top of page
.png)
2023 Fall Semester Issue
The U.S. Responsibility in the Russo-Ukraine Conflict - James Markis
The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s and the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to a severely depleted Russian state both economically and politically. Major difficulties arose in transforming the new country from a communist state to a capitalist one, and despite warmer relations with the West, still lacked full unity within the European world. The United States took advantage of the weakened Russian state to expand its influence into the previous Eastern Bloc countries by supporting pro-western candidates and promoting EU and NATO expansion . The continued aggressive policies by the United States and other countries in Western Europe finally culminated in the Russian military response, first with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and then again with the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The immediate response to the recent invasion characterized the invasion as completely unprovoked and a symbol of Putin’s authoritarianism, but in actuality, the invasion stemmed from decades of U.S. foreign policy decisions. Overall, the United States is the primary reason behind the outbreak of the Ukrainian War as opposed to aggressive Russian action, as seen through NATO expansion, interference in Russia’s sphere of influence, and refusal to negotiate a diplomatic solution.
The expansion of NATO was inherently not defensive but instead purely an antagonistic action towards Russia that precipitated the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The conventional argument regarding NATO expansion is that the alliance is purely defensive, and thus is not a threat to Russian sovereignty. Putin’s argument that Ukraine’s imminent joining NATO necessitated the 2022 invasion, is rejected by scholars who believe the U.S. bears no responsibility in the war. As Robert Person and Michael McFaul write, “Putin claims that his purpose is to stop NATO expansion. But that’s a fiction. Nothing in the past year in Ukraine-
NATO relations have changed. It is true Ukraine aspires to join NATO someday. But while NATO leaders have remained committed to the principle of an open-door policy, they have also clearly stated that Ukraine today is not qualified to join .” According to this argument, the threat of democracy to Putin and Russia is the true cause of the war as opposed to any fictional concept of NATO expansion. This argument, however, is extremely flawed as it fails to consider the security dilemma and the uncertainty of intentions that dominate foreign policy. Putin and Russia cannot ever have full confidence that NATO would not be utilized for offensive measures against Moscow, which is only five hundred miles from the Ukrainian border. The history of the Twentieth century correlates directly to this fear, as two World Wars proved that invasion through Eastern Europe necessitated a Russian sphere of influence. This led to the formation of the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact, but with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. led to the end of any buffer zone for Russian security. NATO expansion puts hostile forces directly on Russian borders, and as John Mearsheimer lays out, “[Putin] has publicly spelled out his thinking about Ukraine on numerous occasions over the past two years and he has consistently emphasized that his principal concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially NATO. He has never once hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia .” Russia's continual inability to prevent NATO expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s finally forced resistance to the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus a hostile alliance directly on their border. The idea that democracy and not NATO expansion is the reason for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, is inherently flawed as it is clear from Putin’s statements and Russian actions that preventing Ukrainian admission into NATO was the driving factor behind the invasion. Overall, the argument outlined by Mearsheimer regarding NATO expansion has both historical backing, and inherent rationality about how foreign affairs truly operate, and thus is the superior argument.
The interference in Russia’s sphere of influence, specifically in Ukraine, further details the responsibility that the U.S. holds in the outbreak of the war in February 2022. The ethnic divides within Ukraine continually led to elections between pro-Western and pro-Russian candidates. The election of pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych in the 2010 Ukrainian elections, despite its acknowledgment as free and fair, frustrated Western leaders including the United States, who sought more influence in Ukraine . The 2014 Color Revolutions in Ukraine ousted Yanukovych from power replacing him with a pro-Western government, and the conventional argument is that this “Revolution of Dignity” spontaneously occurred and threatened Russian influence. Person and McFaul highlight the conventional argument that this spontaneous revolution threatened Putin’s influence, writing, “Yanukovych’s decision triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv .” This argument underscores the idea that the thriving of democracy was a direct threat to Putin’s power in Ukraine but fails to account for the American role in the revolution. In leaked phone conversations between Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, discussed the best leader to choose for the new Ukrainian government . At the very least, the West’s continued activity in Russia’s sphere of influence incited the uprising, and in the most sinister form, it was a coup d’état by U.S. covert operations to oust a democratically elected government. Mearsheimer furthers this sentiment by writing, “The continued moving forward with plans to make Ukraine a Western
bastion on Russia’s borders sparked the major crisis in February 2014, after a US-supported uprising caused Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country .” The U.S. involvement in Russian affairs led directly to the Crimean incident and thus precipitated the current conflict in Ukraine. Once again, the argument articulated by Mearsheimer and others that the U.S. has a primary responsibility in the current crisis in Ukraine is supported by the actions during the 2014 Color Revolution.
Finally, the refusal of the United States and the West to engage in true diplomatic negotiations with Russia before the invasion places primary responsibility on them. Russia offered a set of demands in December 2021 outlining that Ukraine should not join NATO and no further expansion of NATO eastward was acceptable to Russia. The conventional argument was that Putin’s demands were inherently unrealistic and any appeasement of Russian interests would lead to further Russian aggression against possible states, such as the Baltics . President Biden, of the conventional argument, insisted that Russia negotiated in bad faith and always sought to invade Ukraine. In his March 2022 speech in Warsaw, he stated, “We offered real diplomacy and concrete proposals to strengthen European security, enhance transparency, and build confidence on all sides. But Putin and Russia met each of the proposals with disinterest in any negotiation, with lies and ultimatums. Russia was bent on violence from the start .” The conventional argument proposes that Russia had unserious demands, but the demands of President Putin in December 2021 directly contradict that stated position. In addition to Putin’s demands refuting the idea of violence as the priority, the West also refused to allow Ukraine to engage in peace talks after the outbreak of the war. Russia and Ukraine had an agreed peace agreement in place in April 2022 that would restore pre-war boundaries and secure non-NATO membership for Ukraine. Fiona Hill and Angela Stent write, “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries .” Instead of furthering these negotiations to secure peace, the West, and specifically Boris Johnson at the behest of the U.S., immediately visited Kyiv to insist on continued Ukrainian fighting against Russia. A suitable peace for both sides was possible only months into the war, but the U.S. and Western European desire to bleed Russia has led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. The lack of good faith negotiations by the U.S. with reasonable Russian demands directly led to not only the start of the conflict but also the continuation of the conflict for over a year longer than both Russia and Ukraine truly desired. Overall, this argument has more truthful evidence than that of President Biden and other U.S. officials that the Russians were solely negotiating in bad faith.
The United States, not Vladimir Putin and Russia, bear the primary responsibility for the current conflict in Ukraine through their continued push to expand NATO, their intervening in Russian affairs and sphere of influence, and their refusal to engage and substantive peace talks both before the war and during the opening months. John Mearsheimer lays out the argument in a much more convincing fashion than that of the liberal internationalists and neoconservatives, who utilize much of the same rhetoric and policies established in the 1980s Cold War. The opportunity for continued cooperation after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the warming of relations in the 1990s was instead met with U.S. hostility and antagonism towards Russia, most notably through NATO expansion. Overall, Mearsheimer’s realist understanding of foreign policy, specifically with his analysis of the historical precedents for invading Russia, Russia’s sphere of influence, and the refusal of the U.S. to engage in productive peace talks, properly define the causes of the current Russo-Ukraine conflict and why the United States is the primary culprit of the war.
The expansion of NATO was inherently not defensive but instead purely an antagonistic action towards Russia that precipitated the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The conventional argument regarding NATO expansion is that the alliance is purely defensive, and thus is not a threat to Russian sovereignty. Putin’s argument that Ukraine’s imminent joining NATO necessitated the 2022 invasion, is rejected by scholars who believe the U.S. bears no responsibility in the war. As Robert Person and Michael McFaul write, “Putin claims that his purpose is to stop NATO expansion. But that’s a fiction. Nothing in the past year in Ukraine-
NATO relations have changed. It is true Ukraine aspires to join NATO someday. But while NATO leaders have remained committed to the principle of an open-door policy, they have also clearly stated that Ukraine today is not qualified to join .” According to this argument, the threat of democracy to Putin and Russia is the true cause of the war as opposed to any fictional concept of NATO expansion. This argument, however, is extremely flawed as it fails to consider the security dilemma and the uncertainty of intentions that dominate foreign policy. Putin and Russia cannot ever have full confidence that NATO would not be utilized for offensive measures against Moscow, which is only five hundred miles from the Ukrainian border. The history of the Twentieth century correlates directly to this fear, as two World Wars proved that invasion through Eastern Europe necessitated a Russian sphere of influence. This led to the formation of the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact, but with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. led to the end of any buffer zone for Russian security. NATO expansion puts hostile forces directly on Russian borders, and as John Mearsheimer lays out, “[Putin] has publicly spelled out his thinking about Ukraine on numerous occasions over the past two years and he has consistently emphasized that his principal concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially NATO. He has never once hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia .” Russia's continual inability to prevent NATO expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s finally forced resistance to the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus a hostile alliance directly on their border. The idea that democracy and not NATO expansion is the reason for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, is inherently flawed as it is clear from Putin’s statements and Russian actions that preventing Ukrainian admission into NATO was the driving factor behind the invasion. Overall, the argument outlined by Mearsheimer regarding NATO expansion has both historical backing, and inherent rationality about how foreign affairs truly operate, and thus is the superior argument.
The interference in Russia’s sphere of influence, specifically in Ukraine, further details the responsibility that the U.S. holds in the outbreak of the war in February 2022. The ethnic divides within Ukraine continually led to elections between pro-Western and pro-Russian candidates. The election of pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych in the 2010 Ukrainian elections, despite its acknowledgment as free and fair, frustrated Western leaders including the United States, who sought more influence in Ukraine . The 2014 Color Revolutions in Ukraine ousted Yanukovych from power replacing him with a pro-Western government, and the conventional argument is that this “Revolution of Dignity” spontaneously occurred and threatened Russian influence. Person and McFaul highlight the conventional argument that this spontaneous revolution threatened Putin’s influence, writing, “Yanukovych’s decision triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv .” This argument underscores the idea that the thriving of democracy was a direct threat to Putin’s power in Ukraine but fails to account for the American role in the revolution. In leaked phone conversations between Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, discussed the best leader to choose for the new Ukrainian government . At the very least, the West’s continued activity in Russia’s sphere of influence incited the uprising, and in the most sinister form, it was a coup d’état by U.S. covert operations to oust a democratically elected government. Mearsheimer furthers this sentiment by writing, “The continued moving forward with plans to make Ukraine a Western
bastion on Russia’s borders sparked the major crisis in February 2014, after a US-supported uprising caused Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country .” The U.S. involvement in Russian affairs led directly to the Crimean incident and thus precipitated the current conflict in Ukraine. Once again, the argument articulated by Mearsheimer and others that the U.S. has a primary responsibility in the current crisis in Ukraine is supported by the actions during the 2014 Color Revolution.
Finally, the refusal of the United States and the West to engage in true diplomatic negotiations with Russia before the invasion places primary responsibility on them. Russia offered a set of demands in December 2021 outlining that Ukraine should not join NATO and no further expansion of NATO eastward was acceptable to Russia. The conventional argument was that Putin’s demands were inherently unrealistic and any appeasement of Russian interests would lead to further Russian aggression against possible states, such as the Baltics . President Biden, of the conventional argument, insisted that Russia negotiated in bad faith and always sought to invade Ukraine. In his March 2022 speech in Warsaw, he stated, “We offered real diplomacy and concrete proposals to strengthen European security, enhance transparency, and build confidence on all sides. But Putin and Russia met each of the proposals with disinterest in any negotiation, with lies and ultimatums. Russia was bent on violence from the start .” The conventional argument proposes that Russia had unserious demands, but the demands of President Putin in December 2021 directly contradict that stated position. In addition to Putin’s demands refuting the idea of violence as the priority, the West also refused to allow Ukraine to engage in peace talks after the outbreak of the war. Russia and Ukraine had an agreed peace agreement in place in April 2022 that would restore pre-war boundaries and secure non-NATO membership for Ukraine. Fiona Hill and Angela Stent write, “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries .” Instead of furthering these negotiations to secure peace, the West, and specifically Boris Johnson at the behest of the U.S., immediately visited Kyiv to insist on continued Ukrainian fighting against Russia. A suitable peace for both sides was possible only months into the war, but the U.S. and Western European desire to bleed Russia has led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. The lack of good faith negotiations by the U.S. with reasonable Russian demands directly led to not only the start of the conflict but also the continuation of the conflict for over a year longer than both Russia and Ukraine truly desired. Overall, this argument has more truthful evidence than that of President Biden and other U.S. officials that the Russians were solely negotiating in bad faith.
The United States, not Vladimir Putin and Russia, bear the primary responsibility for the current conflict in Ukraine through their continued push to expand NATO, their intervening in Russian affairs and sphere of influence, and their refusal to engage and substantive peace talks both before the war and during the opening months. John Mearsheimer lays out the argument in a much more convincing fashion than that of the liberal internationalists and neoconservatives, who utilize much of the same rhetoric and policies established in the 1980s Cold War. The opportunity for continued cooperation after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the warming of relations in the 1990s was instead met with U.S. hostility and antagonism towards Russia, most notably through NATO expansion. Overall, Mearsheimer’s realist understanding of foreign policy, specifically with his analysis of the historical precedents for invading Russia, Russia’s sphere of influence, and the refusal of the U.S. to engage in productive peace talks, properly define the causes of the current Russo-Ukraine conflict and why the United States is the primary culprit of the war.
Winners and Losers from The First Republican Debate - Staff Writer
Biggest Winner: Nikki Haley–The former South Carolina Governor and US Ambassador to the UN was the biggest winner from the debate. She made excellent points and showed a realist approach that I think the party needs. She stood up to and shut down attacks from Pence and Ramaswamy and was very strong on policy and Trump. She was the only candidate who was met with cheers when criticizing Trump. The Milwaukee crowd was very supportive of her, and last night was a huge win for the Haley Campaign. I would expect to see increases in her polling and donor numbers.
Biggest Loser: Mike Pence–While some may disagree with me, I think it was a very rough night for Mike Pence. He was attacked from all sides, chiefly by Ramaswamy. Constantly interrupting the moderators and other candidates without making any good points was not a good look for the former VP. His big moment was that most of the candidates agreed that he did the right thing in certifying the results of the 2020 election. However, aside from that moment, Pence performed poorly overall.
Winner: Vivek Ramaswamy–Very popular with the crowd. Ramaswamy was very aggressive and wasted no time attacking other candidates while supporting former President Trump, which scored him points with the crowd. His “political outsider from a new generation” brand is appealing, however, behind the aggressive attacks he was weak on certain areas, especially foreign policy. The big question for the Ramaswamy campaign is whether he will be able to keep this up against Trump, who similarly uses aggressive attacks in debates and ran on being an outsider in 2016.
Loser: Chris Christie–Christie did exactly what everyone expected him to do: go after former President Donald Trump. This did not make him popular with the crowd at all, and he took a lot of flak for attacking the frontrunner. He had some flashes, such as calling out Ramaswamy for stealing Barack Obama’s “skinny guy with a funny last name” line, but could not fight back against Vivek’s attacks and the boos from the crowd.
Winner: Ron DeSantis–I originally had the Florida governor down as a loser but changed my mind after some thinking. DeSantis did not stand out in the way I was hoping he would as Trump’s biggest contender. I felt that he spent too much time avoiding questions and giving non-answers. However, it was a win for him in that he escaped Milwaukee unscathed. As the leader in the polls behind Trump, DeSantis should be looking to pick up donors and supporters as other Trump-alternatives drop out of the race.
Winner: Tim Scott–The Senator from South Carolina is a winner from the debate, but barely. His message about the American Dream was nice and I felt like it resonated with the crowd. He was active and making good points in the beginning of the debate, however, he disappeared towards the end. Scott had a good night, but it could have gone better.
Losers: Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum–These two were never realistic contenders in my mind, and they would’ve needed big performances to propel them in the polls. Although I think Burgum made some good points, most of the time, these two were absent from the spotlight, and I almost forgot Hutchinson was on stage.
Winner: Donald Trump–The former President and GOP frontrunner skipped the debate for one big reason. Why put himself on a stage where he could be openly attacked or say something that would hurt his very comfortable lead in the polls? Instead, Trump opted to participate in an interview with Tucker Carlson, a controlled environment where he didn’t have to share the camera with any other contenders. While Trump is sitting on a huge lead in the polls, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few other candidates, namely Haley, Ramaswamy, and DeSantis, start to gain some ground. But until they do, Trump can sit back and let this play out.
Biggest Loser: Mike Pence–While some may disagree with me, I think it was a very rough night for Mike Pence. He was attacked from all sides, chiefly by Ramaswamy. Constantly interrupting the moderators and other candidates without making any good points was not a good look for the former VP. His big moment was that most of the candidates agreed that he did the right thing in certifying the results of the 2020 election. However, aside from that moment, Pence performed poorly overall.
Winner: Vivek Ramaswamy–Very popular with the crowd. Ramaswamy was very aggressive and wasted no time attacking other candidates while supporting former President Trump, which scored him points with the crowd. His “political outsider from a new generation” brand is appealing, however, behind the aggressive attacks he was weak on certain areas, especially foreign policy. The big question for the Ramaswamy campaign is whether he will be able to keep this up against Trump, who similarly uses aggressive attacks in debates and ran on being an outsider in 2016.
Loser: Chris Christie–Christie did exactly what everyone expected him to do: go after former President Donald Trump. This did not make him popular with the crowd at all, and he took a lot of flak for attacking the frontrunner. He had some flashes, such as calling out Ramaswamy for stealing Barack Obama’s “skinny guy with a funny last name” line, but could not fight back against Vivek’s attacks and the boos from the crowd.
Winner: Ron DeSantis–I originally had the Florida governor down as a loser but changed my mind after some thinking. DeSantis did not stand out in the way I was hoping he would as Trump’s biggest contender. I felt that he spent too much time avoiding questions and giving non-answers. However, it was a win for him in that he escaped Milwaukee unscathed. As the leader in the polls behind Trump, DeSantis should be looking to pick up donors and supporters as other Trump-alternatives drop out of the race.
Winner: Tim Scott–The Senator from South Carolina is a winner from the debate, but barely. His message about the American Dream was nice and I felt like it resonated with the crowd. He was active and making good points in the beginning of the debate, however, he disappeared towards the end. Scott had a good night, but it could have gone better.
Losers: Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum–These two were never realistic contenders in my mind, and they would’ve needed big performances to propel them in the polls. Although I think Burgum made some good points, most of the time, these two were absent from the spotlight, and I almost forgot Hutchinson was on stage.
Winner: Donald Trump–The former President and GOP frontrunner skipped the debate for one big reason. Why put himself on a stage where he could be openly attacked or say something that would hurt his very comfortable lead in the polls? Instead, Trump opted to participate in an interview with Tucker Carlson, a controlled environment where he didn’t have to share the camera with any other contenders. While Trump is sitting on a huge lead in the polls, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few other candidates, namely Haley, Ramaswamy, and DeSantis, start to gain some ground. But until they do, Trump can sit back and let this play out.
Why Does the Dream Have to Become a Myth? - A Boston College Freshman
As a young conservative attending a university with a very large liberal population, I’ve come to expect to hear things that I don’t agree with politically. There’s nothing wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and each person has the freedom to express those opinions. But something I heard the other day really stuck with me. In one of my classes, I heard the American Dream being defined as a myth, that it wasn’t real. This person was saying that what we call the American Dream is nothing but a figment of our imagination that we can not achieve. I find this claim wild and absurd, and a product of the dangerous anti-patriotism movement that has become popular with the left side of the political spectrum. I am writing this essay in defense of the American Dream, with intent to prove its existence and uphold its significance to the United States.
The American Dream is not a physical object. You can’t hold it in your hand or point to one thing and say, “that’s what it is”. But that doesn’t make it not real. The American Dream is an idea. This idea can be very hard to define, but I will try my best. I think that the best way to do so is to quote our nation's founding document. Almost 250 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and have the same God-given rights to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This powerful line contains the fundamental concepts of our nation, and the American Dream. No matter your background, where you come from, who your parents were, everyone in this nation has an equal chance to be successful and happy. I think the author Micheal Shaara explained it well in his novel, The Killer Angels. He wrote, “No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by what your father was. Here you can be something.” In this great nation, you can be who you want to be and do what you want to do if you put forth the work to achieve your goals. And that is what the American Dream is all about.
In my opinion, claiming that the American Dream is a myth, that it is a made up and unattainable concept, is absurd. The first thing one should do when attempting to prove a point is to present the evidence. My evidence to prove the existence of the American Dream is the American people. Since the late 16th century, well over 400 years ago, people have been coming to America in search of a better life. Millions of people left behind their homelands to sail over a vast ocean and cross a massive continent to start anew. This dream does not apply only to immigrants, but to any person who chose to better their lives here. Soldiers who fought and died to protect this nation and allow future generations to chase their dreams. They were all fueled by the American Dream and had the freedom to achieve it in the United States. Every American today is a product of the American Dream. At some point in their family history, someone left behind their home in search of a new one. Someone decided to work hard to change the circumstances of their life. Someone fought to protect the American Dream for themselves and for their posterity. Whether they were immigrants, pioneers, soldiers, or just hard-working everyday Americans, they have built this country with one thing in mind: achieving the American Dream.
You may say to all of this, what’s the big deal? What does it matter that some people don’t believe in the American Dream? It may not seem like a big problem, but it is. There is a dangerous anti-patriotism and anti-American movement in the far left that continues to pick up steam each day. Supporters of this movement look at the problems in our country and in the world and blame them all on our country. They look at our country’s history and hate the country for the mistakes of the past. Today, anyone that falls on hard times is told that the American system is the cause of their misfortune. In schools, our nation’s youth are taught that our country is evil and that the American Dream was put into place to give Americans false hope for their futures. The anti-American spirit in this country is becoming very dangerous very quickly. If the citizens of the nation have been raised to hate the nation itself, then what chance does it have of surviving?
The solution to all of this, is the American Dream. For hundreds of years, millions of people have followed its call. The American Dream is all about overcoming challenges to make our lives better. Is that not the perfect analogy for how to fix problems in our society? That is how we as a country have corrected our past mistakes and made this nation what it is today. Good people have worked hard to improve American society as it progresses. If there are problems in this society, we should teach our children to overcome them, rather than attempt to tear down the wonderful country that was built by those who came before us.
So, to conclude, I refute the claim that the American Dream is a myth. It has been and continues to be a driving force for the progress of the United States and its people. It is the very foundation of this nation. As long as the spirit of that nation lives on, so does the American Dream. It will forever be real to those who have the courage to chase it.
The American Dream is not a physical object. You can’t hold it in your hand or point to one thing and say, “that’s what it is”. But that doesn’t make it not real. The American Dream is an idea. This idea can be very hard to define, but I will try my best. I think that the best way to do so is to quote our nation's founding document. Almost 250 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and have the same God-given rights to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This powerful line contains the fundamental concepts of our nation, and the American Dream. No matter your background, where you come from, who your parents were, everyone in this nation has an equal chance to be successful and happy. I think the author Micheal Shaara explained it well in his novel, The Killer Angels. He wrote, “No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by what your father was. Here you can be something.” In this great nation, you can be who you want to be and do what you want to do if you put forth the work to achieve your goals. And that is what the American Dream is all about.
In my opinion, claiming that the American Dream is a myth, that it is a made up and unattainable concept, is absurd. The first thing one should do when attempting to prove a point is to present the evidence. My evidence to prove the existence of the American Dream is the American people. Since the late 16th century, well over 400 years ago, people have been coming to America in search of a better life. Millions of people left behind their homelands to sail over a vast ocean and cross a massive continent to start anew. This dream does not apply only to immigrants, but to any person who chose to better their lives here. Soldiers who fought and died to protect this nation and allow future generations to chase their dreams. They were all fueled by the American Dream and had the freedom to achieve it in the United States. Every American today is a product of the American Dream. At some point in their family history, someone left behind their home in search of a new one. Someone decided to work hard to change the circumstances of their life. Someone fought to protect the American Dream for themselves and for their posterity. Whether they were immigrants, pioneers, soldiers, or just hard-working everyday Americans, they have built this country with one thing in mind: achieving the American Dream.
You may say to all of this, what’s the big deal? What does it matter that some people don’t believe in the American Dream? It may not seem like a big problem, but it is. There is a dangerous anti-patriotism and anti-American movement in the far left that continues to pick up steam each day. Supporters of this movement look at the problems in our country and in the world and blame them all on our country. They look at our country’s history and hate the country for the mistakes of the past. Today, anyone that falls on hard times is told that the American system is the cause of their misfortune. In schools, our nation’s youth are taught that our country is evil and that the American Dream was put into place to give Americans false hope for their futures. The anti-American spirit in this country is becoming very dangerous very quickly. If the citizens of the nation have been raised to hate the nation itself, then what chance does it have of surviving?
The solution to all of this, is the American Dream. For hundreds of years, millions of people have followed its call. The American Dream is all about overcoming challenges to make our lives better. Is that not the perfect analogy for how to fix problems in our society? That is how we as a country have corrected our past mistakes and made this nation what it is today. Good people have worked hard to improve American society as it progresses. If there are problems in this society, we should teach our children to overcome them, rather than attempt to tear down the wonderful country that was built by those who came before us.
So, to conclude, I refute the claim that the American Dream is a myth. It has been and continues to be a driving force for the progress of the United States and its people. It is the very foundation of this nation. As long as the spirit of that nation lives on, so does the American Dream. It will forever be real to those who have the courage to chase it.
Why Republicans Haven’t Earned Their Mandate - Carlos Heredia (Originally Published in Tower, December 8th, 2022)
There’s no spinning it: Republicans massively underperformed expectations this midterm. What was expected to be a red wave instead turned out to be a purple puddle: the GOP lost several important gubernatorial races, the Senate, and are on track for a bare House majority.
Although prominent politicians like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden are taking this as a vindication of the Democratic agenda, I would argue the flop had much more to do with Republican incompetence rather than Democrat genius. Inflation and illegal immigration have hit record highs, Biden’s job approval ratings have consistently hovered around the high 30s and low 40s, and an overwhelming majority of people think the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction: this is not what successful governance looks like.
So what happened?
There’s been a lot of blame that’s been thrown around, but I have a hard time seeing how a different slate of candidates would have produced a different result. Given his career background, David McCormick would have certainly done worse than Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania. In Nevada, Laxalt had name recognition and experience as someone who had been elected to statewide office. Although Herschel Walker is a weak candidate there wasn’t ever much of another choice there either. And in Arizona, Blake Masters was also the best out of that crowded primary field. Even if you wanted to be harsh about it, it still looks like all of the least-worst candidates won their primaries. All of these candidates ran very active campaigns, even those in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. These were all fresh new faces for the party.
It’s also hard to pin the blame on Trump when he didn’t really make the election about him. He endorsed in the primaries, rallied in typical Republican areas, and contributed some campaign money to these candidates in the final stretch. Teasing a presidential run before the elections was a bad idea, and he could have given some more financial support for these candidates, but neither of those factors would have been decisive in any of these elections.
So again, what happened?
Republicans did actually run on winning issues, and independent voters were more than willing to vote against Democrats this cycle: virtually every single congressional district saw some sort of shift toward Republicans, and incumbent Senate Democrats in Georgia and Nevada got less than 50% of the vote. They didn’t necessarily like Democrats, but independent voters weren’t ever given much of a reason to vote for Republicans. Living in a much more partisan and divided era means winning independents over is going to require substance, and cookie-cutter “eLeCt Me To StOp BiDeNfLaTiOn!” campaigns aren’t going to cut it.
The only states where the red wave actually hit were ones where Republican candidates provided a clear vision for their state or district. Ron DeSantis won re-election by a landslide, garnering the largest margin of victory for a Republican candidate in Florida since 1868 and confirming the end of its status as a purple state. In New York, Lee Zeldin came closer to the governorship than any other Republican in 20 years, garnering 47.4% of the vote in one of the bluest states in the country. And although Zeldin didn’t win, his coattails were able to pull several congressional candidates over the finish line. A Republican House majority wouldn’t have been possible without those purple and blue seats.
In addition to vision, Republicans need the right logistics too. Fetterman had one of the worst political debate performances in modern history (if not ever) and still managed to win. In Arizona, Katie Hobbs refused to debate her opponent and ran a significantly less substantive campaign. A lot of people will always vote party-line regardless of how good the candidate is (or how effectively that party has actually run the country), so a lot of the pressure is now on turning out that party base. Pennsylvania Democrats in places like Bucks County did an extremely effective job at turning out as many base voters as possible through ballot harvesting. A lot of these candidates were able to rely on these voter turnout machines to the point where campaigning wasn’t even much of a priority for them.
A lot of the new Republican coalition is made up of people who aren’t frequent voters. There has to be more effort put into turning them out in more ways than just in-person voting. In California, Republicans made effective use of ballot harvesting, holding and flipping congressional seats that voted for Biden by double digits. New York Republicans made similar efforts in turning voters out, and Florida Republicans were also able to generate early leads through mail-in ballots.
These midterms were a setback but they present a major opportunity for the GOP to continue transforming itself. They’ve shown that a substantive and appealing platform doesn’t require compromising core values and that good voter outreach is possible and effective when done well. It also showed that running a Republican non/anti-Trump campaign doesn’t work either: Senate candidate Joe O’Dea significantly underperformed Trump in Colorado. The GOP cannot return to its former Romney/Cheney/Bush state if it hopes to remain competitive.
For the upcoming 2024 elections, Republicans have a major opportunity in the House, Senate, and presidency. There’s a lot of hubris among Democratic politicians, and by sticking with Biden’s policies they’re keeping themselves vulnerable. But if Republicans hope to get anywhere they’ll need to be more than the opposition party.
Although prominent politicians like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden are taking this as a vindication of the Democratic agenda, I would argue the flop had much more to do with Republican incompetence rather than Democrat genius. Inflation and illegal immigration have hit record highs, Biden’s job approval ratings have consistently hovered around the high 30s and low 40s, and an overwhelming majority of people think the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction: this is not what successful governance looks like.
So what happened?
There’s been a lot of blame that’s been thrown around, but I have a hard time seeing how a different slate of candidates would have produced a different result. Given his career background, David McCormick would have certainly done worse than Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania. In Nevada, Laxalt had name recognition and experience as someone who had been elected to statewide office. Although Herschel Walker is a weak candidate there wasn’t ever much of another choice there either. And in Arizona, Blake Masters was also the best out of that crowded primary field. Even if you wanted to be harsh about it, it still looks like all of the least-worst candidates won their primaries. All of these candidates ran very active campaigns, even those in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. These were all fresh new faces for the party.
It’s also hard to pin the blame on Trump when he didn’t really make the election about him. He endorsed in the primaries, rallied in typical Republican areas, and contributed some campaign money to these candidates in the final stretch. Teasing a presidential run before the elections was a bad idea, and he could have given some more financial support for these candidates, but neither of those factors would have been decisive in any of these elections.
So again, what happened?
Republicans did actually run on winning issues, and independent voters were more than willing to vote against Democrats this cycle: virtually every single congressional district saw some sort of shift toward Republicans, and incumbent Senate Democrats in Georgia and Nevada got less than 50% of the vote. They didn’t necessarily like Democrats, but independent voters weren’t ever given much of a reason to vote for Republicans. Living in a much more partisan and divided era means winning independents over is going to require substance, and cookie-cutter “eLeCt Me To StOp BiDeNfLaTiOn!” campaigns aren’t going to cut it.
The only states where the red wave actually hit were ones where Republican candidates provided a clear vision for their state or district. Ron DeSantis won re-election by a landslide, garnering the largest margin of victory for a Republican candidate in Florida since 1868 and confirming the end of its status as a purple state. In New York, Lee Zeldin came closer to the governorship than any other Republican in 20 years, garnering 47.4% of the vote in one of the bluest states in the country. And although Zeldin didn’t win, his coattails were able to pull several congressional candidates over the finish line. A Republican House majority wouldn’t have been possible without those purple and blue seats.
In addition to vision, Republicans need the right logistics too. Fetterman had one of the worst political debate performances in modern history (if not ever) and still managed to win. In Arizona, Katie Hobbs refused to debate her opponent and ran a significantly less substantive campaign. A lot of people will always vote party-line regardless of how good the candidate is (or how effectively that party has actually run the country), so a lot of the pressure is now on turning out that party base. Pennsylvania Democrats in places like Bucks County did an extremely effective job at turning out as many base voters as possible through ballot harvesting. A lot of these candidates were able to rely on these voter turnout machines to the point where campaigning wasn’t even much of a priority for them.
A lot of the new Republican coalition is made up of people who aren’t frequent voters. There has to be more effort put into turning them out in more ways than just in-person voting. In California, Republicans made effective use of ballot harvesting, holding and flipping congressional seats that voted for Biden by double digits. New York Republicans made similar efforts in turning voters out, and Florida Republicans were also able to generate early leads through mail-in ballots.
These midterms were a setback but they present a major opportunity for the GOP to continue transforming itself. They’ve shown that a substantive and appealing platform doesn’t require compromising core values and that good voter outreach is possible and effective when done well. It also showed that running a Republican non/anti-Trump campaign doesn’t work either: Senate candidate Joe O’Dea significantly underperformed Trump in Colorado. The GOP cannot return to its former Romney/Cheney/Bush state if it hopes to remain competitive.
For the upcoming 2024 elections, Republicans have a major opportunity in the House, Senate, and presidency. There’s a lot of hubris among Democratic politicians, and by sticking with Biden’s policies they’re keeping themselves vulnerable. But if Republicans hope to get anywhere they’ll need to be more than the opposition party.
A New Plan for the Future - Dan Genovese
As the 2024 election cycle looms, American voters are faced with a significant choice. This choice comes with some groups of voters not feeling represented, some feeling swindled, some not wanting to participate, some tired of all the chaos, and some wanting a return to sanity in government. Republicans have a unique opportunity to turn the tide and bring the country back to a place where members of both parties can feel proud again. But to do that Republicans need a new coherent plan built from the ground up, that needs to be enacted quickly and swiftly to be able to turn the tide, and elect candidates in all levels of government that will be dedicated to being Republicans.
This new plan has to be a multifaceted approach with a big-picture focus not just on 2024 but beyond as well to make sure the Republican Party stays relevant and does something it hasn't done since 2016 which is win decisively. Right-wing ideals are still alive and well, but a new way to win must be crafted to represent the changing ideas and coalitions of voters in the United States. This plan has many moving parts and is embodied by candidates who share electability, likeability, fine-tuned messaging, and campaigns based on conservative principles.
The perfect emblems of this new plan are the following Republicans: Ron DeSantis, Glenn Youngkin, Lee Zeldin, and Jeff Landry.
These Republicans share many commonalities that enable their successes and should be reflected on as the 2024 cycle begins. First, all of these were top-ticket Republicans who had electoral coattails that followed them wherever they went. This means the impact of winning was much bigger than their one seat alone. DeSantis has led Florida to be a safe Republican state with untouchable supermajorities. Youngkin delivered the top three statewide offices in Virginia to Republicans as well as played a role in flipping the lower House of Delegates to Republicans in a state where Biden won by 10%. Zeldin’s role was different because his coattails greatly influenced other races because of the strength of his campaign. Even though he lost, it turned out voters to flip 3 key districts in New York, handing over control of the US House of Representatives to Republicans. Zeldin was also essential to Republicans making gains in both houses of the New York state legislature. The most recent example of this coattail phenomenon was a few weeks ago when Jeff Landry won the open all-party gubernatorial primary in Louisiana without a runoff, flipping the seat and expanding Republican supermajorities in the Louisiana State legislature. These four candidates have set up their state's infrastructures perfectly for the 2023 and 2024 cycles because now they have the opportunity to build on what they did in 2020, 2021, and 2022, possibly adding successes and wins that the voters themselves will directly feel and see every day.
These Republicans also share another important attribute of being unapologetically conservative and running on those conservative ideals as part of their platform. This is essential to any Republican running anywhere competitive and producing a winning formula in the next few years. What this means is running on a platform that caters to the “MAGA” voters, moderate-suburban voters, working-class voters, and low-propensity voters simultaneously, coming together to create a winning coalition.
In all of these cases, each campaign platform had to be carefully crafted to represent what the average voter is seeing and feeling at the time of the election as well as in different regions. New York is different from Virginia and Louisiana is different from Florida. This was reflected in these four Republicans’ respective platforms to turn out as many Republican votes as possible. For example, all four of these candidates embraced a common-sense platform on abortion that was receptive by pro-life and pro-choice voters because it wasn't extreme enough for the media to cover it negatively. Also, that negative coverage was unable to land with voters, which made abortion, not an issue where other more important topics faced more scrutiny. Suburban moderates and working-class voters didn't have to worry as much about abortion policy because they weren't hearing about it, and the “MAGA” voters were in favor of the proposed policies because it was better than anything Democrats proposed, which they saw as a win. These candidates took on education, crime, the economy, the immigration crisis, and plenty of other issues in that same way. They stood their ground offering solutions that seemed common sense to the median voter and heroic to the “MAGA” voters, which was enough to guide them to their respective victories.
This leads to the next point, messaging. All of these candidates had an excellent, cohesive, and direct messaging game regarding the campaign. All of them focused on what Democrats were doing on the legislative level that was directly hurting them. Inflation was a big issue where the consequences were tangible because grocery prices went up, and a comparison was made in people's minds to what it was versus what is happening now. This thought of comparison of then vs now also was important when people saw the videos of school board meetings in Virginia that showed what Democrats’ education policies were and a comparison of what it was before, and then they voted accordingly. The messaging worked because of the then vs now comparison that was seen through tangible things as well as Republicans being the arbiter of common sense in these cases. These two things alone clawed back a lot of moderate-suburban voters, made low-propensity voters turn out, and illustrated to the MAGA voters that a common-sense conservative could do good things that would benefit them. This intelligence on messaging didn't go unnoticed which is why these Republicans were wise to move away from the socialism message that was relatively ineffective in 2020 to this new brand of messaging that led to wins in 2021 and 2022.
With the messaging aspect, all of these Republicans also offered a new perspective on early in-person voting and absentee voting. Youngkin has been a pioneer in expanding early in-person voting and telling Republicans to embrace absentee voting in Virginia. DeSantis also has emphasized ballot harvesting when applicable in his presidential campaign. All of these Republicans realize that to win they must play with the rules that the Democrats have crafted instead of dismissing them or alleging fraud. That in itself has contributed mightily to their campaigns with especially the early in-person vote trending more Republican by the cycle everywhere.
Another key aspect of being successful is likeability by more than one voter group. These Republicans came off as very likable people who were relatable to the common person. Some served in the military and were in other jobs relating to public service like attorneys. Their personalities were of the utmost importance because the media couldn’t attack them for being bad people, or if they did they fell very flat. They also weren't firebrand conservatives seeking the attention of the national media, trying to boost their egos. This is especially important for the moderate-suburban voters who pay attention to the news regularly because they see the policy as well as the person, and they cast their votes accordingly. In these four cases, they saw these Republicans as not crazy which in these days goes a long way in winning elections.
Now for 2024, Republicans must choose a Presidential nominee who embodies these qualities. It is the only path to true victory because victory is bigger than just the President. Republicans need majorities in both Houses of Congress and need to make gains in state legislative seats that they have lost in recent years to enact a conservative agenda that delivers tangible results for the voters that put them there. To do this a strong top-of-the-ticket is needed with a Presidential nominee that can turn out the “MAGA” vote, attract moderate-suburban voters who want a “return to sanity”, and turn out low-propensity voters. To win, a Republican with coattails, effective messaging, and likeability is needed who emphasizes the necessity of early and absentee voting.
There are a lot of candidates running in 2024 who can embody these characteristics to win elections, but also make substantive policies that will turn the country around. This is a sigh of relief for the future of the Republican Party, but at the same time, more work needs to be done so that every candidate is like this in the future.
This new plan has to be a multifaceted approach with a big-picture focus not just on 2024 but beyond as well to make sure the Republican Party stays relevant and does something it hasn't done since 2016 which is win decisively. Right-wing ideals are still alive and well, but a new way to win must be crafted to represent the changing ideas and coalitions of voters in the United States. This plan has many moving parts and is embodied by candidates who share electability, likeability, fine-tuned messaging, and campaigns based on conservative principles.
The perfect emblems of this new plan are the following Republicans: Ron DeSantis, Glenn Youngkin, Lee Zeldin, and Jeff Landry.
These Republicans share many commonalities that enable their successes and should be reflected on as the 2024 cycle begins. First, all of these were top-ticket Republicans who had electoral coattails that followed them wherever they went. This means the impact of winning was much bigger than their one seat alone. DeSantis has led Florida to be a safe Republican state with untouchable supermajorities. Youngkin delivered the top three statewide offices in Virginia to Republicans as well as played a role in flipping the lower House of Delegates to Republicans in a state where Biden won by 10%. Zeldin’s role was different because his coattails greatly influenced other races because of the strength of his campaign. Even though he lost, it turned out voters to flip 3 key districts in New York, handing over control of the US House of Representatives to Republicans. Zeldin was also essential to Republicans making gains in both houses of the New York state legislature. The most recent example of this coattail phenomenon was a few weeks ago when Jeff Landry won the open all-party gubernatorial primary in Louisiana without a runoff, flipping the seat and expanding Republican supermajorities in the Louisiana State legislature. These four candidates have set up their state's infrastructures perfectly for the 2023 and 2024 cycles because now they have the opportunity to build on what they did in 2020, 2021, and 2022, possibly adding successes and wins that the voters themselves will directly feel and see every day.
These Republicans also share another important attribute of being unapologetically conservative and running on those conservative ideals as part of their platform. This is essential to any Republican running anywhere competitive and producing a winning formula in the next few years. What this means is running on a platform that caters to the “MAGA” voters, moderate-suburban voters, working-class voters, and low-propensity voters simultaneously, coming together to create a winning coalition.
In all of these cases, each campaign platform had to be carefully crafted to represent what the average voter is seeing and feeling at the time of the election as well as in different regions. New York is different from Virginia and Louisiana is different from Florida. This was reflected in these four Republicans’ respective platforms to turn out as many Republican votes as possible. For example, all four of these candidates embraced a common-sense platform on abortion that was receptive by pro-life and pro-choice voters because it wasn't extreme enough for the media to cover it negatively. Also, that negative coverage was unable to land with voters, which made abortion, not an issue where other more important topics faced more scrutiny. Suburban moderates and working-class voters didn't have to worry as much about abortion policy because they weren't hearing about it, and the “MAGA” voters were in favor of the proposed policies because it was better than anything Democrats proposed, which they saw as a win. These candidates took on education, crime, the economy, the immigration crisis, and plenty of other issues in that same way. They stood their ground offering solutions that seemed common sense to the median voter and heroic to the “MAGA” voters, which was enough to guide them to their respective victories.
This leads to the next point, messaging. All of these candidates had an excellent, cohesive, and direct messaging game regarding the campaign. All of them focused on what Democrats were doing on the legislative level that was directly hurting them. Inflation was a big issue where the consequences were tangible because grocery prices went up, and a comparison was made in people's minds to what it was versus what is happening now. This thought of comparison of then vs now also was important when people saw the videos of school board meetings in Virginia that showed what Democrats’ education policies were and a comparison of what it was before, and then they voted accordingly. The messaging worked because of the then vs now comparison that was seen through tangible things as well as Republicans being the arbiter of common sense in these cases. These two things alone clawed back a lot of moderate-suburban voters, made low-propensity voters turn out, and illustrated to the MAGA voters that a common-sense conservative could do good things that would benefit them. This intelligence on messaging didn't go unnoticed which is why these Republicans were wise to move away from the socialism message that was relatively ineffective in 2020 to this new brand of messaging that led to wins in 2021 and 2022.
With the messaging aspect, all of these Republicans also offered a new perspective on early in-person voting and absentee voting. Youngkin has been a pioneer in expanding early in-person voting and telling Republicans to embrace absentee voting in Virginia. DeSantis also has emphasized ballot harvesting when applicable in his presidential campaign. All of these Republicans realize that to win they must play with the rules that the Democrats have crafted instead of dismissing them or alleging fraud. That in itself has contributed mightily to their campaigns with especially the early in-person vote trending more Republican by the cycle everywhere.
Another key aspect of being successful is likeability by more than one voter group. These Republicans came off as very likable people who were relatable to the common person. Some served in the military and were in other jobs relating to public service like attorneys. Their personalities were of the utmost importance because the media couldn’t attack them for being bad people, or if they did they fell very flat. They also weren't firebrand conservatives seeking the attention of the national media, trying to boost their egos. This is especially important for the moderate-suburban voters who pay attention to the news regularly because they see the policy as well as the person, and they cast their votes accordingly. In these four cases, they saw these Republicans as not crazy which in these days goes a long way in winning elections.
Now for 2024, Republicans must choose a Presidential nominee who embodies these qualities. It is the only path to true victory because victory is bigger than just the President. Republicans need majorities in both Houses of Congress and need to make gains in state legislative seats that they have lost in recent years to enact a conservative agenda that delivers tangible results for the voters that put them there. To do this a strong top-of-the-ticket is needed with a Presidential nominee that can turn out the “MAGA” vote, attract moderate-suburban voters who want a “return to sanity”, and turn out low-propensity voters. To win, a Republican with coattails, effective messaging, and likeability is needed who emphasizes the necessity of early and absentee voting.
There are a lot of candidates running in 2024 who can embody these characteristics to win elections, but also make substantive policies that will turn the country around. This is a sigh of relief for the future of the Republican Party, but at the same time, more work needs to be done so that every candidate is like this in the future.
Constitutional Textual-Originalism: The Common-Sense Interpretation - Chris Casale
Constitutional semantics are frequently confusing. Textual-Originalism means: A method of interpreting the Constitution which discerns and adheres to the meaning of the text as the public would have understood it when it was ratified. It makes no effort to discern hidden intent of the authors, but merely to discern what the words mean in the context of the time period in which they were written. Textual-Originalism is flawed, but the Living Document Doctrine is a weaker approach because it provides no stable grounds for consensus, paves the way for partisan power struggles in the courts, and does not limit judicial overreach. Conversely, Textual originalism rightly limits judicial bias and power; it retains a single standard of law while succumbing only to flaws the likes of which any court must face.
Although Textual-Originalism is the common sense interpretation, it is not perfect. The most glaring downside is that judges who agree on the method of interpretation may very well still disagree on what the text means. Just because two different justices believe we should interpret it as it was meant to be interpreted by the people to whom it was originally promulgated does not mean they both will agree on what that meaning was. Furthermore, agreeing to always execute a law according to an external standard rather than being swayed by emotion or even righteous desire can sometimes produce problematic results. Justice Neil Gorsuch writes on this:
“The “judicial Power” of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people. But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those “bad” results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be?”
In spite of his procedural example, Gorsuch is not saying that procedural issues are the key objects of originalism. He is saying it is better to have a consistent application even if the outcome is sometimes suboptimal. Moreover, Textual-Originalism asks Justices to step outside what might be considered their job description and become historians too. Interpreting what a law meant to people hundreds of years ago is no easy task. It requires hours of semantic research and understanding of historical contexts. This monumental task may be difficult for judges; it is not their area of expertise. What is important to note about these pitfalls is that, though present, they are nearly universal in any interpretative style. Disagreements about historical or cultural context and wording and execution will be present no matter which style is chosen; they just manifest themselves in different ways. Textual-Originalism is clearly faulty, but has no vice which itself disqualifies the method as valid.
Not only is Textual-Originalism flawed, but the Living Document Doctrine proponents have some strong arguments. The Constitution is a fundamentally public text. Its opening words are “We the People,” so should all people of the United States both past and present not have something to say about it? Additionally, the Constitution is ambiguous in certain sections. It may be easier and more straightforward to interpret the issue based on modern standards rather than antiquated ones. It might prove impossible to understand what the words meant at the time they were written. A living document interpretation will be more decisive and not be subject to the difficulty of penetrating the full historical meaning of the Constitution's provisions. Essentially, the argument for the Living Constitution is a practically centered one. The Doctrine focuses on the real people and real consequences involved in a decision. Justice William Brennan summarizes his view with the words of another Constitutional scholar and Justice:
“[According to] the words of an esteemed predecessor, Justice Robert Jackson, the burden of judicial interpretation is to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century.”
Living Document proponents make a very compelling point. When the Judiciary must rule, let them interpret in a way which fulfills the promises of the Constitution in a modern context and reflects the will of the people. The Constitution is after all a document of the people. Perhaps it is in fact their interpretation that is common sense?
In spite of these apparent virtues of Living Document Doctrine, Textual Originalism remains superior. Yes the Constitution was a “public document” at the time. It was, however, only ratified relatively democratically. The framing and writing might even be classified as somewhat oligarchical. The small group of Framers intended for the Constitution to be a check on the fickle troubles of democracy. The phrase “We the People” refers to consent to enter into the contract; it does not indicate that each person must have their own hand in its formulation. Moreover, the amendment process allows people to still have a hand in the Constitution today; The framers intended for the Constitution to be changed, but never for the judiciary to do it. It is ironic that Brennan would suggest Living Document interpretation is a solution for ambiguity. Nothing is more ambiguous or ever-changing than the will of a modern, hyper connected nation. The purpose of the Judiciary is to defend us against the tyranny of the majority based on a document which a level headed nation collectively agreed was right. Brennan’s Approach ignores the potential tyranny of the majority against which the Judiciary is supposed to be a check, and the sheer impossibility of determining a community consensus.
Textual-Originalism, unlike the Living Document Doctrine, curbs judicial power and potential bias. Justice Brennan claims that, “When justices interpret the Constitution they speak for their community, not for themselves alone.” This interpretation is defective and can encourage judicial overreach and bias. The United States was founded on a series of checks and balances to curb our worst impulses and which assume the fallen and flawed nature of man. Unlike Textual-Originalism, Brennan’s approach leaves the people at the mercy of individual people rather than a set document. Even if the document is flawed, it can both be amended and has the benefit of being readily available and transparent as a single standard. If a justice can define abstract terms like “their community” and use those terms to dictate their decision, it introduces a dangerous relativism to the law. The term “community” is not a term which has any real meaning; it is a politician's term and justices are not supposed to be like politicians. Justice Brennan or Sotomayor or any other Living Document proponents have never issued a national poll to decide a case. One might draw the inference that they are judging based on their own personal convictions. Like the framers, one must judge a civil institution by how it would curb the worst impulses of its users. The living document interpretation would allow a truly biased judge to rule however he or she pleased and simply claim that their ruling speaks for the community whether or not it has any grounds in the text or original understanding thereof. It leads only to infighting and attempts to legislate from the bench because a Living Document interpretation is so vague and arbitrary that it allows for justices to have a wider array of possible viewpoints.
Nowhere is the evidence of judicial overreach, and influence of personal conviction more evident than in the case of Roe v. Wade. In 1973, seven out of nine justices determined that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (“[shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) implies a right to privacy and that a right to privacy somehow protects a right to an abortion. Abortion was (and still is) a hotly contentious debate in the nation at the time, there was no “community consensus” on what to do. This court made up a right where it clearly does not and never did exist. Even Justice Ginsburg, a known progressive justice, did not think this decision was built upon a solid foundation. Furthermore, determining current societal standards and norms is the province of the legislature. It is not and never has been a judge's job to determine what the people want. Attempting to claim that power from the legislature is gross overreach of judicial authority with myriad possible repercussions. The insertion of personal conviction is apparent in the dissent of the 2022 overturn of Roe and Casey. After the court overturned the former precedent, the dissenting justices (all proponents of the living document doctrine) made their case without much reference to the Constitution at all. Instead, they “accuse the Court of discarding the “balance” the court struck for half a century as it found a middle ground between “respecting a woman as an autonomous being” and protecting the life of a fetus.” Whether or not the precedent struck a nice balance is irrelevant. The only contents of the dissent ought to be an analysis of how the Constitution actually does support the decision. The liberal justices have blatantly inserted their own opinion; to say that Roe struck a good balance and therefore should be upheld is a clear opinion and not based in the Constitutionality of the case whatsoever. Clearly, the espoused virtues of Living Document Doctrine fail to check the impulses of a biased, activist bench.
Textual-Originalism provides a single standard of law which justices may aspire to discern. This results in a more effective, upright, and predictable court. By the definition of the term, Textual-Originalism holds the judges accountable to an external standard of law rather than an internal belief about what people want. That is to say that under Textual-originalism, a justice must be able to point to the place in the text where they found the evidence for their ruling. A living document proponent must simply say “it would be better this way in modern America.” Under this system, it is not the job of the court to define the law but rather to find the definition of the law. Though judges may disagree where it is, they are all looking for the same thing. Much like a Socratic Form, the true understanding of the words at the time may be impossible to discern completely accurately but at least it is a single standard to strive towards. Meanwhile, the Living Document Doctrine does not look for an objective truth. Yes, Scalia acknowledges that it may be hard to discern a meaning everytime and there may be multiple options, but, even if it impossible to know for certain, there is and must necessarily exist a single interpretation which was most widely understood to be the law at the time the Constitution or any bill was ratified. In spite of the impossibility of always discerning this definition, Textual-Originalism at very least winnows down possibilities and thus still curbs confusion over what the law could mean. Living Document Doctrine must change as people change. This leads to confusion and opacity about the true meaning of a law. Under the doctrine, precedents are meaningless because a precedent ought to be overturned as soon as the will of “the community” changes. It is chaotic. This matters because “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property (natural rights: life liberty and possessions).” The natural law is “the standard that God has set for the actions of men.” The government exists chiefly to preserve our natural rights and to uphold the natural laws. At its core, The Living Document Doctrine treats laws as an arbitrary human invention rather than a necessary evil due to our fallen state. This is all to say that the will of the people does not matter in certain decisions, namely decisions about fundamental rights. Certain laws cannot change. If the people wish to enact a law counter to the natural law, those people must re-enter the state of nature without taking all of civil society with them. The Constitution is the enshrined protection of the natural law and certain rights which extend from it. To interpret it based on the will of the populace is to fail to recognize its purpose as a higher level of law: protection against the whims of the mob. Many claim that the founding words are too old or go out of date, but “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” are not words which can “go out of date.” The greatest threat to civil society is legislation based on whims and fads. Luckily our checks and balances in the legislature still work. Now then, the largest threat to our civil society must be legislation from the bench where whims and fads were supposed to never reach. Textual-Originalism is the answer.
The Living Document Doctrine is on the whole defective. Primarily it is defective because there is no way to reach a consensus on the will of the community. The community has devolved into the hyper polarized twitter mob. Most normal and calm Americans don’t even bother trying to make their voices heard. Qualified intellectuals are consistently shouted down, and no one listens to each other. We are at perhaps our most polarized time since the civil war. Entrenched in this quagmire of voices, how is a justice supposed to accurately gauge one consensus of the nation’s desire? John Adams wrote in a letter that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If we had a majority of moral and religious people in the United States, perhaps the Living Document Doctrine could work, but it does not require scientific examination to see that our nation meets none of those criteria. Our people are polarized, immoral, and secular. The most significant defect of judicial review in the first place was that people may not agree on how to interpret the text. While Textual-Originalism may provide a few possibilities at worst, Living Document Doctrine exacerbates that issue by presenting innumerable possible interpretations. Without a clear way to reach a consensus, the court becomes a matter of personal opinion. This type (or lack) of jurisprudence will lead to tyrannical policies like court packing becoming popular again. The decisions of the court will effectively be dependent on the results of the popular elections, the opposite of the intended purpose. Talks of such action are already in the air among some of the most prominent left wing politicians. Brennan claims that
“Judicial review is appropriate only to the extent of ensuring that our democratic process functions smoothly. Thus, for example, we would protect freedom of speech merely to ensure that the people are heard by their representatives, rather than as a separate, substantive value. When, by contrast, society tosses up to the Supreme Court a dispute that would require invalidation of a legislature's substantive policy choice, the Court generally would stay its hand.”
In essence, he is claiming that the Constitution is not meant to override lesser legislature, it is meant to ensure democracy (or at least it can only be enforced that way.) The problem is that the Judiciary is not supposed to be democratic, it is a check on democracy. The Constitution’s exact purpose is to overturn hasty and faulty legislation. Making the Judiciary subject to democratic whims erases its purpose. Others claim that abandoning originalism invites us to expand our freedoms. While true, the most terrifying part of that sentiment is the reverse. If Living Document doctrine can so easily expand out freedoms, it must be able to constrict them in the same way.
The Constitution is delicate. The careful system of checks and balances is constructed in a careful and deliberate manner. A court which does not respect the meaning as it was first promulgated to the people is dangerous. Textual-Originalism is the common sense approach to Constitutional interpretation.
Although Textual-Originalism is the common sense interpretation, it is not perfect. The most glaring downside is that judges who agree on the method of interpretation may very well still disagree on what the text means. Just because two different justices believe we should interpret it as it was meant to be interpreted by the people to whom it was originally promulgated does not mean they both will agree on what that meaning was. Furthermore, agreeing to always execute a law according to an external standard rather than being swayed by emotion or even righteous desire can sometimes produce problematic results. Justice Neil Gorsuch writes on this:
“The “judicial Power” of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people. But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those “bad” results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be?”
In spite of his procedural example, Gorsuch is not saying that procedural issues are the key objects of originalism. He is saying it is better to have a consistent application even if the outcome is sometimes suboptimal. Moreover, Textual-Originalism asks Justices to step outside what might be considered their job description and become historians too. Interpreting what a law meant to people hundreds of years ago is no easy task. It requires hours of semantic research and understanding of historical contexts. This monumental task may be difficult for judges; it is not their area of expertise. What is important to note about these pitfalls is that, though present, they are nearly universal in any interpretative style. Disagreements about historical or cultural context and wording and execution will be present no matter which style is chosen; they just manifest themselves in different ways. Textual-Originalism is clearly faulty, but has no vice which itself disqualifies the method as valid.
Not only is Textual-Originalism flawed, but the Living Document Doctrine proponents have some strong arguments. The Constitution is a fundamentally public text. Its opening words are “We the People,” so should all people of the United States both past and present not have something to say about it? Additionally, the Constitution is ambiguous in certain sections. It may be easier and more straightforward to interpret the issue based on modern standards rather than antiquated ones. It might prove impossible to understand what the words meant at the time they were written. A living document interpretation will be more decisive and not be subject to the difficulty of penetrating the full historical meaning of the Constitution's provisions. Essentially, the argument for the Living Constitution is a practically centered one. The Doctrine focuses on the real people and real consequences involved in a decision. Justice William Brennan summarizes his view with the words of another Constitutional scholar and Justice:
“[According to] the words of an esteemed predecessor, Justice Robert Jackson, the burden of judicial interpretation is to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century.”
Living Document proponents make a very compelling point. When the Judiciary must rule, let them interpret in a way which fulfills the promises of the Constitution in a modern context and reflects the will of the people. The Constitution is after all a document of the people. Perhaps it is in fact their interpretation that is common sense?
In spite of these apparent virtues of Living Document Doctrine, Textual Originalism remains superior. Yes the Constitution was a “public document” at the time. It was, however, only ratified relatively democratically. The framing and writing might even be classified as somewhat oligarchical. The small group of Framers intended for the Constitution to be a check on the fickle troubles of democracy. The phrase “We the People” refers to consent to enter into the contract; it does not indicate that each person must have their own hand in its formulation. Moreover, the amendment process allows people to still have a hand in the Constitution today; The framers intended for the Constitution to be changed, but never for the judiciary to do it. It is ironic that Brennan would suggest Living Document interpretation is a solution for ambiguity. Nothing is more ambiguous or ever-changing than the will of a modern, hyper connected nation. The purpose of the Judiciary is to defend us against the tyranny of the majority based on a document which a level headed nation collectively agreed was right. Brennan’s Approach ignores the potential tyranny of the majority against which the Judiciary is supposed to be a check, and the sheer impossibility of determining a community consensus.
Textual-Originalism, unlike the Living Document Doctrine, curbs judicial power and potential bias. Justice Brennan claims that, “When justices interpret the Constitution they speak for their community, not for themselves alone.” This interpretation is defective and can encourage judicial overreach and bias. The United States was founded on a series of checks and balances to curb our worst impulses and which assume the fallen and flawed nature of man. Unlike Textual-Originalism, Brennan’s approach leaves the people at the mercy of individual people rather than a set document. Even if the document is flawed, it can both be amended and has the benefit of being readily available and transparent as a single standard. If a justice can define abstract terms like “their community” and use those terms to dictate their decision, it introduces a dangerous relativism to the law. The term “community” is not a term which has any real meaning; it is a politician's term and justices are not supposed to be like politicians. Justice Brennan or Sotomayor or any other Living Document proponents have never issued a national poll to decide a case. One might draw the inference that they are judging based on their own personal convictions. Like the framers, one must judge a civil institution by how it would curb the worst impulses of its users. The living document interpretation would allow a truly biased judge to rule however he or she pleased and simply claim that their ruling speaks for the community whether or not it has any grounds in the text or original understanding thereof. It leads only to infighting and attempts to legislate from the bench because a Living Document interpretation is so vague and arbitrary that it allows for justices to have a wider array of possible viewpoints.
Nowhere is the evidence of judicial overreach, and influence of personal conviction more evident than in the case of Roe v. Wade. In 1973, seven out of nine justices determined that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (“[shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) implies a right to privacy and that a right to privacy somehow protects a right to an abortion. Abortion was (and still is) a hotly contentious debate in the nation at the time, there was no “community consensus” on what to do. This court made up a right where it clearly does not and never did exist. Even Justice Ginsburg, a known progressive justice, did not think this decision was built upon a solid foundation. Furthermore, determining current societal standards and norms is the province of the legislature. It is not and never has been a judge's job to determine what the people want. Attempting to claim that power from the legislature is gross overreach of judicial authority with myriad possible repercussions. The insertion of personal conviction is apparent in the dissent of the 2022 overturn of Roe and Casey. After the court overturned the former precedent, the dissenting justices (all proponents of the living document doctrine) made their case without much reference to the Constitution at all. Instead, they “accuse the Court of discarding the “balance” the court struck for half a century as it found a middle ground between “respecting a woman as an autonomous being” and protecting the life of a fetus.” Whether or not the precedent struck a nice balance is irrelevant. The only contents of the dissent ought to be an analysis of how the Constitution actually does support the decision. The liberal justices have blatantly inserted their own opinion; to say that Roe struck a good balance and therefore should be upheld is a clear opinion and not based in the Constitutionality of the case whatsoever. Clearly, the espoused virtues of Living Document Doctrine fail to check the impulses of a biased, activist bench.
Textual-Originalism provides a single standard of law which justices may aspire to discern. This results in a more effective, upright, and predictable court. By the definition of the term, Textual-Originalism holds the judges accountable to an external standard of law rather than an internal belief about what people want. That is to say that under Textual-originalism, a justice must be able to point to the place in the text where they found the evidence for their ruling. A living document proponent must simply say “it would be better this way in modern America.” Under this system, it is not the job of the court to define the law but rather to find the definition of the law. Though judges may disagree where it is, they are all looking for the same thing. Much like a Socratic Form, the true understanding of the words at the time may be impossible to discern completely accurately but at least it is a single standard to strive towards. Meanwhile, the Living Document Doctrine does not look for an objective truth. Yes, Scalia acknowledges that it may be hard to discern a meaning everytime and there may be multiple options, but, even if it impossible to know for certain, there is and must necessarily exist a single interpretation which was most widely understood to be the law at the time the Constitution or any bill was ratified. In spite of the impossibility of always discerning this definition, Textual-Originalism at very least winnows down possibilities and thus still curbs confusion over what the law could mean. Living Document Doctrine must change as people change. This leads to confusion and opacity about the true meaning of a law. Under the doctrine, precedents are meaningless because a precedent ought to be overturned as soon as the will of “the community” changes. It is chaotic. This matters because “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property (natural rights: life liberty and possessions).” The natural law is “the standard that God has set for the actions of men.” The government exists chiefly to preserve our natural rights and to uphold the natural laws. At its core, The Living Document Doctrine treats laws as an arbitrary human invention rather than a necessary evil due to our fallen state. This is all to say that the will of the people does not matter in certain decisions, namely decisions about fundamental rights. Certain laws cannot change. If the people wish to enact a law counter to the natural law, those people must re-enter the state of nature without taking all of civil society with them. The Constitution is the enshrined protection of the natural law and certain rights which extend from it. To interpret it based on the will of the populace is to fail to recognize its purpose as a higher level of law: protection against the whims of the mob. Many claim that the founding words are too old or go out of date, but “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” are not words which can “go out of date.” The greatest threat to civil society is legislation based on whims and fads. Luckily our checks and balances in the legislature still work. Now then, the largest threat to our civil society must be legislation from the bench where whims and fads were supposed to never reach. Textual-Originalism is the answer.
The Living Document Doctrine is on the whole defective. Primarily it is defective because there is no way to reach a consensus on the will of the community. The community has devolved into the hyper polarized twitter mob. Most normal and calm Americans don’t even bother trying to make their voices heard. Qualified intellectuals are consistently shouted down, and no one listens to each other. We are at perhaps our most polarized time since the civil war. Entrenched in this quagmire of voices, how is a justice supposed to accurately gauge one consensus of the nation’s desire? John Adams wrote in a letter that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If we had a majority of moral and religious people in the United States, perhaps the Living Document Doctrine could work, but it does not require scientific examination to see that our nation meets none of those criteria. Our people are polarized, immoral, and secular. The most significant defect of judicial review in the first place was that people may not agree on how to interpret the text. While Textual-Originalism may provide a few possibilities at worst, Living Document Doctrine exacerbates that issue by presenting innumerable possible interpretations. Without a clear way to reach a consensus, the court becomes a matter of personal opinion. This type (or lack) of jurisprudence will lead to tyrannical policies like court packing becoming popular again. The decisions of the court will effectively be dependent on the results of the popular elections, the opposite of the intended purpose. Talks of such action are already in the air among some of the most prominent left wing politicians. Brennan claims that
“Judicial review is appropriate only to the extent of ensuring that our democratic process functions smoothly. Thus, for example, we would protect freedom of speech merely to ensure that the people are heard by their representatives, rather than as a separate, substantive value. When, by contrast, society tosses up to the Supreme Court a dispute that would require invalidation of a legislature's substantive policy choice, the Court generally would stay its hand.”
In essence, he is claiming that the Constitution is not meant to override lesser legislature, it is meant to ensure democracy (or at least it can only be enforced that way.) The problem is that the Judiciary is not supposed to be democratic, it is a check on democracy. The Constitution’s exact purpose is to overturn hasty and faulty legislation. Making the Judiciary subject to democratic whims erases its purpose. Others claim that abandoning originalism invites us to expand our freedoms. While true, the most terrifying part of that sentiment is the reverse. If Living Document doctrine can so easily expand out freedoms, it must be able to constrict them in the same way.
The Constitution is delicate. The careful system of checks and balances is constructed in a careful and deliberate manner. A court which does not respect the meaning as it was first promulgated to the people is dangerous. Textual-Originalism is the common sense approach to Constitutional interpretation.
A Lost Edition of Julius Caesar, found in Shakespeare’s Papers - Marc Antony
Friends, Republicans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury McCarthy, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interréd with their bones;
So let it be with Kevin. The noble Gentleman from Florida
Hath told you Kevin was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Kevin answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Gaetz and the rest–
For Gaetz is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Kevin’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Andy Biggs says he was ambitious;
And Andy Biggs is an honourable man.
He hath brought many donors home to Rome
Whose donations did the campaign coffers fill:
Did this in Kevin seem ambitious?
When that the conference has cried, Kevin hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Eli Crane says he was ambitious;
And Eli Crane is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the eve of the vote
Jeffries presented him a saving deal,
Which he did refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Nancy Mace says he was ambitious;
And, sure, she is an honourable woman.
I speak not to disprove what Gaetz spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Kevin,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
I come to bury McCarthy, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interréd with their bones;
So let it be with Kevin. The noble Gentleman from Florida
Hath told you Kevin was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Kevin answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Gaetz and the rest–
For Gaetz is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Kevin’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Andy Biggs says he was ambitious;
And Andy Biggs is an honourable man.
He hath brought many donors home to Rome
Whose donations did the campaign coffers fill:
Did this in Kevin seem ambitious?
When that the conference has cried, Kevin hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Eli Crane says he was ambitious;
And Eli Crane is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the eve of the vote
Jeffries presented him a saving deal,
Which he did refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Nancy Mace says he was ambitious;
And, sure, she is an honourable woman.
I speak not to disprove what Gaetz spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Kevin,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
On the Morality of Abortion - Staff Writer
Abortion is a form of termination of life. Webster’s Dictionary defines abortion as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” The intent to terminate a pregnancy, is the intent to terminate life. The conscious decision to prevent life, is the intent to terminate life. By taking the action to consciously prevent a pregnancy, we are depriving that being of life. And by definition, to deprive something of life, is to kill.
The Violation of a Human’s Right to Life
Although many people may say that abortion, or the act of preventing a pregnancy is not killing or depriving of life because at the moment, it is just a “clump of cells”, and it isn’t living. However, many scientists can agree that the human life begins at the moment of conception. According to Princeton University, the starting point for a human life is the formation of the one-celled zygote, which is the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell. A zygote is also an organism, which is a living thing. There are many different methods to fertilize an egg such as sexual intercourse, insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc. however, almost all aborted pregnancies are pregnancies caused by the act of sexual intercourse. During in vitro fertilization, both parties (male and female) agree and make the conscious decision to conceive. Same as when a woman goes into an appointment for insemination, she is making the conscious decision to conceive. However, when two people engage in sexual intercourse, they also make the conscious decision to conceive since they should fully understand and comprehend the consequences of their actions. When an egg is fertilized, there is another life present. Therefore, if one makes a conscious decision understanding the consequences, they should not be violating life to prevent the consequences from taking its course.
Some may argue that being pro-life is also being pro-choice, as in, almost every individual has the choice to engage in sexual activities, knowing and understanding the consequences of said activities. Over 99% of individuals who conceive and seek abortions have the choice to do so or not. Making the choice to engage in sexual activities also means having to carry the responsibilities of the outcome of your sexual activities. For example, it is common sense that when two parties partake in certain sexual activities, there is a high probability of conceiving a child. Therefore, both parties know all the risks that they take when deciding to have intercourse. Therefore, both parties should be prepared to take care of a child when having sexual relations. If both parties are not ready to undertake the potential consequences, they have the choice not to partake in sexual activity. Therefore, there is a choice being made, and there is the freedom to make such a choice.
The History of the Problem
Starting way back in the 1800s, the American Medical Association had launched a Pro-Life campaign against abortion. This led to state governments prohibiting abortions. In 1880, all states had abortion restriction laws with exceptions in some cases such as ectopic pregnancies. Abortion had become an underground problem, where many women had sought access to illegal abortions. In 1964, the Association for the Study of Abortion had moved to increase abortion access in “medically necessary” cases, however many members wanted to give all women, not just women in life endangerment cases, free access to abortion. In 1966, California moved to amend their prohibition on abortion to allow hospital committees to review and approve or veto abortion requests. In 1970, the state of New York had legalized abortion completely. In 1973, the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade protected a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The majority opinion, by Justice Blackmun, states “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy.” The Hyde Amendment came about in 1976, which prevents the government from fiscally supporting abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or life-endangerment. In 1992, the Supreme Court Decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey had set the precedent of not creating an “undue burden” on those who seek access to abortions. In 2007, another Supreme Court Case regarding abortion had come about. The rulings in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America gives Congress the authority to ban second-trimester abortion procedures in some cases. In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the case June Medical Services v. Russo. Finally, in 2021, Texas implemented the Heartbeat Act, which prevents abortions after fetal cardiac activity occurs.
What does the Church say?
As for the religious side of things, being that this university is Jesuit, the Catholic Church is pro-life. No matter if the situation is the death of a zygote or the death of an elderly person, the Church remains pro-life. The Catholic Social Teaching of Life and Dignity for the Human person extends from the moment of conception, till the moment of death. The responsibility as Catholics, is to respect life in everyone because we are all made in God’s image and likeness. Whether abortion is legal or not, the Catholic Church’s teaching remains the same. Any intentional termination of life is an act of killing and strongly goes against the Catholic Social Teachings.
The Catholic Church also has teachings on sexual activities. For one, sexual activities are saved only for marriage within the Church, and on top of that, sexual activities have a single purpose which is to bring two people closer together and to God by conceiving a child made from love. Therefore, all married couples in the Church should be open and willing to conceive children when engaging in sexual activity. Adhering to this teaching, even if one is not Catholic, is very beneficial not only for both individuals, but for the child being created and the family dynamic. If both parties wait until marriage to engage in sexual activities, this sets up a stable environment for the child being conceived and a support system for both parents raising the child. Therefore, being responsible while making sexual decisions, will not only reduce the harm that you cause others, but also the harm that you may cause to yourself. Being married before having sexual relations also gives you that emotional and psychological support while carrying a child, so one may not feel the need to seek an abortion.
Not only raising children, but it is also beneficial to each individual involved to avoid having sexual relations until both parties are married to each other. About 86% of abortions are for unmarried women (with the breakdown of abortion populations being from 14% married women, 31% cohabitating women, 46% never married and single women, 9% previously married and single women). This is where chastity comes into play. If every individual respected themselves and those around them enough to remain chaste, the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring would decline tremendously. In a perfect world, the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring would become zero, however, considering human error, we cannot expect the number of unwanted pregnancies to be zero, though it would be ethical to keep the statistic as low as possible. Since most, if not all, abortions are sought by individuals who participated in consensual sexual intercourse, the practice of chastity, in both male and females, would lead to lower abortion rates.
The Alternative Solutions
As for married couples who wish to participate in sexual activities, but do not wish to bring children into their lives, there are ways to prevent pregnancies without the deprivation of life. For one, natural family planning (NFP) is an alternate method of “birth control” since it is natural and does not go against the natural gift of fertility. The NFP method is a way to identify one’s fertility windows to help one gauge the best days to have or avoid sexual intercourse. Contrary to popular belief, NFP is just as effective as artificial contraceptives, if used perfectly (97% effective rate).
An alternative option to abortion is adoption. Adoption is not a new option, though it goes overlooked by many. Many use abortion as a last resort method if all the former methods of pregnancy prevention didn’t work, however what people don’t realize is that they do not have to disrespect the dignity and sanctity of human life if they don’t want children. Adoption is the process in which babies and children are given to organizations who then care for these children and try to find them homes where they are cared for. Instead of pushing abortion, adoption centers should be promoted and funded at the state level, instead of abortions.
The Violation of a Human’s Right to Life
Although many people may say that abortion, or the act of preventing a pregnancy is not killing or depriving of life because at the moment, it is just a “clump of cells”, and it isn’t living. However, many scientists can agree that the human life begins at the moment of conception. According to Princeton University, the starting point for a human life is the formation of the one-celled zygote, which is the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell. A zygote is also an organism, which is a living thing. There are many different methods to fertilize an egg such as sexual intercourse, insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc. however, almost all aborted pregnancies are pregnancies caused by the act of sexual intercourse. During in vitro fertilization, both parties (male and female) agree and make the conscious decision to conceive. Same as when a woman goes into an appointment for insemination, she is making the conscious decision to conceive. However, when two people engage in sexual intercourse, they also make the conscious decision to conceive since they should fully understand and comprehend the consequences of their actions. When an egg is fertilized, there is another life present. Therefore, if one makes a conscious decision understanding the consequences, they should not be violating life to prevent the consequences from taking its course.
Some may argue that being pro-life is also being pro-choice, as in, almost every individual has the choice to engage in sexual activities, knowing and understanding the consequences of said activities. Over 99% of individuals who conceive and seek abortions have the choice to do so or not. Making the choice to engage in sexual activities also means having to carry the responsibilities of the outcome of your sexual activities. For example, it is common sense that when two parties partake in certain sexual activities, there is a high probability of conceiving a child. Therefore, both parties know all the risks that they take when deciding to have intercourse. Therefore, both parties should be prepared to take care of a child when having sexual relations. If both parties are not ready to undertake the potential consequences, they have the choice not to partake in sexual activity. Therefore, there is a choice being made, and there is the freedom to make such a choice.
The History of the Problem
Starting way back in the 1800s, the American Medical Association had launched a Pro-Life campaign against abortion. This led to state governments prohibiting abortions. In 1880, all states had abortion restriction laws with exceptions in some cases such as ectopic pregnancies. Abortion had become an underground problem, where many women had sought access to illegal abortions. In 1964, the Association for the Study of Abortion had moved to increase abortion access in “medically necessary” cases, however many members wanted to give all women, not just women in life endangerment cases, free access to abortion. In 1966, California moved to amend their prohibition on abortion to allow hospital committees to review and approve or veto abortion requests. In 1970, the state of New York had legalized abortion completely. In 1973, the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade protected a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The majority opinion, by Justice Blackmun, states “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy.” The Hyde Amendment came about in 1976, which prevents the government from fiscally supporting abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or life-endangerment. In 1992, the Supreme Court Decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey had set the precedent of not creating an “undue burden” on those who seek access to abortions. In 2007, another Supreme Court Case regarding abortion had come about. The rulings in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America gives Congress the authority to ban second-trimester abortion procedures in some cases. In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the case June Medical Services v. Russo. Finally, in 2021, Texas implemented the Heartbeat Act, which prevents abortions after fetal cardiac activity occurs.
What does the Church say?
As for the religious side of things, being that this university is Jesuit, the Catholic Church is pro-life. No matter if the situation is the death of a zygote or the death of an elderly person, the Church remains pro-life. The Catholic Social Teaching of Life and Dignity for the Human person extends from the moment of conception, till the moment of death. The responsibility as Catholics, is to respect life in everyone because we are all made in God’s image and likeness. Whether abortion is legal or not, the Catholic Church’s teaching remains the same. Any intentional termination of life is an act of killing and strongly goes against the Catholic Social Teachings.
The Catholic Church also has teachings on sexual activities. For one, sexual activities are saved only for marriage within the Church, and on top of that, sexual activities have a single purpose which is to bring two people closer together and to God by conceiving a child made from love. Therefore, all married couples in the Church should be open and willing to conceive children when engaging in sexual activity. Adhering to this teaching, even if one is not Catholic, is very beneficial not only for both individuals, but for the child being created and the family dynamic. If both parties wait until marriage to engage in sexual activities, this sets up a stable environment for the child being conceived and a support system for both parents raising the child. Therefore, being responsible while making sexual decisions, will not only reduce the harm that you cause others, but also the harm that you may cause to yourself. Being married before having sexual relations also gives you that emotional and psychological support while carrying a child, so one may not feel the need to seek an abortion.
Not only raising children, but it is also beneficial to each individual involved to avoid having sexual relations until both parties are married to each other. About 86% of abortions are for unmarried women (with the breakdown of abortion populations being from 14% married women, 31% cohabitating women, 46% never married and single women, 9% previously married and single women). This is where chastity comes into play. If every individual respected themselves and those around them enough to remain chaste, the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring would decline tremendously. In a perfect world, the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring would become zero, however, considering human error, we cannot expect the number of unwanted pregnancies to be zero, though it would be ethical to keep the statistic as low as possible. Since most, if not all, abortions are sought by individuals who participated in consensual sexual intercourse, the practice of chastity, in both male and females, would lead to lower abortion rates.
The Alternative Solutions
As for married couples who wish to participate in sexual activities, but do not wish to bring children into their lives, there are ways to prevent pregnancies without the deprivation of life. For one, natural family planning (NFP) is an alternate method of “birth control” since it is natural and does not go against the natural gift of fertility. The NFP method is a way to identify one’s fertility windows to help one gauge the best days to have or avoid sexual intercourse. Contrary to popular belief, NFP is just as effective as artificial contraceptives, if used perfectly (97% effective rate).
An alternative option to abortion is adoption. Adoption is not a new option, though it goes overlooked by many. Many use abortion as a last resort method if all the former methods of pregnancy prevention didn’t work, however what people don’t realize is that they do not have to disrespect the dignity and sanctity of human life if they don’t want children. Adoption is the process in which babies and children are given to organizations who then care for these children and try to find them homes where they are cared for. Instead of pushing abortion, adoption centers should be promoted and funded at the state level, instead of abortions.
bottom of page