This timely look at the Obama presidency establishes a constitutional yardstick of interest to scholars of the presidency, constitutional thought, and American political thought.

For some months now, President Obama has increasingly been couching his rhetoric in the language of fairness. But in recent weeks, a growing number of conservative elected officials have begun contesting Obama’s claim to be the arbiter of what constitutes fairness and taking the issue of fairness head on in public policy.

The legal professoriate and commentariat are completely unhinged over the impending demise of the individual mandate. ... Let's go to the transcript and try to explain this one more time, in terms that even the Harvard crowd may be able to comprehend.

In recent months, electoral skirmishes and policy debates have hinged on the meaning of fairness. Defenders of free enterprise have often shied away from moral language, preferring to rely on facts, figures, or constitutional arguments to make their case. AEI president Arthur Brooks highlights free enterprise leaders who are changing, now making the moral case.

Political dysfunction. Partisanship at record levels. Attack politics run amok. And public approval of Congress scraping the single digits (Sen. John McCain is fond of saying it's down to blood rlatives and paid staff).

While the mandate question holds great constitutional interest, the outcome won't greatly affect Obamacare's operation one way or the other. The Medicaid question, in contrast, is crucial.

Twenty-five top college students will travel to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, D.C. this June to participate in the 2012 American Enterprise Summer Institute. 

At this AEI event, Michael Greve will discuss his new book, "The Upside-Down Constitution," along with panelists Christopher DeMuth (Hudson Institute), Rick Hills (NYU Law School) and Ben Wittes (Brookings Institution).