fbpx
Search Results For:

Search Results for: constitution – Page 50

Robert C. Koons replies to a letter concerning his recent article, "What Will Replace Behemoth State University?"
New technological developments and pressing national needs suggest that the future of higher education may be one friendlier to the classical tradition of liberal education.
Are we prepared to acknowledge the moral stakes in Obama’s new push against “Don’t ask, don’t tell?”
A political scientist explains why the concept of “strict scrutiny” is alien to the Constitution and why it poses a threat to a constitutionally defensible judicial review.
The Supreme Court’s bad ruling in the DC handgun case may soon undergo a drastic and very damaging expansion.
Why we shouldn't listen to calls to get rid of the filibuster.
It’s hard to credibly demand religious liberty when one is in the minority if one refuses to grant it when one is the majority. The principle “do unto others as you would have done unto you” should be a guiding ideal for all sides in the Swiss minaret controversy.
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, it is time to realize that the best way to honor his legacy is to fight its overextension and misapplication into the realm of politics. The first in a two-part series.
In the wake of the "Climate-gate" controversy, a scientist at Princeton University argues for a sensible view on climate change and CO2.
If we are to restore confidence in free markets, we need a robust explanation of their moral value.
Principled reasons and practical considerations suggest that proposals to legalize casino gambling misunderstand what is good for cities and states, and ultimately for people as well.
Though there is no hope of having a morally neutral definition of marriage, it is possible to have one based on human nature and supported by sound reasoning.
Opposition to the CIA interrogations of terror suspects is not a reason to distort important Constitutional principles.
Pragmatic concerns (and angry accusations) have dominated the health care debate to date. But what are the principles that should guide efforts for reform?
Those who see the movement for same-sex marriage as today’s civil-rights struggle are abusing historical reason and our national institutions.
President Obama has called for vigorous debate on the abortion question. For that to happen, though, his own position must be clarified. The picture that emerges is not a flattering one.
Millions of Americans believe that states can prohibit abortion in the third trimester, yet current Supreme Court jurisprudence has manufactured a right to unfettered abortion right up to the time of the child’s birth. How did Americans become so confused on this issue and how did the Supreme Court end up where it has?
Earlier this year scholars gathered at Union University for a conference considering the work of Robert P. George in his 1994 book Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality. One theme of the conference was how religion and reason can help us understand and promote the common good.
Recently, the editor of Public Discourse sat down with Robert P. George to discuss the state of the marriage debate. While supporters of same-sex “marriage” claim that history is on their side, it turns out that supporters of traditional marriage have more reasons for hope than they may realize.
Same-sex marriage fundamentally alters the idea of marriage, expands government control of marriage, and ignores a child’s right to a mother and father.
At a moment of increased government involvement in the economy, the solution we need might be a more independent central bank.
President Obama’s calls for honest dialogue on the abortion issue can only get off the ground if both sides agree that abortion is a contestable issue. But if it is a contestable issue, it should be settled by democratic processes—not judicial fiat.
Regardless of who prevails in the argument over marriage, the politics of denunciation practiced by same-sex marriage supporters will have damaged the public discourse.
The Iowa court’s recent decision does not simply broaden marriage, it radically changes its nature. While marriage previously served public purposes of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and one another, now marriage merely serves as affirmation of adult feelings.