The U.S. Constitution and state constitutions guarantee certain rights. Too often, government violates those rights instead of protecting them. The Goldwater Institute is committed to constitutional rule of law and focuses on property rights, campaign finance, legislative terms, balance of power among levels of government, processes of judicial appointment, and state sovereignty, among others.
- Press Releases
- In the News
- Amicus Briefs
- OpEds & Blogs
Mesa loses - againPosted on September 11, 2012 | Type: In the News
For at least 43 years, personal adornment has been deemed constitutionally protected free speech. It goes back to when the U.S. Supreme Court concluded you could wear a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War and the principal couldn't stop you.
Litigating for Liberty, Part 2Posted on August 14, 2012 | Type: In the News | Author: Clint Bolick
Want to make a difference in the fight for liberty? Consider law school. Here is my second set of tips for maximizing your chances for a law career that will position you to change the world:
Litigating for Liberty, Part 1Posted on August 10, 2012 | Type: In the News | Author: Clint Bolick
Want to make a difference in the fight for liberty? Consider law school. In no other arena can an individual have a greater impact for freedom. After all, the courts were intended to safeguard individual rights by holding the other two branches of government to their constitutional boundaries. And unlike politics, law tends to be black or white—you win or you lose—rather than shades of compromise. Look how dramatically cases like Brown v. Board of Education have changed the world.
The seismic non-issue in the presidential campaignPosted on August 06, 2012 | Type: Op-Ed | Author: Clint Bolick
Should control over Supreme Court nominations figure prominently in the forthcoming presidential election? Yes, big-time. Will it? Not likely.
Clint Bolick: The Supreme Court Stakes in 2012Posted on July 09, 2012 | Type: In the News | Author: Clint Bolick
Many conservatives are angry with Chief Justice John Roberts, whose decisive vote in late June not only sustained a disastrous health-care law. It also interpreted the Constitution to permit Congress to penalize behavior through its taxing power that it cannot control through its power to regulate commerce. Magnifying the harm is a CBS News report—and informed suspicions from a number of sources—that Chief Justice Roberts initially voted to strike down the law but switched in the face of veiled threats from President Barack Obama and concerns about the court's reputation and his own.