One Person, One Vote: It Was Nice When It Lasted

On April 2, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States delivered another blow to democracy in our country. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that individuals can contribute to as many political parties and candidates as they want.

I suppose the only saving grace from this decision is that the court did not strike down the actual per candidate/party contribution limits. Meaning that a private citizen can now contribute to 10, or 20, or even 30 candidates, but can still only give whatever that max contribution limit is to each candidate. However, I strongly believe it is only a matter of time before that those contribution limits are also struck down in the name of the 1st amendment.

Although one person still cannot directly fund a candidates entire campaign by themselves, this ruling has vast ramifications. It yet another crack in democracy that is enjoyed in this country. The essence of "one person, one vote" is being quickly replaced with, "more money, more voting power"
 The vast majority of Americans do not have the financial means to contribute the max limit to justt one candidate, much less 20 of them. Due to the necessity of fundraising in our elections candidates are forced to follow the money. They have a strong incentive to listen to, help, or even be in service to the people that can fund their political ambitions.

The current system is consistently being tipped in favor of the super wealthy and away from middle-class America. While I doubt most Americans want to attack the free speech of their fellow wealthy citizens, there has to be a realization that the current trend in campaign finance law is inherently unequal.

One potential solution is to push for legislation which creates publicly funded elections. Each and every candidate would be given an allotted amount of taxpayers money, and a set amount of time to campaign. This would decrease the length of campaigns significantly, level the playing field for non-incumbent candidates, and present a better form of democracy for this country.

Unfortunately though, the powers at be have a strong incentive to not put forward such reforms. Incumbents have a significant advantage as of now and any new legislation, which they would have to pass,  which would decrease their chances of re-election will probably not gain any significant traction in Congress.

So as of now our country will continue to endure long and expensive campaigns that provide little public good. Our televisions will be filled with attack adds for months on end and there will be the usual rounds of countless debates during the primaries. And at the end of it no one, neither the candidates or the public, will be better off.

We Lost The War Because Our Leaders Could Not Lead

America let's be honest....we have lost the war in Afghanistan.

Every day 38,000 troops are leaving their patrol bases and combat outposts, attempting to carry on with the mission of bringing democracy to Afghanistan. However, this mission, regardless of the capabilities of our military and its service members, is one that has wholly failed.

As a U.S. Marine in Afghanistan, I never served with a group of more professional, dedicated, and brave men in my life. They were selfless with their bodies in the midst of firefights and displayed daily acts of courage that would humble us all. But bravery and an enemy body count only get us so far.

For every insurgent killed there will be five that replace him. For every house searched, another Afghan family becomes disillusioned with America, and for every wall or field damaged, another potential enemy fighter is born. The overall objective of constructing a democratic government in a broken country, cannot be accomplished when the future electorate hates the creator of this pipe dream.

 By the U.S military conducting large scale counter-insurgency operations we are only increasing the probability of ruining our reputation with every shot fired or every bomb dropped in someone's neighborhood, village, or town.

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Not because we don't have the right equipment, or good enough Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, or Sailors, but because the goal of democratizing an entire nation is unattainable. With the bar of measurable success set so high, the best we can do is reach up and grab that glass of American exceptionalism and drink it while we can, or pay off our tab and go home.

 On every patrol I met the local men living in our area of operations. And yet everyday I never knew whether tomorrow that farmer would be firing at me or shaking my hand. The objective in warfare is to defeat the enemy, but what if that enemy is supposedly the future of the country you are trying to build? Unfortunately this is not a new predicament that the United States has found itself in. Vietnam and Iraq are examples of the U.S government attempting to use military force as a substitute for diplomacy, and both had terrible results. Vietnam is still a communist country, and Iraq barely has a functioning government.

By continuing large scale military operations, the United States will continue to radicalize the moderate, and disillusion the hopeful. This is not the fault of the men on the front lines. They take the steps necessary to keep their fellow brothers alive. Whether that means searching homes, responding to force with force, or walking through a farmer's field so they will not patrol on roads strewn with I.E.Ds, then they must do that.

But....these ongoing operations will not lead to elections, or campaigns, or democracy in this country. Every bullet fired at the enemy, might as well be a bullet into the dream of democratizing Afghanistan. We shoot, kill, or arrest them, and then wave our flag and prosthelytize American values. If I were not of us, I would not believe the dream we are pitching either.

If the premise of victory can be replaced with a much more realistic objective, then true progress can start being measured. "Containment of the threat" needs to replace the current slogan of "democracy for all in Afghanistan."

Afghanistan will not be won by U.S Marine Corps infantry battalions. Instead the credible threats within the country will be contained by the use of highly trained small unit special forces.

 There are several reasons for this. One of the most important being is sustainability. A force of 2,000 special operators costs much less than 20,000 traditional infantrymen, and their ability to quickly strike an identified threat is unmatched. President Obama's light foot print strategy should not be the way military force is applied in other parts of the world, but it is how the military should be used in Afghanistan.

By accepting the reality that a counter-insurgency is a conflict that cannot be won, then we can begin to work on more productive strategies. Current U.S policymakers believe that if we spend more money, send more troops, and kill more of the enemy, then results will come.

True, politicians and generals might see momentary gains by utilizing a troop surge technique and implementing a "clear-and-hold" strategy. But our troops can only clear-and-hold so much, and what happens when the troops depart? All of our government's actions thus far in this campaign do not breed sustainable outcomes.

War is not an option that should be chosen easily or readily. Too often it seems our leaders resort to mass violence, attempting to accomplish missions which are impossible or unnecessary. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all examples of conflicts that we should not have fought in, and that we could not win. Life is too precious a commodity to be wasted fighting an ill-conceived conflict. We did not lose the war in Afghanistan because of our service member's inabilities. We lost the war because our leaders could not lead.

The Hobby Lobby Case: Is It the Beginning of the End for Obamcare?

This past Tuesday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius. Both of these cases, together popularly known as the "Hobby Lobby" case, deal with the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act (A.C.A) The owners of these two companies are deeply religious and view the mandate as a violation of their freedom to practice their religion, by being forced to supply contraceptives to their employees through mandates insurance programs, that violate their faith based beliefs.

The reason that this case is so important is because of the potential ramifications it can have in the future for the entire structure of the ACA. If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, and allow these private companies to selectively administer health care coverage to their employees it would set an important precedent. This "slippery slope" was noted by two of the more liberal justices on the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered whether other employers with religious objections would be able to opt out of covering medical procedures, such as vaccines or blood transfusions. "One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious groups could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform," chimed in Justice Elena Kagan

Taking a historical view on this case, one is reminded of the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortions nationwide before a certain time, prescribed within the "trimester framework". The similarity lies in the strategy that was, and is being used by opposition groups to minimize the effectiveness of these various laws. Pro-life groups have systematically brought cases before the courts that incrementally chipped away at the core of the Roe v. Wade decision. In many states, where there are only one or two abortion clinics, the "the right to an abortion" is nothing more than a paper tiger that in reality has no real tangible effect on women's lives or their supposed rights.

The same sort of paper tiger law could be born again, starting with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in this case. As both justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan pointed out, if this exception is made, why could not other exceptions be made. The slippery slope of legislative and judicial appeasement could result in the minoirity enjoying their protected rights, while the majority of people are subjected to a disuniformed healthcare system, resembling the one which the ACA was intended to fix.

However, the plaintiffs in this case do you have a valid argument, and the importance of religious freedom and choice are critically important to the independence that all citizens should be entitled to enjoy in this country. But in my opinion, I fail to see how their religious freedom and that of their company are interconnected. I am sure that of  Hobby Lobby's 13,000 workers  there are many that participate in activities that do not coincide with the religious beliefs of their employers. Does this mean that Hobby Lobby should fire them, or not even hire them in the first place? The confusion that occurs when trying to prescribe rights to a corporation is illogical. Furthermore, when attempting to place rights in the hand of a corporation there is confusing gray area that emerges.

The owners of Hobby Lobby have every right to practice whatever religion they choose. But in my opinion, their corporation does not have the right to choose a religion to follow. If the court were to rule in Hobby Lobby's favor then this corporation should have to only sell their products to consumers who follow and practice the same religion as the producers of their products. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan's observation that the ability for corporations to pick and choose what aspects of laws to follow based off their religious beliefs creates a non-uniform marketplace, that does not prove equitable solutions or products.

All though I hope the Court's majority will rule against Hobby Lobby I very much doubt they will. The past case of Citizens United demonstrated the court willingness to extend fundamental rights to corporations, and I doubt they will see much of a difference in this particular case. If the court does rule in favor of Hobby Lobby then this could be the first substantial crack in the ACA. It leaves open the question of who, or what corporation, will next bring forth a case demanding that they do not have to adhere to the ACA. The continuation of these separate lawsuits chipping away at the very core of this law could result the law itself being gutted and essentially useless. While it is impossible to predict the future, this case could be a step in the direction of nullifying President Obama's landmark piece of legislation.

Pros and Cons of Serving in the Military: Is The Sacrifice Worth The Payoff?

Having been off active duty since May 2011, I have had the desire to re-evaluate my own personal decision to join United States Marine Corps. While it is impossible to change any decisions we have made in life it always worthwhile to extrapolate what lessons we can from those decisions, and also understand and appreciate the ramifications of those choices. By being aware of how the past can dictate the future, it is always important to take stock, from time to time, of our own choices in life, and share what we have learned with others.

Initially I think it would be beneficial to list the pros of military service:

• Gain valuable life experience that few others will
• Enjoy education benefits for college
• Ability to travel/visit multiple countries for free
• Become a more competitive applicant when applying for jobs
• Are more aware of foreign policy realities
• Gain an appreciation for this country that few people can match

True these are only a few of the main benefits, but they encapsulate the larger good that comes from joining the military. My desire to continue onto a career in public service stems from my time in the Marine Corps. For many former military members the opportunities presented to them to help their community, and country, leaves them with the desire to continue that line of work. That explains why many veterans continue onto careers as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics. They combine their desire to be an active person with their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good. However, military service is not divorced from any negative consequences. The toll military life can takes on its service members, especially during times of prolonged conflict, can be great.

Below is a short list of the cons of military service:

• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Higher likelihood of suicide, and substance abuse
• Places enormous strain on personal relationships
• Combat
• Feelings of loneliness and isolation after leaving military
• Transition to civilian life is not always easily made

Again these are not all of the negative consequences of military service, but they do generally highlight one of the main issues that is a result of serving in the military. Most people will join right after high school and will leave whatever life they knew behind. While that individual is going on 1, or, 2, or 3, or even 4 deployments their friends are successively going through college at the same rate. You experiences in life began to wildly differ and the disconnect begins. Although technology allows for the ability to call friends and family much more easier than before it does not provide the necessary relief. The military member's day to day life is in a constant state of preparation for combat, while his or her friends are studying for the next exam, securing the next internship, or planning their upcoming spring break. 

So at the end of the day did I make the right decision? Was the five years spent serving as a U.S. Marine worth the sacrifice?

While I was still in the answer seemed clear, absolutely not. My friends were getting the best of both worlds, while I was packing my bags for another deployment. However, my attitude has changed since leaving the military and I have began to fully appreciate all that it offered me. Most obvious is the free education that I am currently enjoying. The worry of student loans and paying toff that debt after I graduate is not something I am concerned about it. Additionally, the pride that I have taken away from being a U.S. infantry Marine is something that I will have for the rest of my life. I was fortunate enough to take part in a piece of history while serving in Afghanistan. While the reasons why we were there, and what we actually accomplished will always open for debate, the point is that I was there. When my kids are in school, and their history teacher talks about the war in Afghanistan, they will have the opportunity to ask me what it was really like. That is an experience that I would not trade anything for.

So in sum, the sacrifice was worth the payoff for me. Everyone's situation will be different and each person will make what what they will of their own military experience. I for one would not have done anything differently. I would not be who I am today, or have the opportunities that I do without those five years spent as a U.S. Marine.

If you are considering whether to join the military think long and hard about. Be honest with yourself about what you want of out it, and what you are willing to sacrifice. If at the end of the day you are willing to leave the life you know and be part of something much bigger then yourself, then by all means do it. But don't say I did warn you that there will be some tough days ahead for you.

Why The Millennial's Will Elect An Atheist President

There was a time in America where the only individuals being elected to higher office were white, older, protestant men. While it is true that in many places this is still the status quo there has been an undeniable change occurring, albeit slowly. The Millennial attitude on many social issues here in the United States will be, in my opinion, the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

The election of John F. Kennedy, who was a practicing Catholic, illustrated a milestone in religious tolerance in the U.S. Progressing a few decades forward Barack Obama was elected, which again signified a turning point in the electorate's views on who was a "qualified" candidate. Mitt Romney's campaign also highlighted this shift from the importance of being a certain Christain denomination, to as long as you are Christain that will be good enough. Although there was still some heavy criticism for Romney's adherence to the Mormon faith, in the end his message of creating jobs and putting the country back on track trumped the importance of what god he prayed or how he went about doing it, thus securing his nomination as the Republicans party's presidential candidate.

We, the Millennials, have been witness to some of these transformations, and others we have read about in textbooks. A recent example of religion in politics being placed on the back burner is the issue surrounding marriage equality. For decades this was a toxic political topic that, if mentioned publicly, would almost certainly result in a politician's  next election being a catastrophic loss. Now as Millennials come to age, and began to assert their presence in the ballot box, and in survey polls there has been a drastic shift in public attitude surrounding the acceptment of gay marriage. I strongly believe that this is one of the largest indicators that religion-based politics and policy is on a downward trend.

In addition to some of the domestic changes occurring there has also been foreign events and policies that have completely restructured the views that many Millennials have had. The introduction of a "religious war" by Islamic extremists against the West, Iranian religious leaders calling the United States the "Great Satan", and the war in Iraq have all taken an extremely sectarian tone. Instead of the Bible, Koran, and the Torah being the instruction manual for how to people live in peace, it has consistently and frequently been used as propaganda to promote a certain ideology. Usually this thought process is centered around the exclusion of some, while reinforcing their own position of power through manipulation and coercion.

So if all of these events are fundamentally changing how the Millennial generation will vote in the future, what are the consequences? Will our willingness to vote into office a non-believer mean the systemic downfall of our country? Will an atheist president possess no moral compass for us to follow, resulting in disaster? I dare say that these possibilities are remote to say the least. The ability for a candidate to not be tied down to one religious group or another will only make that candidate more able to perform the duties of that elected office. A candidate who can cross not just racial and ethnic lines, but also religious ones will make that candidate a better representative of the people. Furthermore, an atheist president will be willing to look past the religious doctrine concerning issues and view them in a more realistic fashion. Each new administration controlling the White House will have its own new and unique issues to deal with. In the past religiously orientated presidents have stalled on some issues, and outright ignored others because of their beliefs. The time for recognizing the tidal shift in the American electorate is now. This reason, along with many others, is why the question of whether Americans will elect an openly atheist president is not a matter of if, but when.

The Constitution: Why Interpretation Matters

Throughout our nation's history the constitution has been the one stable legal doctrine binding us together as one, and conversely dividing us as well. Throughout time, and as the years since ratification have continued to pass, a debate has emerged. This discussion has centered around how in fact to treat and read the constitution. Should it be taken at face value, with judges attempting to determine the meaning of the law, and not the legislators intent? Or should the constitution be treated as a living breathing document, subject to an open interpretation that could potentially make it more adaptable to resolve the constantly changing problems faced by our society? This debate has spawned several questions that are extremely relevant today. Some of the queries include: Is there a reasonable argument to be made that the text of this document was broadly written to encourage adaptability, or not?  What are the ramifications of both perspectives, and does one side of the argument make more sense as more time has passed? Is there a restriction or elimination of rights by interpreting the constitution as a "living document" or, by viewing the text as historically immobile, does the country fail to address its new issues by utilizing a "stagnant" document? Finally, what interpretation, will serve the best interests of the up and coming generation in the future, as the courts begins to deals with 21st century issues.

One one side of this argument, championed by Antonin Scalia, is the need for a textualist reading of the constitution. Textualism is:

A formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquires into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislator in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justices and the rectitude of the law.

This form of interpretation takes the letter of the law and injects a careful amount of reason into it. In the book A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Justice Antonin Scalia he defines his brand of textualism as:

To be a textualist in good standing, one need not be too dull to perceive the broader social purposes that a statute is designed, or could be designed, to serve; or to hidebound to realize that new times require new laws. One need only to hold the belief that judges have no authority to pursue those broader purposes or write those new laws. (P.23)

In other words, Scalia is arguing, that a textualist interpretation of the constitution should be focused on the meaning of the statute not the unsaid intention of the legislators. Scalia reasons that by adhering to the letter of law displayed before him there is a higher degree of consistency in judicial rulings. The arbitrariness, sometimes associated with court rulings, will be kept to a minimum and a closer adherence to precedent will result, thus strengthening the law which our country follows. This preferred choice of interpretation has been followed by other justices as well. Justice Holmes said, "Only a day or two ago-when counsel talked of the intentions of the legislature, I was indiscreet enough to say I don't care what their intentions was. I only want to know what the words mean." (P.22-23) However, one must question whether this interpretive practice is the most logical for legal interpretation. Are there no other factors that need to be accounted for? Would taking into account the legislative intent be wholly corruptible to statute interpretation? Finally, since the issues faced by the first Supreme Court are so radically different than those faced by today's court, could a reasonable person postulate that the constitution does not in fact contain language to address every new issue that arises?

Justice Scalia acknowledged these questions, and also whole heartily rebuked them as well. He argues that being a textualist is the only possible way to balance these competing demands on interpreting law. Scalia also emphasizes within his essay that, "Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism." (P.23) However, within his wording, he does leave the door open for the allowance of the text to be construed to some degree. Scalia wrote,

A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means. (P.23)

Although Justice Scalia defends the practice of textualism, as the preferred method of constitutional interpretation, he seems to be retracting on his own legal philosophy. The necessity for equating some amount of intent, either legislative or other, to calculate the appropriate amount a text should be construed, appears to be inconsistent with textualism as a whole. Furthermore, an argument can be made that recognizing, and understanding, the intent of legislators would help to better interpret the law when it is called into question. If I for example, received instructions from my employer to complete a task, I and my employer are better served if I also know the intent of his instructions. By only knowing half of the possible information I might only do half of what he wants. Taking into account the intent, as well as the meaning of a statute, seems to only better serve the public as a whole. While this reasoning might at face value appear to have some validity, Scalia and the textualist philosophy disagree.

Justice Scalia laid out his position opposing the incorporation of legislative intent very clearly when he wrote in his essay,

My view that the objective indication of the words, rather that the intent of the legislature, is what constitutes the law leads me, of course, to the conclusion that legislative history should not be used as an authoritative indication of a statutes meaning. (P.30)

Textualists, championed through Justice Scalia's essay, lay out precisely why this form of interpretation is dangerous, unreliable, and destined to create numerous unintended consequences. One of the first reasons for rejecting legislative history, by Scalia, is that "extensive use of legislative history in this country dates only from about the 1940's." (P.30) Furthermore, due to this unexpected inclusion of this new form of evidence when arguing cases, "we have developed a legal culture in which lawyers routinely--and I mean routinely--make no distinction between words in the text of a statute and words in its legislative history." (P.31) Justice Scalia also argues that the use of legislative history, especially in current times, is nonsensical for the simple fact that the intent of law by the legislatures themselves is commonly not known. So for the court to take into account the legislative intent/history, while the legislators themselves are ignorant of it, simply results in a gross mistake in the court's judgement. Scalia supports this claim in his essay when he wrote,

The floor is rarely crowded for a debate, the members generally being occupied with committee business and reporting to the floor only when a quorum call is demanded or a vote is to be taken. And as for committee reports, it is not even certain that members of the issuing committees have found time to read them..."(P.32)

While Scalia's assertions seem to make the argument for textualism valid, the history of the courts decisions seem to point to other factors that are important for interpretation. A Justice that approaches the issue of interpretation differently is a man named Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer. In his book title, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, he wrote,

As history has made clear, the original Constitution was insufficient. It did not include a majority of the nation within its "democratic community." It took a civil war and eighty years of racial segregation before the slaves and their decedents could begin to think of the constitution as theirs. Nor did women receive the right to vote until 1920. the "people" had to amend the Constitution, not only to extend its democratic base but also to expand more fully to secure basic individual (modern) liberty. But the original document sowed the democratic seed. (P.32-33)

Within this passage Justice Breyer is recognizing the constitution's ability for adaptation through constitutional amendments. But what if this "perfect form of government" fails to be functional? In that scenario what recourse is there for active liberty, when the minority has no voice? Is there a recourse for such groups, and how does the interpretation of the constitution, and the judicial philosophy of judges help or hurt the progression of our country's law and policies. Would the lack of action by the government, like now, permit the more expansive use of judicial policy making by judges?

 Illustrating Justice Breyer's more expansive view on constitutional interpretation that occurred before his time, is the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut. 


This is an interesting case to examine because it highlights how these two opposing views of constitutional interpretation began to fundamentally disagree. The case revolved around the legal question of whether a Connecticut state law forbidding the use of contraceptives "violated the right of marital privacy which is with the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights."  However, since there is no explicit clause, sentence, phrase, or amendment stating that such a right to privacy exists what is a Justice to do? According to a textualist, the clear answer would be to apply the law or lack of law according to the written Constitution before him or her. The following video by justice Scalia illustrates his reasoning on the topic.

In accordance with the textualist philosophy, the only clear answer would be that since no such right to privacy exists then no such right can me construed from the language of the text. But, is this not in conflict with the other basic rights Americans are entitled to under the constitution? Under other amendments there seems to be an explicit intent for privacy, because without a certain degree of privacy these other rights might become moot. Would the notion that a important right, such as privacy, be an implied right by other constitutional amendments? This was the thought process of the majority in that case, and it set an important precedent.

While in many Supreme Court cases, the language of the statue is clear and their opinions are only needed as a confirmation/clarification for the rest of the judicial system. These two opposing judicial philosophies discussed here today are usually only significant when there is ambiguity in the law, or when the issue before the court is without precedent. An article by the New York Times made a note of this under appreciated judicial harmony. Additionally, the article noted that disagreement only regularly occurs if the cases that go beyond the normal "letter of the law."

There have been no dissents in more than 60 percent of the 46 cases decided so far this term. At this point last year, the justices were unanimous just 48 percent of the time according to the statistics compiled by Scotusblog. In the two terms before that, 52 percent of the cases decided by now were unanimous.

So this is where the real crux of the debate lies. Simply stated, what judicial interpretive method is better for our country and our constitution? In my opinion, the essence of textualism is in fact a good thing. This is because interpreting law cannot be a subjective process where biases, maliciousness, and discriminatory beliefs are the standard to which judgements are made. However, it is not the only necessary component to substantive and comprehensive judicial interpretation. Justice Breyer's recognition that the "original constitution was insufficient" is not a condemnation of our founding fathers, but a recognition of mankind's inability of attaining perfection. I believe that clutching until the last breath, to only the text of a document is not just irresponsible but dangerous. Frequently, the literal translation of any text does not in fact meet all of the author's intentions for the reader. A passage of almost any book can mean almost anything depending on who and how a persons "reads" it. The intent of the author is what guides a reader to the true meaning of the words on the paper. The medium of written language is beautiful but also restricting. Once pen meets paper, and words are written, the evolution of the thought abruptly ends. Punctuation places an arbitrary conclusion to ideas and the intangible intent of those words are restricted to the interpretation that letters give to thoughts.  We rarely ever run an idea, no matter the level of our intelligence, to its conclusion. What is driving these ever evolving ideas is the intent which initially bore them out of our minds. So with this understanding, is not unreasonable to take into account, the intent of the authors of statues, when deciding difficult and ambiguous cases. Without acknowledging the intent and/or implied rights, the ability for a woman to choose what she may or may not want to do with her body, or whether a married couple could choose to take contraceptives would not exist. Another example of where textualism has had difficulty defending a commonsensical approach to constitutional interpretation, in my opinion, has been concerning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The second amendment as written in the constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A textualist, like Justice Scalia, will look at this amendment and see the answer to whether citizens can own "Arms" quite clearly. However, the textualist also seemingly ignore the other three quarters of the amendment and fail to place this amendment within the context of the modern United States. Justice Breyer's views on this topic illustrate an opposite but important perspective.

 First the right to keep and bear arms was predicated on the recognition, in 1787, that it was essential to the success of "a well regulated militia." However in 2014 there are no militias. The closest organization representing any sort of "state militia" would be a National Guard unit. But even if these these National Guard units were commonly accepted as today's equivalent of a state militia, are the members of the National Guard expected to provide their own firearms? Is each National Guard member required to purchase an M-16 A2 assault rifle? Obviously the answer is no. Each member of the National Guard is issued a weapon by the government, and that weapon is not kept by the National Guardsman, but instead it is stored on a military base within a secure building called an armory, where only a select number of people have access to it. So if those facts are true, and a textualist interpretation of the Amendment could possibly mean that unless someone was part of the state militia (National Guard) then said person has no right to "keep and bears arms?" Because was not the main point of the 2nd Amendment national defense, and not self-defense?

A recent case in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller put this question of differentiating national defense and self-defense in front of the Supreme Court in regards to the meaning of the 2nd amendment. In the court's majority opinion, written by none other than Justice Scalia, he reasoned that, "The second Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purpose, such as self-defense within the home." Interestingly a few years later Justice Scalia did an interview where he consented that there could in fact be limitations on what and who could bear arms. This juxtaposition of ideas illustrates the problems that a textualist interpretation of the Constitution can have.

However, what if a different form of interpretation was applied to this amendment? Would the resulting interpretation mean that no American in any state could own a firearm? I suppose that if taken to the extreme this could indeed happen, but it does not have to be. Firstly, this amendment has to be placed within the context of the times. In 1787 the "arms" were single shot muskets that were inaccurate and slow to reload. Now private gun owners can purchase full blown assault rifles that fire large caliber rounds extremely fast, and can also be aided by a variety of scopes and sights. With the slue of mass shootings where the perpetrators used assault rifles, could a reasonable person interpret the Constitution to mean that the authors of the 2nd amendment do not intend for this particular right to be extended so drastically? There have been other cases where the court has recognized the dramatic change in technology and has applied the law accordingly. Most notably are cases regarding the 4th amendment. In 1787 when our constitution was ratified there were no telephones, Internet, thermal scanners, airplanes, drones, or global positioning satellites (GPS). Yet the court has recognized that utilizing these devices does in fact violate a person's right to privacy and unresonable searches and seizures. While these specific technologies were not implicitly mentioned, the court reasonably took into account the founding father's intent and balanced the protection of citizen's rights, with the meaning of the Constitution in modern times.

So why has there been such a push back about applying this same standard of common sense to the 2nd amendment? How could one misconstrue an amendment aimed at expanding national defense and instead promoting it as "self-defense?" Each group, whether pro-gun control or anti-gun control, will both use the text of the 2nd amendment to help argue their position. However, as the millennial generation comes to age, casts their votes, runs for office, and becomes supreme court justices, how will we in fact react to these changing times? And how will our generation's judges interpret the Constitution? The answers to these questions will be a result of how one deems the correct way of interpreting our constitution. Many of us have lived a life where rapid change on any variety of things is now the status quo. We have accepted the fact that when we buy a new phone, T.V, or computer, we will only have the latest model for about 6 seconds. Change is what has defined our generation. Whether it is U.S foreign policy, attitudes on social issues, domestic politics, or even what is important in life, we have all seen how each of these items change, stabilize, and without fail change again. With these experiences, a future Justice from our generation, might one day sit on the bench and approach interpretation somewhat differently than his or her predecessors. His or her focus,  cognizant of the change that sweeps our world so often, will be on interpreting the constitution within the context of the times.

While all societies need a strong foundation to build upon, we should not look to the foundation as a limit to how far we can grow and adapt. Our foundation is the Constitution. It has laid out the rights that we as citizens are entitled to. It has provided the instructions as to how our government should be run, and it has been a document that has bound us together as one country. However, at the end of the day it is still a document written 227 years ago. The only way for it to survive and remain relevant is being able to adapt to the needs of the people that follow it. This underlying point is why interpretation matters so much. If only applying the words of this document, without the intent of its authors, to the important cases facing the court today, the hope for a peaceful resolution is not likely. While serving as a U.S Marine an often cited mantra was "adapt or die." The Constitution can maintain its important foundation, but if it is not interpreted to fit the times then perhaps one day we as a country might just ignore it altogether.

Works Cited:

"Antonin Scalia." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.

"Textualism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 22 July 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.

Scalia, Antonin, and Amy Gutmann. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law: An Essay. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1997. Print.

"Home - Supreme Court of the United States." Home - Supreme Court of the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.

Breyer, Stephen G. Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. New York: Knopf, 2005. Print.

"Griswold v. Connecticut." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014.

"Supreme Court Justice Says 'Right to Privacy Not in Constitution'" YouTube. YouTube, 01 Aug. 2012. Web. 04 Mar. 2014.

Liptak, Adam. "Justices Agree to Agree, at Least for the Moment." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2013. Web. 03 Mar. 2014.

"Justice Breyer on 2nd Amendment: If You Live in DC & Like Shooting Guns You Can Go to Maryland." YouTube. YouTube, 12 Dec. 2010. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.

"District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary." Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014.

"Gun Control - Supreme Court Justice Scalia." YouTube. YouTube, 06 Jan. 2013. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.

Why Don't Millenial's Love God?

An interesting phenomenon has been affecting the Millennials. We, as a generation, have begun to renounce religion at historically high rates. This begs the question as to why. In a world where every natural disaster, famine, drought, and war are brought to us in the convenience of our own home, one would think that we might be more, not less interested, in seeking religious answers to mankind's continuing calamity. So what is the reason for you and I not placing the same trust in religion that our previous human brethren did?

A study by Pew Research looked at this issue in great detail. Their report said,

By some key measures, Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation – so called because they were born after 1980 and began to come of age around the year 2000 – are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Indeed, Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their life cycle (20% in the late 1990s) and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults (13% in the late 1970s). Young adults also attend religious services less often than older Americans today. And compared with their elders today, fewer young people say that religion is very important in their lives.

If this is the new landscape of American religiosity what are the ramifications? Is our country destined to succumb to the wickedness of temptation, and resemble a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, simply waiting for the Lord's vengeance? I am of the opinion that this is unlikely, however I am prone to mistakes now and again. I personally view this growing lack of faith in religion as movement towards social liberation. In too many instances politics and public policy have been the brain child of religiously motivated individuals. Since the Millennial generation has begun to assert their voting power, a significant change in the direction of our country has begun to occur. One notable example is the wide spread acceptance of same-sex marriage. A graph by Pew Research illustrates this significant shift.

While I am only speculating there seems to be a correlation between lack of religious affiliation and new found acceptance of social issues. But what does does the future hold for other important policy issues as our generation begins to tackle them? What if, as the Millennial generation ages, we revert to more conservative attitudes? Will this tide of change become merely a high water mark only to be surpassed as our children begin their challenge of dictating the direction of our country?  Before we can begin to answer those questions we must first address why we have had a falling out with God? While one could postulate for days on end as to why this happened I believe there are several simple reasons.

As the Millennial generation came into age we grew up listening to case after case of the Catholic Church's pedophilia crisis. This scandal, for myself at least, put the juxtaposition of God and religion in front of my eyes. For many years, these two identities were seen as one. As goes God, goes the Church, and vice versa. Instead though, the hypocrisy of one cast the shadow of hypocrisy on the other. God was no more above judgment than religion. This series of scandals by the Catholic Church soured, in my opinion, many Millennial's attitudes about religion from an early age.

 Another major factor was the introduction of Jihad by Muslim extremists. Millennial's on one hand, saw the Catholic Church employing priests who were pedophiles, and on the other hand were watching their country being attacked by what some labeled as "holy warriors". There was not much left in the middle for us to wrap, what little faith we had left in god, around. In addition to these events we have seen religion used time and again, throughout the world, to do the bidding of men with guns. Rarely is it the rallying force of good, but instead a tool of manipulation by those in power. So if this is true, and the abuse of the religious institution is the culprit in my generation's relationship with a deity, why do we not love God? If we could separate one from the other, could we not still maintain a part of our heart to love our creator, whatever, or whoever that is? Perhaps some of us can, and in reality there are plenty of us who do. But for me myself, the church that proclaims God, is God himself. There is no separation between the two because they are one and the same. The hypocrisy of one only demonstrates the hypocrisy of the other.

So when the question arises, "why don't Millennial's love god?" I respond, "because God did not love us first" and then take a selfie.