Update: On July 16, the Senate failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority to bring Murray's bill to a vote, rendering the legislation dead, at least for now.

When the Clean Water Act was first conceived, the EPA could only restrict entrepreneurs when they attempted to pollute bodies of water that were used by their fellow businesses, or what the EPA calls ‘navigable waters.’ However, its original mission is far too modest for modern-day bureaucrats.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled the New York City ban on super-sized soft drinks unconstitutional late last week, dealing a small but significant blow to the nanny state. According to the ruling, the city’s Board of Health “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” by engaging in law-making and infringing upon the legislative jurisdiction of the City Council of New York.

For the past year, the Supreme Court has been mulling the case of Harris v. Quinn, in which the state of Illinois was asserting its authority to collect union dues from non-union members working as home health care workers under a Medicare program. The state’s argument was that, since public sector labor unions negotiate contracts that benefit non-union members in terms of higher wages and better working conditions, it would be acceptable to expect these workers to pay union dues in return.

Today’s much anticipated Supreme Court decision on the case of Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. was expected to have broad implications for the application of the Affordable Care Act vis a vis the Constitution. Can the government dictate what kinds of insurance employers are required to provide, or should individuals be free to enter into any contracts they choose?

Where does your representative stand on NSA spying?

Freedom of speech in America has been held to a higher standard as a fundamental right since the beginning. Before the country was even established, a precedent was set forth in the Colony of New York in 1735 that would forever allow people on this side of the pond more liberty with their tongues than those over in England.

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on the EPA is getting some confused news coverage from people unsure of the actual impact of the Court’s decision. First of all, it is important to note that this case has nothing to do with the recent, controversial expansion of the EPA’s powers as adeptly covered by Julie Borowski here. Instead, this case addressed an earlier attempt from the EPA to solidify its ability to broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions for virtually everyone in the United States.

In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court ruled that Obama's appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional in a huge victory for the balance of power.