, and second to whether a speech interest exists. Speech jurisprudence is sliding down a slippery slope; prophylaxis is replacing narrow tailoring. It seems that it is now the regulation of speech, not its protection, that has its “fullest and most urgent application” where speech has any attenuated relation to an election.