The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer Mangles the Constitution

The latest Jane Mayer column in The New Yorker is out, and even by Mayer’s standards, it is a scattershot stew of every last thing she could think of to say about any Republican or conservative dating back to the 1940s. You can almost see her following the strings from one Post-It Note on her wall to the next. What is particularly appalling about this column is how it misrepresents the longstanding judicial doctrine that the electors clause of Article II of the Constitution means what it says.

Article II and Who Makes the Rules

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

The latest Jane Mayer column in The New Yorker is out, and even by Mayer’s standards, it is a scattershot stew of every last thing she could think of to say about any Republican or conservative dating back to the 1940s. You can almost see her following the strings from one Post-It Note on her wall to the next. What is particularly appalling about this column is how it misrepresents the longstanding judicial doctrine that the electors clause of Article II of the Constitution means what it says.

Article II and Who Makes the Rules