Text and Republican Government

Early conflicts over religious liberty and freedom of speech reveal that while we can agree on the Constitution’s text, we can profoundly disagree over the unwritten ideas we think the text represents. Debates about religion and free speech point to deeper unwritten principles that are at the very heart of America’s constitutional republic. The first debate deals with the prohibition on religious tests for office in Article VI. The second speaks to freedom of speech and press. In these early debates about religious liberty and freedom of speech, the antagonists agreed on the wording of constitutional text; they disagreed profoundly on the principles and political theory that underlie it in their understanding of America’s new republic. These early arguments reveal the importance of constructing constitutional meaning from the unwritten ideas that underlie the constitutional text.

Americanism Redux

This chapter investigates the use of Americanism to appropriate Roman Catholicism for the good of a nation. It recounts older Roman Catholic heresy claimed that the American political system was not at odds with church teaching, even though the United States seemed to stand for most of the social and political realities that nineteenth-century popes had condemned. It also talks about the Americanists in the nineteenth-century who argued that Vatican officials misread the United States, stating that the nation was far friendlier to Roman Catholicism than Europeans imagined. The chapter details how Americanists urged the church to update its polity to the nation's political sensibilities, a strategy that would make Roman Catholicism look less odd in the United States. It also highlights ways Americanists adapt Roman Catholicism to life in a secular, constitutional republic.

Technology Bill of Rights Needed to Protect Human and Environmental Health and the U. S. Constitutional Republic

For the protection of humanity and the planetary environment in general, and American citizens in particular, what is needed, we posit, is a set of new Constitutional Amendments that collectively form a second Bill of Rights, a Technology Bill of Rights, to protect our freedoms, health, air, water, agriculture, and the planetary environment from deliberate perversion and alteration. We describe the rationale for said Technology Bill of Rights that would: (1) Prohibit the application of any technique or method for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space; (2) Prohibit the application of any technique, including software-based process or platform or method for violating individuals free speech, censoring, altering, editing, deleting, excluding, blacklisting, or engaging in any activities that potentially bias votes or deceive the public on matters of health and/or environmental harm; and, (3) Prohibit activities of such scale and nature that would intentionally or unintentionally alter the complex but delicate balance in nature by and between myriad biota and their environments that makes our planet habitable for life. Whereas the meaning of (1) and (2) above is clear, (3) necessitates further clarification that may be inferred from the following non-exclusive examples of prohibited activities: ● Use of metallic and/or nano-particulate additions to aircraft fuel; ● Excessive launching of satellites, numbering in the tens of thousands, whose rocket exhaust might damage the ozone layer; ● Excessive exposure of humans and other biota to electromagnetic radiation; ● Use of electromagnetic radiation to heat the ionosphere; ● Pollution of air, land, water, agriculture, and aquaculture by particulates, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, radioactive nuclides, and bio-toxins; and, ● Strict oversight of biotechnology/bioengineering, including prohibition of gain-of-function experiments with potential pandemic pathogens.

La República católica y la República constitucional

Simón Bolívar y José Sebastián de Goyeneche fueron dos personalidades que idearon y defendieron distintos modelos de Estado desde el pensamiento ilustrado y el pensamiento católico, respectivamente. Nociones como nación, religión y libertad configuraron los ideales y las fidelidades; la autoridad y la obediencia; el orden social, político y eclesiástico. Este trabajo intenta aproximarse a la República constitucional bolivariana y a la República católica del obispo arequipeño reflejadas en sus discursos y epistolarios, en medio de un espacio público en tensión por subordinar y defender los deberes y derechos de la Iglesia y de la religión ante la estatalidad y el proceso de secularización. Abstract Simón Bolívar and José Sebastián de Goyeneche were two personalities who devised and defended State models from an enlightened thought and a catholic thought, respectively. Notions such as nation, religion and liberty, shaped ideals and fidelities, authority and obedience, social, political and ecclesiastical orders. This paper tries to approach the constitutional Republic in the bolivarian ideology and the catholic Republic in the doctrine of the bishop from Arequipa reflected in their speeches and epistolary amid a tense public space for subordinating and defending the obligations and rights of the Church and religion before the statehood and the secularization process.

Peffer v. Stephens

The Fourth Amendment provides for the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Search warrants may only be issued upon a finding of probable cause. This core tenet of our constitutional republic becomes progressively flexible with every development in Fourth Amendment interpretation. In Peffer v. Stephens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered the latest blow to constitutional rights that restrict the State from engaging in unprincipled searches. In an issue of first impression, the Sixth Circuit held that a criminal defendant’s alleged use of a computer during the commission of a crime was adequate probable cause to justify a search of the defendant’s home and a seizure of the technological equipment inside. Such a shortsighted justification fails to consider technological innovation, economic policy, and historical civil liberties. Peffer v. Stephens is the latest proof of the parasitic relationship between the law and technological advancement. As technology evolves, the law struggles to keep pace and resultingly impedes economic development. With the exponential growth of technology in the 21st century, a visionary approach to search and seizure law is necessary to promote economic innovation and to refrain from further dismantling Fourth Amendment protections.

Fascism Comes to America

For almost a century, American politicians and social commentator, trailed by novelists, Hollywood movie makers and television producers have agonized about the menace of fascism, and its ability to corrupt the United States’ constitutional republic, supposedly moderate, strong, and firm. Four facets of this huge set of issues are called to the attention of readers: the creation of the understanding of fascism in 1939–1941; the connection between political crises and their renderings in popular culture; the contribution of European scholars to the conventional conceptual framework; and an exploration of the penchant of American scholars for the notion.

“Without Which Nothing”: Public Law As the Sine Qua Non of Public Administration

Without public law, there is and can be no public administration in a nation that is a constitutional republic founded on the rule and supremacy of law. Public law is the basis for authority and a foundation for discretion. It is also a basis for creativity and innovation. This article considers how public law empowers administration, why public service professionals cannot assume authority and discretion, and why they need to be alert to public law if they wish to build an innovative public administration for the future particularly in the contemporary context.