The decay of the American republic ought to prompt a renewed zeal for the recovery of constitutional limits, not a grasp for the levers of judicial power.
John G. Grove
If America’s Constitution needs its own “Bible,” you could do much worse than The Federalist. But Gary Gregg and Aaron Coleman do us one better.
In an age of demagoguery, judges and justices—members of a highly credentialed elite dealing with complex questions—are perfect targets.
Contrary to the numbers games of today's majoritarians, America's federal republic reflects not a trace of national, numerical democracy.
The circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court vacancy demonstrate that many have rejected "the immutable fairness of following the law."
Programs like Boys State can recreate only the game of politics. But that game must be premised on a deeper reality.
The development of American politics can be understood as a centuries-long grappling with two competing but equally essential conceptions of "the people."
While there is considerable flexibility for evolution in the presidential selection system, that flexibility has its limits—the electors must elect.
Despite Calhoun’s flaws, he was able to use his long career in tumultuous times to develop rare insight into the nature of constitutional government.
Remote voting and a more “transparent” Court would likely lead in directions the founders explicitly sought to avoid.
Rather than focus on what set of ideas America must revive or reject, we might focus instead on the concrete realities which define our political life.