Defending the Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & the American Constitution
Tuesday September 16th 2014

Self-Educated Man

lincoln family bible study


Read along with us; share your insights, ask questions, post a link that adds to the discussion


Federalist 58 by James Madison. 1. Under the proposed Constitution whose interests were represented by the U.S. Senate? Is it so today? If not, how might it be remedied & by what means? 2. How did the Constitution provide for updating representation in Congress? 3. Madison credits the U.S Constitution with assigning the greatest power, that of the “purse strings” to the U.S. House. In your opinion, how might the House assert that power to reduce the size & cost of government today? 4. Explain in your own words Madison’s warning against too many men serving in the House. How might his warning be applied today as calls abound for a more direct democracy & for scrapping the electoral college system? 5. Is democracy the form of government our Founders gave us or was it a republican form? Explain the difference.


TML is syndicated by:

Google News (Internet)

Newstex - No. 1 Rated Authoritative Content

KFC: Kentucky Foolish Censorship

ADAM KISSEL, THE FIRE

“Forget about fraternity rush, spring break, and cramming for exams,” FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley writes this week in The Daily Caller. “The students and faculty of Northern Kentucky University (NKU) have brought a disturbing new tradition to campus: justifying the destruction of pro-life displays as ‘freedom of speech.'”

Robert notes that since at least 2006, pro-life student organization Northern Right to Life has had its public displays vandalized by vigilante censors. In 2006, a professor actually encouraged her students to express their views against the display by becoming destructive vandals. This year, a student followed suit after he was caught tearing down the display, declaring that this vandalism “was expressing our right to free speech.”

But as Robert notes: “responding to speech through physical violence, against either people or objects, is a criminal act with no constitutional protection.”

That should be obvious. Destroying someone else’s display, blocking access to others’ speech, or substantially disrupting a speech is not protected, yet somehow people persist in making the foolish claim that vigilante censorship is protected from punishment.


Adam Kissel is Vice President of Programs at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He graduated from Harvard University and from the University of Chicago, where he served as Student Liaison to the Board of Trustees and earned a master’s degree from the Committee on Social Thought. His academic interests include the history and theory of liberal education, the history and theory of rhetoric, and rhetoric’s relationship with philosophy. He also has served as a professional editor for faculty in a variety of disciplines. Before joining FIRE, Adam was a director of the Lehrman American Studies Center and the Jack Miller Center for the Teaching of America’s Founding Principles. With Sharon Browne he wrote a Faculty Rights Handbook in 2007.


Used with the permission of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.