Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said during a Monday exchange with an undecided Iowa voter that a mandatory gun-buyback program is unconstitutional. 
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) attacked a judicial nominee Wednesday, charging that he would rule against suffrage for blacks and women if a hypothetical U.S. Constitution banned them from voting. 
MSNBC political analyst and former Obama administration official Richard Stengel argued that America needs to outlaw hateful speech, including Koran burning. 
Liberals are united in their desire to remove Justice Brett Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court. They are united in the belief they can do so without using existing impeachment protocols. They are now divided into three different camps over how best to achieve that goal. 
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors stirred controversy after labeling the National Rifle Association a "domestic terrorist organization" in a resolution. That language is more tiresome and lame than it is actually dangerous. Law enforcement officers in San Francisco and elsewhere will just roll their eyes and focus on targeting actual terrorists. 
The Institute for Justice won two free speech cases for entrepreneurs this week: one against licensing laws, the other against the "mural police." 
Former congressman and failed Senate candidate Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke questioned the relevance of the United States Constitution in a recent interview with the Washington Post. 
A Wednesday op-ed in the Atlantic by Warton School professor Eric W. Orts claims the current trendy liberal constitutional gripe—the disproportionality of the U.S. Senate—can be fixed with one easy law. All you have to do is pass one statute and big states like California can have twelve senators and small states like Vermont only one. This constitutional shortcut has been hitherto undiscovered, but journalists on Twitter declared it a “fascinating argument,” “so good and reasonable,” and perhaps less charitably, “some real galaxy brain shit but I dig it.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case which could have a profound impact on the ability of states to seize the property of ordinary citizens. 