'Free Speech' Means Just That by John Yoo & James C. Phillips
Editor’s Note: The following is the seventh in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry is available here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, the fifth here, and the sixth here.
The imperialistic expansion of free speech would not just surprise most 21st-century Americans; it would also make little sense to the 18th-century Americans who ratified the First Amendment. They would find it astounding that the courts have not just read speech to include many forms of conduct, but also have failed to establish any objective test for what constitutes speech. The Supreme Court appears to apply the perpetually malleable standard that emerged when it has sought to identify obscenity: It knows it when it sees it.
Interesting argument that "Free Speech" as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment has been interpreted too broadly and that is detrimental to preserving actual free speech.
Going To Yale Makes Women Rich, But Only If They Marry—And Other Studies Women Should See
But for women, attending a highly selective school has massive effects. A young woman admitted to both UK and Yale faces a resounding choice about her future life. If she chooses Yale, odds are that her annual income when she is 40 will be about 40-70 percent more. However, her odds of ever getting married are about 25 percentage points, or about one third, lower. Crucially, her odds of having a higher income rise only if she gets married!
Fascinating take on a piece of conventional wisdom that says it doesn't matter what college you go to. Apparently it does... for women!
The Liberal Arts Weren’t Murdered — They Committed Suicide by Victor Davis Hanson
In other words, what is being jettisoned is likely not just history as we once understood it but rather de facto poorly taught “-studies” courses — which sadly become snapshots of particular (and often small) eras of history — designed to offer enough historical proof of preconceived theories about contemporary modern society. The students then are assumed by the course’s end to be outraged, persuaded, galvanized, and shocked in politically acceptable ways. Usually they are just bored, as supposedly with-it professors endlessly regurgitate the esoterica picked up in graduate schools.
When the vaunted VDH speaks, I listen. He nails it on how the PC universities have killed the humanities by boring the students to death with the endless diatribes as discovered through a monotonous Race, Class, Gender lens.
Do We Need Our Country Anymore? by Larry P. Arnn
As we reach the end of this turbulent year, the uproar of the hour is against the nation-state, and not for the first time. “World leaders” are now accustomed to call for the subordination of the nation to the good of the globe. This call is amplified by the media and intellectual elites, who march in lockstep. If the call is right, the peoples of the world will enter a new age of global peace, prosperity, and cooperation. If it is wrong, the free nations of the world will lose the remnants of democratic accountability that have kept them free.
Always love hearing from Hillsdale's president Arnn.
Yes, Evangelical ‘Abstinence Culture’ Is A Bust, But The Answer Isn’t A Sexual Free-For-All
Christians need a third path—something that actually encourages marriage instead of choosing between fornication or celibacy. The church needs to recover the virtue of chastity.
Trying to advocate for abstinence while Christians push back marriage later and later in the pursuit of career goals is a recipe for failure. The Church needs to recognize that she has swallowed a lie.
An End to Racial Preferences at Last? by John Yoo & James C. Phillips
Editor’s Note: The following is the sixth in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry is available here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, and the fifth here.
Affirmative action is unconstitutional. Full stop. That doesn’t mean that legislatures cannot craft solutions that will have the result of helping minority students succeed or making business more competitive; it just means those solutions cannot be based on race. Nothing in the Constitution, for example, prohibits institutions from seeking diversity based on poverty or skills. It just cannot use race. Even if the Court must use its power of judicial review to override the considered judgment of the elected branches of government, this is what the Supreme Court’s power is for: to refuse to carry into effect the commands of the other branches that violate the higher law of the Constitution. That is not activism; it is constitutional fidelity.
Perhaps it is time to end the systematic racism that is affirmative action.
In Defense of Capitalism By Matthew Summers
But feelings such as these should not overwhelm our sober observation that there are no alternatives to sound economic principles such as the profit motive, rational self-interest, and the divisions of labor. Sound economic principles must be defended and explained, and the reader should understand that virtually no improvement is possible on these ideas. But fortunately, the ideas outlined and defended above do not preclude
Christian charity, as Dr. Stanciu suggests. In fact, charity serves a vital purpose in any economy. Something that Dr. Stanciu neglected to observe is that charitable donations in America increase yearly, and last year they surpassed a staggering $400 billion dollars.[5] If this is not evidence of the compatibility of Christian charity and capitalism, I don’t know what is.
Fascinating rebuttal to an earlier piece.
Religion and the New Supreme Court by John Yoo and James C. Phillips
Editor’s Note: The following is the fifth in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips will lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry is available here, the second here, the third here, and the fourth here.
In short, to the extent the establishment clause is viewed as hostile to religion and the free-exercise clause as solicitous of religion, the First Amendment is at war with itself. And that makes little sense historically or logically.
Brilliant addition to a Constitutional series on restoring the revered document to its original meaning.
