To keep my introduction brief, I will simply begin by stating I am of the firm belief that this hyper-sexual culture we are perpetually advancing could potentially destroy civil society as we know it. I don’t plan to bore you with the typical arguments you hear from conservatives about why WAP is bad. Instead, I find it more worthwhile to journey to the root of this matter and look to philosophy to discover why perverted outlooks on sex debauche the self.

First and foremost, the argument I will detail here demands that we tackle what is perhaps the world’s most daunting question: what does it mean to be human? In his book, On Human Nature, Sir Roger Scruton makes the argument for seeing humans not merely as animals, but persons, and for seeing personhood as that which emerges when it is possible to relate to an organism in the way of personal relations.

We are responsible creatures who attribute desires and intentions to ourselves, but not only that, we also see each other as such. We are self conscious. We do not exist in a metaphysical void as pure subjects like Descartes imagined, but we enter into the physical world and encounter others in it.

As Hegel claims in The Phenomenology of Spirit, self-consciousness rests on us being capable of free dialogue in which I am accountable for myself before the presence of yourself. As Scruton masterfully summarizes, “I am I to myself because… I am you to another.”

We are answerable to each other for what we say and do. For Hegel, we are subjects for each other, not objects. This subject to subject encounter is one where we mutually recognize each other’s autonomy.

Let’s now take these concepts on human relations and apply them to sexual and romantic relations. When we are describing two people’s desire for one another, we are speaking in this sense of the subject to subject encounter.

Pay attention to the language we use. I say that I want you. My desire for you is how I feel, not merely an expression. According to Scruton, the touch of desire is epistemic in character: “it is an exploration, not of a body, but of a free being in his or her embodiment.”

Desire should be understood as a mutual negotiation between free and responsible beings who want each other as persons, not simple sexual objects.

To fasten these ideas in with the topic at hand: when we look at our hyper-sexualized culture–whether it be through pornography, inordinately sexualized music videos and lyrics, and the idea of sex with no attachments–it all degrades the self by turning us merely into objects of physical attraction by which our sexual desires are to be heaved onto one another.

It degrades the idea of love, of seeing in another’s eyes that which is like you, a subject, a person, a responsible being who attributes desires to themself, and who desires you as you desire them: as free beings. It prizes mere sexual excitement, free from the I-You relation. As Scruton masterfully states, it makes sex “as though it were a physical condition and not an expression of the self.”

To conclude, the intense sexual nature of much of our culture today perverts what it means to be a human with sexual desires.

We are subjects, not simply objects by which our sexual appetites may be satisfied. Sexual desire is a beautiful thing, it should not be suppressed, but it should certainly be tempered in order to live a fulfilling life and to love someone as the free being and the person they are, and not to see them in terms of raw, physical attraction. The way in which our society is oriented in regard to sex will certainly spoil such a sacred thing.

In Federalist No. 14, James Madison so movingly remarked, in regard to our revolutionary forefathers, “Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race… they accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society… They formed the design of a great confederacy, which it is incumbent upon their successors to improve and perpetuate.”

As it currently stands, patriotism is on a decline in America. I think there are a multitude of factors that come into play here, however, I am of the firm belief that the historical ignorance propagated by the apostles of vanity and political charlatans masquerading as academics have certainly exacerbated this decline.

Nonetheless, as Americans we truly are heirs to a marvelous inheritance, links in the social chain of giving and receiving. We are where we are because of the customs and traditions of our forefathers — especially those of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, which we are an extension of here in America, and which has become the Anglo-American tradition.

As Americans, we have been afforded many profound blessings. I would like to talk about some of these today, and why these are, among other things, reasons why I truly love our country.

I would like to begin detailing this by turning to Aristotle. In his marvelous work, The Politics, he begins Book I by laying out man as a political animal, in whose very fabric is nested the concept of association. According to Aristotle, it is natural for mankind to associate in terms of ruler and ruled for purposes of propagation (this is also deeply nested in natural order of politics laid out by Polybius), and he gives us the natural forms of association, first the household, following is that of the village, and finally the state which comes about to secure life itself and continues to secure the good life.

I’m not here to compose a treatise on government, however, visiting Aristotle will prove worthwhile because we learn from him that the state is a natural thing. Now, the question of what kind of state we should constitute is another question, one some of our founders disagreed on.

Writing to Madison, concerning the U.S. Constitution, Jefferson claimed that the Earth belonged to the living who should not be “bound by the dead hand of the past.” In response, Madison stated that “the improvements made by the dead form a debt against the living, who take the benefit of them.” Madison, per usual, was right here. Humans do not enter the world spontaneously with no attachments. We are born into families, with obligations from the moment we are conceived. As Montesquiue states in Book V of The Spirit of the Laws, “at our coming into the world, we contract an immense debt to our country, which we can never discharge.”

As beneficiaries of the American tradition, we owe a debt to our forefathers that we cannot dismiss, and we are obligated, as Madison said, to improve and perpetuate it. We cannot accomplish this cumbersome task without a love for our country and an understanding of who we are. I now wish to briefly highlight the profound ideal of natural rights and a government instituted among men, by men to safeguard them, because I firmly hold it to be one worthy of our utmost affection.

To briefly cover the idea of the natural law, I believe it’s basic tenet is formulated as such: the law should start from the individual, with his complaints or grievances–the thing which has brought him to the court in the first place. Until the law decides otherwise, he is the sovereign over his own life. I know when we think of natural rights we think of life, liberty, and property; however, I think we make a mistake when speaking of rights in an abstract and esoteric manner. Any law, in and of itself, will restrict freedom, for example.

The problem is whether or not it is restricted with justification. The law should be about the judgements that ordinary people make everyday of their lives. This is what we, as Americans, inherit from the common law tradition. We also have a Bill of Rights, however, Madison explicitly authored the ninth Amendment to be sure to make it clear that this statement of rights didn’t cover all of them.

While it is marvelous to have a government instituted on the idea of respecting the sovereignty of the individual and the natural law, our founders knew that politics exists to maintain peace and the rule of law, and to permit civil society to flourish — as it is itself the end, and government is the mean to ensure it does not grow out of control.

This cannot be achieved prudently, or sustained through time, without the separation of powers and the marvelous principles of federalism that our constitution demands from our government.

To conclude, we, as Americans, are heirs to a splendid inheritance unfathomable to most in the chronicles of human history. Aristotle teaches us that two impulses will bring humans to cherish something: knowing it is theirs, and that it is delightful.

When the founding fathers spoke of our civilization, they purposefully spoke of it in terms of a Union. We have inherited a spectacular civilization. It is not mine, nor is it exclusively yours. It is ours. It belongs to the first person plural: we the people; Americans of past, present, and future generations. And it is truly delightful.

I hope you can come to cherish this wonderful land and all the benefits it provides; it is after all our home, sweet home.

I am sure many of us watched in horror as the conflict between Hamas and Israel continued to escalate until, after 11 days, there were hundreds dead, with cities and livelihoods left in ruins.

This is an age-old conflict that has existed for a while and has only intensified since the Israeli government disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. 

I am fully aware of the fact that this is an especially precarious topic for discussion and that there are a multitude of reasons as to why this conflict occurred, and as to why the Middle East is in a state of turmoil in general. However, ultimately we must not allow ourselves to retrogress into an isolationist stupor.

We must stand with our ally Israel. I would like to explain why I believe that fundamentally it is not only the right thing to do, but also the best way to protect our interests as a nation and civilization, by first addressing a few points that many have already discussed, and closing with why this has everything to do with Western Civilization and its adversaries. 

Before all else, it is important to detail some of the numbers you’ve most likely been hearing. In this 11 day conflict, there were a total of roughly 266 deaths, with 254 of these falling to Palestinians in Gaza and 12 to Israel. During this conflict we saw thousands of rockets fired from Hamas and a multitude of air strikes from Israel.

In sum, there were roughly 4,340 rockets fired from Gaza by Hamas towards multiple Israeli cities. Israel’s Iron Dome defense system intercepted most of these rockets, thus resulting in only 12 deaths. These numbers hardly explain everything, but we can analyze them nonetheless.

Many people will point to the fact that there is a grave disparity between the death tolls of Israel and Gaza, and, of course, they would be right. However, this all but captures the picture of this conflict.

Imagine if Israel did not possess the marvelous technological defense of the Iron Dome. We would have seen far more deaths, and quite possibly an attempt from the IDF to completely decimate Hamas in Gaza. It would also be remarkably hard to imagine any possibility of a cease fire. 

It goes without explanation that the deaths of both Palestinians and Israelis in this conflict are detestable. However, we must also consider the fact that Hamas committed double war crimes in this conflict by not only firing rockets into Israel, but by firing from heavily populated areas in the Gaza Strip. This is because Hamas is a Jihadist militant organization that holds no regard for human life. They fire from behind the populace because they wish to use innocent Palestinians as human shields, knowing that the IDF will take extreme precautionary measures to insure that there will be as little citizen deaths as possible.

This is why announcements were made by the IDF before striking key buildings occupied by Hamas in Gaza, and also why strikes were called off by the IDF due to spotted Palestinian children at play.

The IDF has taken extreme measures to harm as few citizens as possible because they regard all human life to be valuable, unlike the Jihadist militants of Hamas who have had roughly 640 of their own rockets land in Gaza territory.

To reiterate an aforementioned point: these quantitative discussions, while certainly not futile, ultimately should not be the foremost topic in the discourse surrounding this conflict.

Hamas, like Hezbollah and other Jihadist militants, is funded by Iran. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the phrase “Death to America” has become a popular phrase in the Islamic Republic. Iran’s current Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei — who has enjoyed supreme power since 1989, making him the second longest serving leader in the last century in Iran (second only to Iran’s last King), who controls Iran’s executive, legislative, and judicial branch, along with its media and military — has also used this popular phrase. 

The most powerful man in the Middle East, alongside the Jihadist militants he funds, laments Israel’s existence and endorses the death of America because he ultimately laments the existence of Western Civilization.

In this conflict, Israel, as a repository of Western ideals, is representing the Western tradition in a war with one of its greatest adversaries: theocracy.

Fundamentally, the Islamic Republic, and its arms of Jihadist militants, abhor the west. They abhor democracy, they abhor the freedom of speech, they abhor the freedom of religion, and they abhor the secular law along with the judeo-christian ethic upon which it rests.

There are a multitude of factors at play in this conflict between Hamas and Israel (religious, geographical, diplomatic, social, cultural, etc…), and discussing these, along with the numbers in the fighting, is certainly not fruitless.

However, when discussing why the U.S. should support our ally Israel, we should primarily shift our attention to one matter of fact: standing with Israel means standing with a sanctuary of liberalism in a dark land of authoritarian and despotic theocracy.

On Friday, April 9, President Biden announced that he will be launching a commission to study different aspects of the judiciary, and while I honestly do not expect the commission to favor something like packing the court, I am not a fan of flirting with the idea. However, I’ll get to that soon enough.

I would like to first lay out the idea of the Supreme Court, detailing its purpose, and explaining why it’s a fundamental institution for our constitutional republic.

In regard to our own common law inheritance, by the mid-14th century the judicial branch officially separated from the legislature, as Theodore Plucknett stated in his book, A Concise History of the Common Law, “to such an extent that they treated legislation as the product of an alien body, of which they knew nothing save the words of the statute itself, and from that wording alone they infer its intention—and with the rise of this idea we reach the modern point of view.”

Clearly, there’s a sharp demarcation between the legislature and the judiciary in the common law tradition, and our courts are no exception to this rule.

As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 78, “… the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments…”

In the same essay, Hamilton also remarked that “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution… one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority …” Our Union would be entirely unstable if we had elected representatives to make law on our behalf, but no institution to hold them, and the statutes they pass, accountable.

These limitations come from the courts of justice “whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void” (Federalist No. 78).

There are already limitations in the body of the Constitution that prohibit certain laws that congress can pass (see Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3), but how is one to expect congress to be held accountable without a separate institution to check it? Are we to be led to believe that congress will check itself?

No wise person would maintain such a folly idea. Faction must check faction (Federalist No. 10) and ambition must counteract ambition (Federalist No. 51).

This is the purpose of the courts: “… to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature… and to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority” (Federalist No. 78).

Hopefully the purpose of the Supreme Court is clear, as I now wish to transition into discussing the outright danger packing the courts presents to a checked and balanced government, or as Hamilton put it a “limited Constitution.”

Not everyone in the sweltering heat of Philadelphia in 1787 agreed with the proposed constitution, and there were even Anti-Federalist Papers published to offer arguments against it.

The Brutus Papers are widely regarded as the foremost exposé against the new constitution, and multiple of them focus on the dangers of the Supreme Court.

For the sake of word count I will not go into them, but check out Brutus Nos. 11, 12, and 15.

The problems presented in the Brutus Papers are real if the Supreme Court is relinquished to the precariousness of politics. Why, ultimately, is this an issue?

Well, it renders the court over as an extension of the legislature, disregarding balanced government.

It is a sentiment shared by Hamilton.

In Federalist No. 78, he argued that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated by the legislative and executive powers.”

He argued that liberty has nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, “but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.”

Finally, in Federalist No. 78, he argues that if the courts should be “disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”

In conclusion, the courts are independent of the legislative and executive branches to serve as a bulwark to encroachments on our liberty from either.

Packing them for political purposes means dissolving balanced government.

Hamilton, in Federalist No. 1, stated that it was remarked that America was set to decide an important question, “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government…” I think the founders proved that it can be done.

We now face a new question: whether societies of men are really capable or not of perpetuating good government.

Time alone will tell.

As John Jay remarked, in Federalist No. 2, if the dissolution of the Union comes, America will be left proclaiming “Farewell! A long farewell, to all my greatness.”

Mark Putnam

Conservatives enjoy multiple systemic advantages that bias election results in their favor.

It’s difficult to take them seriously when they claim voter fraud rigged the 2020 election against them, while there is no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud or indication that it would have significantly benefited either party.

This has not stopped Republicans.

In the last few months, Republicans nationwide have proposed an unprecedented 250+ state bills to tackle voter fraud. However, many measures in these bills don’t improve election security.

Instead, they restrict voter access and provide Republicans an electoral advantage by exploiting well-documented biases in our electoral system.

Georgia’s version is no exception. Among its provisions are restrictions on absentee and early voting like shrinking the request window for absentee ballots and for them to be sent out.

Early voting for runoff elections is reduced to one week.

Such restrictions only serve to burden voters with busy schedules and rely on the flexibility that these two voting options provide, including single-parents and workers with long hours or multiple jobs, who are all Democratic-leaning demographics.

The restrictions on absentee and early voting will also worsen long voting wait times.

A study by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that average voting wait times for voters in Georgia during the 2018 election was well over 20 minutes, the longest in the nation.

The main cause was the rapid closure of precincts across
the state.

This, combined with the growing electorate has created a bottleneck effect that can translate into lines up to eight hours long in recent elections.

This outrageous barrier impedes constitutional rights and is applied unequally. Precinct closures have targeted the heavily-Democratic metro Atlanta.

Despite housing half of Georgia voters, the metro Atlanta area only contains 38% of the voting precincts.

Such precinct closures are also concentrated in majority nonwhite neighborhoods, causing minorities to wait for 30% longer to vote than white voters.

The new law exacerbates current voting issues.

Absentee voting restrictions will force more people to vote in-person.

Reduced early voting times will also condense the flux of voters, a recipe for disaster for already overloaded voting precincts.

The law also criminalizes distributing food and water to voters in line.

The effect of the law is clear: to suppress the votes of people of color, younger students, and the poor.

Such discriminatory barriers are not only immoral but threaten the security of our democracy itself.

When incumbent politicians can skew election results in their favor, instead of crafting policies that help those they represent, then the question becomes:

How do we vote them out of office?

Micah Veillon

Georgia lawmakers passed Senate Bill 202, with Governor Brian Kemp signing the legislation into law later that day on Thursday, March 25. The bill has garnered national attention as lawmakers and politicians rush to be the next ones to call the bill racist.

President Biden, in his first press briefing on the same day the bill was passed, stated that the bill made “Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.” Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, stated that the bill was “racist, plain and simple.” Stacey Abrams stated, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, that the bill is a “redux of Jim Crow in a suit and tie.”

California Representative, Ro Khanna, stated that the bill was a “betrayal of our constitution.” Stacey Abrams echoed this view in that same interview with Tapper, stating that she was fundamentally disappointed with Americans who misunderstand our democracy, and that “our system of government demands active participation from citizens to direct the future of our nation.”

These are strong words from the California Rep. and the former Democratic Gubernatorial candidate. I would point to the constitutional convention debates of 1787 in which John Dickinson motioned to have Senators elected by the state legislatures because “the sense of the States would be better collected through their governments than immediately from the people at large.” This was how Senators were elected under the Constitution (see Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1) until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, turning the election of Senators over to the people. So, I would say that to posit our government is set up to “demand citizens direct its future” is a little misleading.

The bill maintains Sunday voting, allowing the “souls to the polls” tradition to continue. The bill expands weekend early voting, statewide, to include two weekends instead of one. The bill also leaves no-excuses for absentee voting in place. The bill gets rid of signature matching, and requires that voters who use absentee ballots provide a state ID number (from their driver’s license, or from a free state ID).

This will eliminate the subjective process of trying to decipher signatures, and transition to a much more efficient method of absentee voting. Stacey Abrams, alongside many other politicians and media outlets, claimed that the bill is targeting minority communities, especially those with Black voters. This is simply not true.

For example, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, in 2018 around 2,400 ballots were rejected because of issues with signatures, of which 54% were from Black voters. This bill will eliminate this issue, and thus help Black voters who were the majority of voters hurt by signature matching.

Section 12 of the bill does allow for the state to suspend local election directors and appoint replacements. This has received lots of outrage, and rightfully so.

I’m not sure where I stand on this issue, and although I think I disagree with this section, it could be targeted towards officials in counties with botched conduct like Floyd County, where around 2,600 ballots were simply overlooked. In regard to the food or drink issue, Section 33 bars third parties to hand voters food or drink as a tool to influence voters, but explicitly states that unattended self-service water can be made available to voters.

In summary, the bill has some great additions to Georgia law and some areas that I seem to disagree with (like Section 12).

However, to claim that it is a racist bill is the epitome of dishonesty and irresponsibility on the part of elected officials, media outlets, and politicians.

“Donald J. Trump ain’t going anywhere.” These were Ted Cruz’s words to commence the 2021 CPAC event in Orlando, Florida that lasted from Feb. 25 – Feb. 28.

CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Committee hosted by the American Conservative Union, and to put it in simple terms, it was certainly not a conservative event, but I’ll get to that eventually.

I chose to lead this piece with Ted Cruz’s remark for a reason, namely, that at CPAC 2021 the Republican Party officially affirmed Donald Trump as its leader. There is absolutely no question about it; Donald Trump, to use his exact words, “has the Republican Party.”

Some speculated that he would create his own party, yet from the beginning I felt as if he would stick with the Republican Party insofar as it would stick to him. I believed it would, and sure enough it did.

Donald Trump Jr. closed the first day of CPAC with a speech that he began by stating “CPAC” looked a lot more like “TPAC.” However, it wasn’t just Don Jr. who stated something along these lines.

In his speech on Sunday, the former President stated that the Republican Party was now under the doctrine of Trumpism.

If the golden statue of him at the event wasn’t enough to convince you of it, his words should be: the Republican Party is officially Trump’s party.

At one point during the former President’s speech, the crowd began chanting “we love you” to which he then stated that not even Ronald Reagan received praise like this from the people.

Yes, you heard correctly, Donald Trump is now not only greater than Abraham Lincoln, but also Ronald Reagan (although, Reagan doesn’t even graze the eminence of Lincoln).

Many were wondering if the former President would announce his candidacy for the 2024 race, and he all but said verbatim that he would.

He highly insinuated that he would run again with statements like “I may even have to beat them for the third time,” “A Republican President will make a triumphant return to the white house … I wonder who that could be … Who? Who? Who could that be?” Thus, I think it’s fair to say that you can very well expect to see Donald Trump on the Republican primary ticket for the next election.

However, I want to talk about why I don’t think it matters if he does or does not run.

As aforementioned, the Republican Party has officially sold its soul to Donald Trump, which means that it has officially embraced populism. Literally, the Rep. Matt Gaetz openly championed populism.

He stated that it “turns out populism is popular” and that “we’re the ones doing the thinking in the populist movement as conservatives.”

The latter statement is a complete dichotomy, because there’s absolutely no way one can be involved in a populist movement as a conservative. Populism and conservatism are incommensurate ideas, and I wrote an entire article about this titled “Conservatism: A Philosophy With No Home.”

CPAC was full of people espousing populist ideas in the name of conservatism.

Charlie Kirk stated that those who don’t oppose breaking up Big Tech by means of government shouldn’t dare call themselves conservatives, because, rather, they are corporatists.

While I partially agree with Republicans here in the sense that I am certainly no fan of Big Tech censorship, I absolutely do not stand for breaking them up by means of government intervention. Contrary to Kirk’s beliefs, I hold that anyone who stands for breaking up Big Tech by means of government is not a conservative.

Or at least, they are not familiar with any of Hegel’s work. In Hegel’s “Outlines of the Philosophy of Right,” he argues for clear distinctions between the state and civil society. Conservatives hold that civil society should not be consumed by the state. This practice of absorbing civil society was on display in the Jacobin Reign of Terror in which any organization the Jacobins could not control was outlawed.

It has also been the practice of practically all communist governments in history. It isn’t a conservative sensibility by any means.

So, while I’m sympathetic to the fears of Kirk (and the rest of the CPAC Speakers) concerning the danger Big Tech poses to civil society, I by no means support the means by which this desired end will be attained, because I am a conservative. In summary, my thoughts concerning CPAC are clear: the Republican Party is now Trump’s party, and it’s composed of populists masquerading as conservatives.

In the mid 19th century, our country would witness what could very well be described as one of our most important political moments: the splitting of America’s Whig Party. The party split over the issue of slavery, with northern anti-slavery whigs going on to create the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln would soon join the party and help dispel with the practice of slavery in America.

In similar fashion to the split of the Whig Party, the Republican Party may soon witness its own split as well, with its divisive factor being populism and loyalty to Donald Trump. I would like to explore why I think this will happen, as well as why 2016 left conservatism with no party to call home.

In the Summer of 2016, in Cleveland, Ohio, the Republican Party would nominate Donald Trump as their party’s candidate in the race for the White House. At that convention, there would be words spoken to the crowd reflecting the subsequent Trump presidency. Trump would establish a narrative that would culminate at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021: America is broken, the government is against you, and only I can fix it. At this moment, the Republican Party abandoned conservatism and embraced its antithesis: populism.

It entirely disregarded the wise words of one of its former Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, when he remarked that “When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.”

It was James Madison’s greatest fear for our republic: a candidate playing to the emotions of the people, telling them the solutions to their problems reside in one man, and one man alone. As I have stated in my previous two articles, this is a nation of laws, and not of men.

Populism and conservatism are incommensurate for one main reason: namely, that populism infuses the majority opinion into government, while conservatism holds that although majority opinions ought to rule, there should be mitigated democracy, so that by the time majority opinion is written into law, it has been reviewed and refined.

Conservatism maintains that the majority opinion, if left to its devices, naturally decays into tyrannical mob rule, threatening the freedoms our institutions grant us. Conservatives hold that man is not a rational animal, but rather a passionate animal; and if bantered to, will regress to his primitive state. Populists flirt with and pander to this passion, while conservatives seek to censure it and keep it at bay.

Moreover, as it stands, the Republican Party is no conservative party, leaving the philosophy without a political home. Honestly, conservatism was diminished once people began to view it simply as a capitalist ideology with tax cuts. Sadly, many Americans believe conservatism can be summed up by the mantra “Pro Trump, Pro Gun, Pro Life.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, for the conservative philosophy is far too profound to be summed up by a campaign slogan. The Republican Party also seems to care very little about the environment, which is not a conservative sensibility by any means.

Although, many of the top down solutions proposed by the left are not the correct way to handle such a complex dilemma. Perhaps the issue is with the libertarian view on the free market, however, I’m not quite sure yet. Conservatism stands for free markets, of course; however, the consumer culture can be quite dangerous, thus, conservatives stand for a tempered free market. I could continue pointing to the flaws of the republican party, but I’ll digress here.

While I worry about the fact that conservatism is homeless, I think within the next eight years the Republican Party very well could split, resulting in the possibility for a genuine conservative party to emerge. I fully expect Donald Trump to run for office again in 2024, which will ultimately be the cause of the split. There will be many Republicans who will see him as a martyr and fully support his campaign. There will also be people who oppose him, as in any primary, and ultimately it will come down to (I believe) Trump against someone who is more conservative like Dan Crenshaw (who has not professed to be ruining anytime soon). Ultimately, I feel the party will choose Trump, who will in turn lose to Biden again.

The Republican Party will then enter a state of turmoil (if it hasn’t yet) and ultimately split over Trump and populism. Although, I don’t want it to split solely because Trump can’t win, but rather because populism is remarkably dangerous. In the near future, I plan to see direct action from conservatives in the party in an attempt to denounce this populist spring.

Finally, I would like to explain what I wish will happen, because thus far I’ve only explained what I feel will happen. Fundamentally, I hope to see the party split. I have a few qualms with American conservatism in general and personally prefer the British conservatism of Edmund Burke, rejuvenated by Sir Roger Scruton.

I wish to see a party come forth that is worthy of articulating the conservative philosophy, because I truly regard it as a marvelous philosophy, and believe that it is integral to preserving the wonderful freedoms we enjoy in this nation.

In the mid 19th century, our country would witness what could very well be described as one of our most important political moments: the splitting of America’s Whig Party. The party split over the issue of slavery, with northern anti-slavery whigs going on to create the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln would soon join the party and help dispel with the practice of slavery in America.

In similar fashion to the split of the Whig Party, the Republican Party may soon witness its own split as well, with its divisive factor being populism and loyalty to Donald Trump. I would like to explore why I think this will happen, as well as why 2016 left conservatism with no party to call home.

In the Summer of 2016, in Cleveland, Ohio, the Republican Party would nominate Donald Trump as their party’s candidate in the race for the White House. At that convention, there would be words spoken to the crowd reflecting the subsequent Trump presidency. Trump would establish a narrative that would culminate at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021: America is broken, the government is against you, and only I can fix it. At this moment, the Republican Party abandoned conservatism and embraced its antithesis: populism.

It entirely disregarded the wise words of one of its former Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, when he remarked that “When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.”

It was James Madison’s greatest fear for our republic: a candidate playing to the emotions of the people, telling them the solutions to their problems reside in one man, and one man alone. As I have stated in my previous two articles, this is a nation of laws, and not of men.

Populism and conservatism are incommensurate for one main reason: namely, that populism infuses the majority opinion into government, while conservatism holds that although majority opinions ought to rule, there should be mitigated democracy, so that by the time majority opinion is written into law, it has been reviewed and refined.

Conservatism maintains that the majority opinion, if left to its devices, naturally decays into tyrannical mob rule, threatening the freedoms our institutions grant us. Conservatives hold that man is not a rational animal, but rather a passionate animal; and if bantered to, will regress to his primitive state. Populists flirt with and pander to this passion, while conservatives seek to censure it and keep it at bay.

Moreover, as it stands, the Republican Party is no conservative party, leaving the philosophy without a political home. Honestly, conservatism was diminished once people began to view it simply as a capitalist ideology with tax cuts. Sadly, many Americans believe conservatism can be summed up by the mantra “Pro Trump, Pro Gun, Pro Life.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, for the conservative philosophy is far too profound to be summed up by a campaign slogan. The Republican Party also seems to care very little about the environment, which is not a conservative sensibility by any means.

Although, many of the top down solutions proposed by the left are not the correct way to handle such a complex dilemma. Perhaps the issue is with the libertarian view on the free market, however, I’m not quite sure yet. Conservatism stands for free markets, of course; however, the consumer culture can be quite dangerous, thus, conservatives stand for a tempered free market. I could continue pointing to the flaws of the republican party, but I’ll digress here.

While I worry about the fact that conservatism is homeless, I think within the next eight years the Republican Party very well could split, resulting in the possibility for a genuine conservative party to emerge. I fully expect Donald Trump to run for office again in 2024, which will ultimately be the cause of the split. There will be many Republicans who will see him as a martyr and fully support his campaign. There will also be people who oppose him, as in any primary, and ultimately it will come down to (I believe) Trump against someone who is more conservative like Dan Crenshaw (who has not professed to be ruining anytime soon). Ultimately, I feel the party will choose Trump, who will in turn lose to Biden again.

The Republican Party will then enter a state of turmoil (if it hasn’t yet) and ultimately split over Trump and populism. Although, I don’t want it to split solely because Trump can’t win, but rather because populism is remarkably dangerous. In the near future, I plan to see direct action from conservatives in the party in an attempt to denounce this populist spring.

Finally, I would like to explain what I wish will happen, because thus far I’ve only explained what I feel will happen. Fundamentally, I hope to see the party split. I have a few qualms with American conservatism in general and personally prefer the British conservatism of Edmund Burke, rejuvenated by Sir Roger Scruton.

I wish to see a party come forth that is worthy of articulating the conservative philosophy, because I truly regard it as a marvelous philosophy, and believe that it is integral to preserving the wonderful freedoms we enjoy in this nation.

On January 25, 2021, Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson walked articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate on grounds of Donald Trump committing high crimes and misdemeanors through inciting an insurrection.

This piece will not discuss whether or not Trump incited an insurrection, for I’m writing that in a previous piece.

This piece is concerned with the legality of the trial the Senate shall be conducting during the week of February 8.

The constitution is perfectly clear about the illegality of this trial, so let’s further explore why.

To begin with, it’s important to visit where the U.S. Constitution grants the Congress such power. Article II, Section 4 reads:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The Constitution grants the Congress power to remove officers of the United States through impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction by means of a trial in the Senate, and is derived from English practice; however, not without important differences.

Impeachment in England could be against any individual and for any reason, with penalties ranging from paying fines to being executed.

Impeachment under the U.S. Constitution can only be against public officers (this is very important for this piece) and is not penal, but rather remedial.

There are only two “penalties” under impeachment in the United States laid out in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution:

“Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor…”

The purpose of impeachment, according to the U.S. Constitution, is for removal from office and disqualification from holding office again. Notice the wording here: and, not or.

The purpose of impeachment is not to disqualify a former office holder from ever holding office again.

The purpose is to remove them from office, with a subsidiary punishment of never holding office again.

With this in mind, let’s further explore the case of Donald Trump. As of 12:01 p.m., January 20, 2021, Donald Trump is a former President of the United States, and now a private citizen just like you and I.

In analysis of the U.S. Constitution, it’s clear that impeachment is for office holders and not private citizens. Some are saying there needs to be a trial because Section 3 of Amendment XIV keeps a person from holding office if they’ve engaged in insurrection.

They would be correct in what they claim the constitution states; however, their conclusion is entirely incorrect. Amendment XIV also states (Section 1) that no citizen shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” The Senate is not a judicial body, and thus trying a private citizen by means of the Congress deprives that citizen of due process and is unconstitutional.

It’s unconstitutional because it’s a bill of attainder, which is an act of legislature that declares a person guilty of crime, and is prohibited by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Private citizens are tried by a court of law, not by the Congress or public opinion. This is a nation of laws, not of men.

In short, impeachment is solely for removal from office, with a secondary consequence of disqualification for holding office again, and Trump is no longer holding office, thus making him a private citizen who cannot be tried by the Congress.

I desire nothing more than to never see Donald Trump run again, but I refuse to stand for depriving a citizen of their natural right to due process. Luckily, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t stand for it either.

The current articles of impeachment that passed in the House of Representatives, now awaiting trial in the Senate, are built on Donald Trump inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

This piece will explore why I do not believe Donald Trump incited the insurrection, through looking at the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a few supreme court cases.

To begin with, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …”

There is ambiguity over what all the First Amendment grants a citizen when it comes to dangerous or violent speech.

This ambiguity has led the Supreme Court of the U.S. to a few contradicting decisions throughout our nation’s history.

These decisions all boil down to one question: what speech does the First Amendment not protect?

In 1919, a case would be brought before the Supreme Court that would kindle the ambiguous flame of modern interpretation of the First Amendment: Schenck v. United States.

In Schenck v. United States the court unanimously decided, with the opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect speech that “creates a clear and present danger.”

This decision was formed with precedent of the common law in mind.

Since, the decisions of multiple (Abrams v. United States, Gitlow v. New York, Whitney v. California, & Dennis v. United States to name a few) cases have operated under the “clear and present danger” precedent.

So, for a period in U.S. history a citizen’s speech was not protected if it presented clear and present danger.

Many of these cases dealt with members of the Communist Party threatening to overthrow the government.

Then came the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio case.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court ruled that the government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy for force or law violation.

The “clear and present danger” precedent derived from the common law was dispensed with and replaced by the “imminent lawless action” standard.

Under this new standard, the First Amendment protects speech unless it is precisely directed in order to incite or produce imminent lawless action.

Let’s now use this test to analyze Trump’s speech. In it, he promulgated many conspiracies.

Yet, he calls for the crowd to march to the Capitol to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

I’m failing to see where this speech is precisely directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I was no fan of the speech.

As aforementioned, it was composed of conspiracies. However, that’s the thing: lies and conspiracies are protected speech under the First Amendment.

In order to state that Donald Trump’s speech directly incited the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol you must make a remarkably insatiable and subjective abstraction for advocacy of violence.

The courts have held that this is unconstitutional.

Thus, while I disagree with practically all of what Trump said in that speech, my opinion holds no weight on the matter.

Trump’s speech is protected under the United States Constitution. This is a nation of laws, not of men.