As surprising as it may seem, the selection of a Supreme Court justice can be more important than the selection of a president.
Although I currently serve in Congress, I regard myself as a free market economist—a price theorist and a microeconomist, to be precise.
With all the serious problems we must face today, the problem of big government is among the most critical. Yet solutions are not lacking.
The mid-1980s brought a crisis in availability and affordability of liability insurance that was unprecedented in its impact on our society.
Thomas Jefferson once described the Constitution as a text of civil instruction, but it appears that we have sadly neglected it.
My primary purpose is to suggest that a key principle of judicial restraint—namely, interpretivism—is required by our constitutional plan.
For those deeply concerned about a fundamentally liberal order, the embrace of Colbert rather than Smith in our century has been deeply disturbing.
Philosophers and social scientists alike have seemed reluctant to discuss the modern practice of continuous deficit financing in intergenerational terms.
Taking the opportunity to pause and reflect on the roots of our freedom is always an important thing for us to do. But it is especially important now.
The primary concern of political economy is the appropriate role of government in social affairs. The debate, in brief, is whether the economy should be left free to establish a "spontaneous order," or whether government regulation is necessary to maintain efficiency and economic welfare.