Editor’s Update: If you enjoyed Sergio Cisneros’ recent post on language and immigration topic, you may want to check out his op-ed piece in the Wednesday March 28 edition of the Portland Oregonian — or catch another edition of it here as published by Georgetown University’s Berkely Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.
Here’s what’s at stake at the Supreme Court this week as it considers challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare): whether we will move from the American model of democracy toward a British one. Continue reading
This week, the United States Supreme Court will hear six hours of oral arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare. Oral arguments are usually limited to one hour, which suggests something about the gravity of this case.
From an originalist perspective, there is little doubt that Congress’s requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Yet such a requirement is necessary if we are to have affordable, universal health care.
The solution to this dilemma is to abandon a national approach to health care and return the matter to the states. Continue reading
Editor’s Note: From time to time Politics Among Friends will publish guest posts. Today’s guest author is a student at George Fox University.
Editor’s Update: For more of Sergio’s writing on this topic, see his op-ed piece in the Wednesday March 28 edition of the Portland Oregonian.
Words possess tremendous power and can cause much harm. Many times, the way people use certain words can define a situation or problem’s outcome. For this reason, it is crucial that people stop using the term “illegal” when referring to undocumented immigrants in the United States. This fundamental change is the first step toward immigration reform. Continue reading
Elections should be about something. Elections are expensive and cumbersome, and therefore are precious, our main opportunity to connect our government to the major questions it needs to answer.
An election that isn’t about anything important is an empty exercise. It may stir interest as a sporting event – a very long horse race – or as a celebrity reality show. But if an election isn’t about fundamental issues of human existence and political theory, it’s a sham, nothing more than very expensive patriotic bunting draped across the real business of governing. Continue reading
Political scientists and commentators generally assume that a candidate needs a lot of money to successfully run for president. The candidate may not need to have the most money, the experts tell us, but they need to have a lot of it.
This year almost gave us a chance to put that thesis to a stern test. Continue reading
Mark pointed out the other day a newspaper story about a pair of ethicists arguing that newborn babies shouldn’t be treated as persons before the law. The ethicists say that being born does nothing to change the nature of the infant’s internal existence or cognitive ability. So if she was not a person before birth, she isn’t afterwards, either – and if she can be aborted before birth, she can be “aborted” for some time after birth, too.
I am tempted to dismiss the conclusion as mere silliness from clueless academics. But I wonder if there’s something we can learn from even the silliest people. Continue reading
From today’s London Telegraph:
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
I always wonder if folks like these are actually pro-life plants. I agree that there is no meaningful distinction between a late term abortion and killing a baby out of the womb.
You can read the story here.