Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute says that it's important for us to think deeply about just what the Constitution is:
To think about the Constitution legalistically is to see it simply as a set of rules to be applied and interpreted, ultimately by judges. This view obviously makes sense up to a point. Judges have a foremost role in constitutional interpretation, and the Constitution is, in some of its most crucial respects, a form of law. But this view is easily taken too far, and so can encourage an excessively lawyerly constitutional practice that comes down to a search for technicalities that justify various uses of power and so narrows our understanding of what political life involves.
Now, mind you, he's not advocating for any kind of loosey-goosey living-document perspective:
This kind of broader constitutionalism is an extension of, not a substitute for, an originalist approach to judicial interpretation. Reading the text as it was written is the judge’s job, but the judge is just one constitutional actor, and not in every instance the appropriate or decisive one. Our grasp of that truth has been degraded over time, and our contemporary over-emphasis of legalistic and policy-oriented constitutionalism is the result of a kind of deformation of our constitutional culture, driven in part by some peculiar notions of the functions of the judge. Understanding how that has happened should help us see that a recovery of our constitutional order will depend on more than just appointing good judges. It will depend on our recovering a richer and more complete understanding of who we are as a people, and so of what our Constitution really is.
A new project of Principles First called The Pillars can help a citizen take this broad view. The first installment provides brief summaries of the contributions of great Enlightenment figures (and my heroes) to humankind's understanding of ordered liberty: Burke, Locke, Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone and Adame Smith. Future installments will move the reader through successive eras and the thinkers about freedom associated with each.
Kurt T. Lash at Law & Liberty says universities need to do less "contextualizing" of Thomas Jefferson and put more focus on the thunderous documents he penned - not just the Declaration of Independence, but the Northwest Ordinance, which laid out a path for a slavery-free American future.
Maybe if self-identified conservatives spent more time pondering the above principles, American politics would be less subjected to the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Laura Loomer, writes Kimberly Ross at ArcDigital.
An excellent essay at The Bulwark by Matthew Stokes looks at the effect that not having to dress like a grown-up professional to work in the wake of the pandemic is having on our mindset not only about work but our approach to life in general.
David Wurmser at Fox News says that the tectonic shift underway in the Middle East is rapidly diminishing the relevance of Palestinian foot-stamping:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. . . . dismissed the agreements signed at the White House as “a distraction” by Trump from the coronavirus pandemic and complained that the Palestinian issue was not addressed.
This is an absurd argument that fails to recognize the historic importance of the agreements signed Tuesday to advance the long-sought goal of peace between Israel and its neighbors. Certainly, much remains to be accomplished, but the agreements with the UAE and Bahrain are highly significant.
In truth, the real abandonment of the Palestinian people has come from their own leaders, who refuse to make a peace with Israel that would lead to a vast improvement in the lives of the Palestinians with new opportunities for trade, jobs and regional cooperation.
Two years ago, Trump critics also blasted his decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, claiming this would end any chances for peace. They were proven wrong by the UAE and Bahrain.
At the core of the European diplomatic slight, the American left’s dismissiveness, and the symbolic but irrelevant launching of missiles by terrorists in Gaza was the belief that the resolution of the Palestinian issue is a precondition to advance regional peace.
And yet, four peace treaties reveal quite a different pattern. President Trump understand this, which is why he pursued peace between Arab nations and Israel rather than giving Palestinians a permanent veto of all efforts to end 72 years of Arab hostility toward the Jewish state.
Importantly, a major driver of the decision by the UAE, Bahrain and hopefully more Arab nations to normalize relations with Israel is the threat the Arab World sees from Iran, which is hostile not just to Israel and the U.S. but to Sunni Muslim Arab states. It makes sense for the Arab nations to join with Israel and the U.S. as allies against the Iranian menace.
Apparently neither Hamas, which started right in with a rocket barrage aimed at Israel after the deal was signed, nor Fatah, get the message:
The Palestinian Authority will sever ties with any country that opens an embassy to Israel in Jerusalem, a top Palestinian official warned on Sunday, after Serbia and Kosovo announced that they will be doing so in the near future.
“Palestine will sever its relations with any country that will move or open its embassy to Jerusalem,” PLO Executive Committee Secretary-General Saeb Erekat tweeted on Sunday.
The US is within days of topping the 200,000 COVID-death mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment