Latest news with #FederalistPapers
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
From Princeton to Harvard: Where did America's Founding Fathers study?
It's almost July 4. Time for bald eagles, beer cans disguised as patriotism, and Instagram stories quoting Jefferson – usually by people who think Federalist Papers are a music album. But have you ever wondered where America's Founding Fathers actually studied before they signed the Declaration of Independence with a flourish that would put any influencer's autograph to shame? Harvard: The OG Factory of Rebels Let's start with Harvard. John Adams – the lawyer with a rage against monarchy – graduated from Harvard in 1755. His cousin, Samuel Adams, also walked Harvard's halls, though his academic brilliance is overshadowed by his brilliance in getting people drunk on revolution (and beer). In short, Harvard didn't just create hedge fund managers and AI bros. It created men who swapped Latin declensions for defiance against the Crown. Princeton: Where Madison Mastered Persuasion James Madison, that pocket-sized constitutional genius, studied at what is now Princeton University (then called the College of New Jersey). He crammed so much in four years that he finished in two. Madison was the guy who would be accused of 'try hard vibes' today, but back then it earned him the title 'Father of the Constitution.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Princeton thus proved you don't need to be tall to build a tall order of government. College of William & Mary: Jefferson's Intellectual Playground Thomas Jefferson attended the College of William & Mary in Virginia, where he studied under Professor William Small, a Scottish moral philosopher. There, he refined his radical belief that all men are created equal – a phrase he wrote while owning hundreds of men. The irony is enough to make even a British monarch cough up their Earl Grey. King's College (Columbia): Hamilton's Brief But Bright Stint Alexander Hamilton attended King's College, now Columbia University. He enrolled in 1774 but his studies were interrupted when he decided overthrowing an empire was more urgent than passing finals. King's College thus gave America its feistiest Treasury Secretary – an immigrant rapper in his own time, spitting bars against taxes and tyranny alike. No College, No Problem Then there was George Washington. No college. Just vibes. The man who became the first President of the United States never received formal university education. Instead, he learned surveying and warcraft on the frontlines. A reminder this July 4 that if you ever feel insecure about your degree, remember the most powerful man of 1776 learned on the job. The Lesson for July 4 So as fireworks illuminate your skyline and you down Bud Light in memory of a revolution sparked by tea, remember this: America's Founding Fathers weren't just rebels with a cause. They were nerds with diplomas (or in Washington's case, a machete and a prayer). They read Cicero by candlelight, debated Locke over ale, and plotted sedition between philosophy lectures. Today's students worry about job offers. They worried about the guillotine. Happy Independence Day to the nation that was born in a classroom and baptised in rebellion. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Axios
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
New book: Jon Meacham on our founding documents
Jon Meacham — the Pulitzer Prize-winning presidential historian — will be out Tuesday with an introduction for a new Random House volume of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why it matters: The intro draws on and explores Abraham Lincoln's private notes and letters on the eve of his presidency — and the outbreak of the Civil War. Meacham writes:"If America is to be America, the foundational documents reprinted here must be not theoretical but tactile, not quaint but vivid, not dead but alive." The big picture: Editions of the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the U.S. Constitution are selling at their fastest pace since at least 2004, AP reported in April. "For all our faults," Meacham continues, "for all our dreams deferred and our unfulfilled promises, the United States of America is founded not on ethnicity but on an ideal." "The Constitution, Abraham Lincoln believed, was forged to give expression to the Declaration. It was a means to an end — and the end was the recognition and the preservation of individual liberty and individual dignity, for without liberty and dignity humankind becomes not vessels of the divine but bodies to be commanded."
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Under SB 37, Texas universities will focus on educating, not indoctrinating
American higher education is broken. It costs too much and adds too little value. Too many courses indoctrinate rather than educate. Faculty construct requirements to force students into classes they don't want to take — classes of little intellectual value that do nothing to prepare them for careers. Activist faculty who spend little time on serious research dominate faculty governance bodies. Nationally, we've seen students and faculty more concerned with acting as campus hall monitors, policing what is deemed socially acceptable from a one-sided political perspective. Activism often takes precedence over learning. Thankfully, legislators in Texas are taking this matter seriously. Lawmakers are poised to pass Senate Bill 37, which can restore the purpose of our state's public higher education institutions: Preparing students for success in their post-graduation lives while encouraging them to pursue truth, knowledge and excellence. Column: Universities should foster debate and critical thinking. SB 37 will stifle that | Opinion SB 37 takes governance decisions out of the hands of radical faculty and administrators, allowing for increased oversight by the people of Texas and their representatives. It encourages eliminating useless course requirements and majors that enroll few students. Does this amount to 'thought policing?' Hardly. It counters what's been taking place on campuses for years: Students and faculty alike have been policing what can and cannot be said under the guise of 'social justice' and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. DEI groupthink discourages debate, pushes a single narrative. It shuts down criticism — the opposite of the free and open inquiry our universities are meant to encourage and foster. The claim that professors 'won't be able to teach' certain subjects involving the founding principles of our country is ludicrous. Nothing about SB 37 will affect courses in the many excellent programs at our universities, from finance to physics, from neuroscience to philosophy. It poses no obstacle to the study of great books. It addresses the many courses at our academic institutions that aim at indoctrination. For example, a keyword search I conducted of the University of Texas' 2024-25 course offerings shows that three of the most frequently mentioned terms in course descriptions are 'gender,' 'race' and 'identity.' Meanwhile, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln are mentioned fewer than than 10 times combined. This is taking place at our state's flagship university — showing how extensive the problem is and why SB 37 is needed. What to know: House moves to advance SB 37 on faculty senate, core curriculum review. SB 37 would empower an ombudsman to monitor compliance with the bill's provisions, ensuring that required courses focus on academic excellence and research with real-world impacts. It doesn't empower the ombudsman to eliminate courses that don't meet those criteria. If professors want to teach courses on Marxist theory, they can still do so. But that course won't be forced on students in order for them to graduate. Texas' state colleges and universities are among the best in the nation. Our educators teach and prepare world-class graduates. Our researchers produce groundbreaking innovations across disciplines and industries that have transformed our state and national economies. To maintain our state's distinction in a rapidly evolving global market, our higher education institutions must stay focused on academic excellence and research with real-world impacts. They need to prepare students to succeed. That means bringing greater accountability and efficiency to our institutions of higher education. Under SB 37, Texas students will receive a higher-quality and better-rounded education. Daniel A. Bonevac is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas SB 37 will restore integrity to higher education | Opinion
Fox News
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
NEWT GINGRICH: The only solution to the crisis of radical district judges
The fight over whether unelected federal district court judges should be able to unilaterally halt an elected president of the United States' agenda has reached a critical point. For the last three months, the American people's effort to profoundly change the Washington establishment has been blocked by radical district judges, who have wildly exceeded their authority. In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second administration, lower court judges have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against various administration actions. That is more than one every three days. This is not an issue of judges against President Trump. It is an issue of judges against the American people. In the 2024 election, the American people elected a Republican House, Senate, and President. President Trump carried all seven swing states. He received 77.3 million votes – 2.3 million more than Vice President Kamala Harris. We must protect the American people's right to elect those who manage the federal government. There are 677 district judges on the federal bench. If any of them can issue nationwide injunctions to override the decisions of the elected president, we are in a real crisis. Remember, these judges have never been elected by the American people. They face no consequence if their rulings result in ruined lives or wasted taxpayer dollars. Not all of them are overreaching, but some certainly are. And some of the nationwide injunctions which have been passed verge on insanity. One injunction asserted that the executive cannot pause or terminate fugitive admissions into the United States and had to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees – never mind the humanitarian or financial cost of the decision. Another injunction blocked the removal of men from women's prisons despite the risk of physical harm to female prisoners. A third injunction blocked the executive branch from doing anything about so-called sanctuary cities. It went wildly overboard and asserted the White House cannot even have conversations about sanctuary cities. These are just a few examples of the absurd judicial micro-management we are witnessing. When President Thomas Jefferson was working to build and protect our new nation, he warned that government ultimately controlled by judges would be a road to despotism. In a letter to William Jarvis on Sept. 28, 1820, Jefferson wrote: "You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indee[d] and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy." As I testified at a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, the Founding Fathers all believed that the three branches of government should be co-equal. If anything, the judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches. They were clear that the two elected branches could correct the judicial branch if it tried to impose its will on the American people. Alexander Hamilton warned in the Federalist Papers that the legislative and executive branches could powerfully respond to judges – and judges would have no means of defending themselves. As president, Jefferson and the Democrats eliminated 14 of 34 federal judges in the Judiciary Act of 1802. They did not impeach anyone (a lengthy and difficult task). Jefferson simply abolished the judgeships and the judges no longer had jobs. We do not have to eliminate district courts in the Jeffersonian tradition – unless we are forced to. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize that judicial tyranny by lower courts is intolerable and unsustainable. The High Court could take decisive steps to eliminate nationwide injunctions by local judges – or make a rule that they are immediately adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the House and Senate have begun work to correct absurd overreach by the most radical district court judges. This week's introduction of the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley and 20 senators is a powerful signal that the Senate can defend itself against tyrannical judges. When this is combined with Congressman Darrell Issa's No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (which passed in the House by 219-213) it's clear the district judges are forcing a constitutional crisis. We must protect the American people's right to elect those who manage the federal government. Lower court judges who think they can micromanage and override the elected president and Congress have a simple path: Resign and run for office. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will end this absurdity. If not, the Congress and the president will have to exercise their constitutional authority and eliminate nationwide injunctions by district judges. There is no alternative if we are to retain government of, by, and for the people.
Washington Post
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump cannot remake the government with the stroke of a Sharpie
Alan Raul is board secretary of the Society for the Rule of Law and a lecturer at Harvard Law School. He served as legal counsel in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. The U.S. district and appeals courts are inundated with fast-moving cases challenging President Donald Trump for (among other things) dismantling federal agencies established by Congress, firing members of independent boards and commissions who don't serve at the pleasure of the president and terminating inspectors general whom Congress endowed with a measure of independence for effective oversight of the executive branch. The judges (and shortly, the Supreme Court justices) who will be deciding these cases need to remember that, under the Constitution, Congress's legislative power to set polices and rules to govern the executive branch must generally prevail over presidential executive orders and unilateral mandates. These courts must reject any extreme version of the 'unitary executive' theory — a legal concept that would allow the president to disregard the contours and safeguards that Congress prescribes for the executive branch to follow. Unchecked presidential power is not what the Framers had in mind. My analysis might be a surprise coming from an associate White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan. In fact, I served in the White House during the years when the unitary executive theory came into vogue, and indeed, I supported it. Today, however, we can all see how an unleashed president can wreak havoc on constitutional order and the rule of law. I can also see how the Supreme Court's unitary executive decisions of recent years have been, by focusing disproportionately on 'separation of powers,' far too solicitous of presidential power against encroachment by an intrusive Congress. But the constitutional genius of America is checks and balances. And by rereading the Federalist Papers and looking back at earlier Supreme Court decisions, the courts can restore a rule of reason on how legislative and executive power are meant to operate together. This is crucial now because the cases involving the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board are coming up fast and might reach the Supreme Court quickly through the court's emergency 'shadow docket.' Though the Constitution vests the president with all executive authority, it vests Congress with all legislative authority, including, significantly, the power to set fundamental policies and procedures for the executive branch. The Framers exalted the separation of powers, but they also understood that the branches' authorities were not designed to be 'wholly unconnected.' In fact, in Federalist 48, James Madison wrote that the branches 'should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.' In Federalist 47, he noted that a 'partial mixture' of governmental powers is necessary for the preservation of liberty. This is why Congress is not usurping or encroaching on presidential authority when it exercises its sole power to establish (or sunset) executive departments and offices, mandate binding spending levels, impose independent oversight and, within certain limits, set up agencies whose boards are composed of bipartisan commissioners that do not serve at the pleasure of the president. So, what is Trump supposed to do if he believes that the government is bloated, spending is out of control, and programs and policies are poorly conceived? Answer: He must recommend to Congress corrective measures that he deems 'necessary and expedient,' just as Article II of the Constitution provides. As every schoolchild in America knows — or should know — it is for the president to propose and Congress to dispose. As luck would have it, the U.S. Code includes laws detailing how the president can recommend spending rescissions and government reorganizations for Congress to vote on. Indeed, the existing Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984 set forth specific procedures for the president to propose spending cuts and plans to transfer all or part of an agency to the jurisdiction and control of another agency; or to consolidate or abolish all or part of the functions of any given agency. But Trump cannot just do it with the stroke of a Sharpie. This is not controversial. The conservative Heritage Foundation wrote in 2017 that 'under current law, the President has no statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch, except where acts of Congress delegate authority to make particular changes.' Republican members of Congress fully understand this limitation. In February, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky) introduced the Reorganizing Government Act. Their bill, as a joint news release claimed, was intended to facilitate up or down voting on 'plans submitted to Congress by President Donald Trump in order to streamline government operations to better serve the American people.' A House panel even approved the measure on March 25. Yes, the Framers were amazing, but they were not always clairvoyant. They believed the president would always be weak relative to the legislature, and they didn't foresee political parties. The ensuing centuries have shown that presidents are generally strong and energetic, while Congress is frequently stalemated and quiescent. And partisan politics now predominates over the institutional rivalry that the Framers expected would suppress interbranch power grabs. Nonetheless, they did approve of 'auxiliary precautions,' as described in Federalist 51, to guard the people against oppression by their rulers. It was for this very purpose they created a 'structure of the government' that would 'furnish the proper checks and balances.' This trip down Federalist lane is necessary because, last year, the justices egregiously disregarded checks and balances in granting presidents near-absolute immunity to violate criminal law. Egregious because if there is one check and balance that should always be paramount in our democracy, it is that no man is above the law — especially criminal law. Yet the court's immunity decision did not once mention 'checks and balances' to protect the people — it mentioned only 'separation of powers' to insulate the president. To begin to scale back this over-deference to the commander in chief, the current justices can look to their predecessors' 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer. In Youngstown, the court struck down President Harry S. Truman's unilateral decision to take possession of a steel mill — by executive order — that the president claimed was necessary to prevent a nationwide strike that would jeopardize national security. The claimed authority, the court held, was inherently legislative in nature, and could not be justified in the absence of a law from Congress or a clear authorization in the Constitution itself. The court's wisdom in 1952 should guide the courts now in ruling on the validity of Trump's various executive orders. Trump's actions are based in radical claims of power that do not exist. As prior justices understood, unchecked presidential power and unbalanced executive chaos is not what the Framers had in mind.
