Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Every time a tragic shooting occurs, a predictable chorus rises from the political left demanding more gun control. This reaction represents what the Bible describes as the “wicked heart” that jumps to conclusions without considering the full reality of our world. The fundamental flaw in this thinking is the assumption that we live in a static world where outlawing guns would actually reduce violence rather than simply shifting its form.
I witnessed this flawed thinking firsthand during a confrontation with a political opponent during President Trump’s first term. After he delivered his standard anti-gun rhetoric, I asked if he believed in gun control. When he affirmed, I pressed further: “You think that someday all guns should be confiscated from the public?” He agreed, adding, “We need to protect the children.” As I continued, “So you would be fine if all guns held by the public at this moment were confiscated,” he nodded enthusiastically – until I added, “so that only the Trump government has guns.” Suddenly, he fell silent, his animated demeanor replaced by thoughtful hesitation.
And that, my friends, is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of gun control advocacy.
History repeatedly demonstrates that making something illegal doesn’t stop its use. Prohibition didn’t stop alcohol consumption; it actually encouraged it while empowering organized crime. The war on drugs hasn’t stopped drug usage, and the war on poverty hasn’t eliminated poverty – both problems have worsened despite government intervention.
This doesn’t mean the solution lies in the opposite extreme. Oregon’s experiment with drug decriminalization, for instance, devolved into such an epidemic that lawmakers reversed those policies. The reality is that simplistic solutions to complex problems rarely work as intended.
The major advantage of having guns in the hands of the public became evident in my conversation with that opponent. If the people don’t have guns, the government still will. When the government possesses firearms and the people don’t, what happens when tyrants seize control of the halls of government? Criminals will always obtain weapons – if not guns, then knives or other instruments of violence. Do we then confiscate all knives? Require hand coverings to prevent people from using their fists? The problem isn’t the weapon but the character of the person wielding it.
Several important truths emerge from this understanding:
- Guns are valuable tools for defense, hunting, and recreation
- When the public owns guns, the government thinks twice before acting tyrannically
- When criminals worry about armed resistance, they redirect their activities toward softer targets
- When everyone might be armed, potential assailants face a precarious situation
The Founding Fathers understood these truths and studied history carefully. When Rome transformed into an empire, it implemented strict weapon regulations – banning private arsenals and restricting where arms could be carried. Within Rome’s sacred boundaries (the pomerium), carrying military-grade weapons was illegal. Roman authorities regularly disarmed conquered peoples, provincial peasants, and slaves to prevent uprisings. As the Roman and Byzantine Empires became more centralized, emperors like Justinian strictly regulated weapon manufacturing and sales to citizens. The more centralized the government became, the more tyrannical and restrictive it grew.
During America’s Revolutionary Period, the war began partly because British troops marched toward Concord specifically to confiscate firearms and ammunition. Throughout modern history, every tyrannical system has confiscated guns, if not universally, at least from the groups they feared most. Taking guns away from citizens is a surefire way to protect government from accountability, allowing it to act without threat of resistance.
The Founding Fathers left no doubt about their views on an armed citizenry:
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…” – Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…” – James Madison
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…” – St. George Tucker
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” – Zachariah Johnson
The Second Amendment was never primarily about hunting or sport shooting. It was conceived as a safeguard against tyranny. The final check on governmental power. The Founders understood that liberty requires constant vigilance and that the right to bear arms serves as the ultimate guarantor of all other rights.
The contemporary debate over “reasonable” gun restrictions misses the constitutional point entirely. The Founders didn’t view firearm ownership as a privilege to be regulated but as a natural right to be protected. Any discussion of gun control that begins with “what restrictions are reasonable” has already abandoned the originalist position.
The preservation of liberty ultimately depends not on court rulings or legislation but on the American people’s unwavering commitment to the principles of armed self-defense and resistance to tyranny. As history demonstrates, once we concede the principle that the government may regulate our right to self-protection, we have begun the slow retreat toward subjugation.
The choice is precisely what Jefferson described: dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery. The originalist position is clear. We choose freedom, with all its dangers, over the false security of an unarmed populace subject to the whims of those who govern.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
An honest observation of history provides a complicated view when it comes to the Great Rapprochement. Calling it a natural alignment of Western Hemisphere powers might be one school of thought, another offers a starkly different interpretation – one that views this diplomatic warming as a calculated maneuver to expand American hegemony under the guise of manifest destiny, with Venezuela’s gold resources as a particular prize.
The concept of manifest destiny, rooted in the belief that the United States had a “God given right to expand from ocean to ocean,” evolved in the minds of some political circles to “control all of the Americas in the name of democracy and freedom.” The expanded definition served as the ideological foundation for particular political views that called for American expansionism. Deeper critics may even argue that this rhetoric masked more base motives: “plunder and commercial interest” rather than any genuine civilizing mission. This perspective views manifest destiny not as a noble belief in American exceptionalism, but as a convenient justification for territorial and economic aggression.
The Great Rapprochement, from this critical angle, represented a strategic pivot from continental expansion to hemispheric dominance. With the American frontier largely settled by the 1890s, manifest destiny found new expression overseas and particularly in Latin America, where the United States could expand its influence without directly challenging European powers, especially after allegedly reconciling with Britain.
The 1895 Venezuela Crisis serves as a prime example for critics of the rapprochement. While some defending American interests may frame this as a diplomatic turning point that forced Britain to recognize American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, a more critical viewpoint argues that it was something more calculated: an early attempt to assert control over Venezuela’s mineral wealth.
Historical documents show that American interest in Venezuela predates the rapprochement, with Venezuelan General Francisco de Miranda working to launch a revolution during a trip to the United States as early as 1805-1806. This early interventionist impulse, critics argue, evolved into a more sophisticated form of economic imperialism by the late 19th century, with the rapprochement with Britain providing cover for American ambitions in the region.
A particularly prominent theory centers on Venezuela’s gold reserves. Critics point to America’s historical relationship with gold as evidence that the rapprochement facilitated a new form of financial colonialism. The theory suggests that by aligning with Britain, which had long dominated global finance through gold-backed currencies, the United States gained better access to mechanisms for controlling and extracting gold resources from Latin American nations.
This interpretation views the rapprochement not as a cultural alignment but as an economic partnership between Anglo-American financial elites to secure precious metals from regions like Venezuela. The timing, critics note, is suspicious: as the United States was emerging as an industrial power, its need for gold reserves to back its expanding currency grew, making control over foreign gold sources increasingly valuable.
While gold dominated earlier conspiracy theories about the rapprochement, modern critics have expanded this framework to include oil resources. Contemporary analysis suggests that the pattern established during the rapprochement, using diplomatic alignment to facilitate resource extraction, continues to this day, with Venezuela’s oil reserves now playing the role that gold once did.
Recent geopolitical analysis points to “regime change advocates” who highlight “the revitalization of the Venezuelan oil sector as a key dividend of such an interventionist strategy,” echoing the same economic motives that critics believe drove the rapprochement more than a century earlier. This continuity, they argue, demonstrates that the Great Rapprochement established a template for American interventionism that persists regardless of political party or era.
From this critical perspective, the “special relationship” celebrated by some American political observers was always fundamentally an imperial partnership. By reconciling with Britain, the United States gained tacit approval for its hemispheric ambitions, while Britain secured a friendly power to protect its interests in the Americas as its own empire declined.
This interpretation challenges the historical narrative of cultural affinity by suggesting that the rapprochement was primarily a transactional agreement between two imperial powers to divide spheres of influence and coordinate resource extraction. The shared language, legal traditions, and Protestant heritage, critics argue, were convenient justifications rather than genuine causes of the alignment.
In recent years, the critical view of the Great Rapprochement has gained new relevance, particularly with renewed American interest in Venezuela. Critics point to statements from the Trump administration about “revitalizing the Venezuelan oil sector” and military buildups off the Venezuelan coast as evidence that the imperial motives behind the rapprochement continue to drive American policy.
The recent use of “manifest destiny” language in political discourse, most notably in Trump’s inaugural address, has further convinced critics that the same expansionist ideology that justified the rapprochement remains influential in American foreign policy circles. This continuity, they argue, validates their interpretation of the rapprochement not as a diplomatic achievement but as the establishment of a framework for American hemispheric domination.
The conspiracy theory interpretation of the Great Rapprochement stands in direct opposition to the historically mainstream celebration of Anglo-American alignment. Where more traditional historians see natural affinity and prudent statecraft, critics see calculated imperialism and resource extraction. Where one side highlights the preservation of Western civilization, critics emphasize the subjugation of Latin American sovereignty.
This critical perspective views the Great Rapprochement not as a high point of American diplomacy but as the beginning of a “special relationship” that has enabled Anglo-American powers to dominate global finance and extract resources from developing nations for over a century. Whether one finds this interpretation convincing depends largely on whether one views American foreign policy through the lens of exceptionalism or imperialism – a divide that continues to shape how we understand not just the Great Rapprochement but America’s place in the world today.
Is it possible that both viewpoints about the Great Rapprochement can be correct at the same time? Is it possible that for some of the elite members of American government or corporate interests the critical view of rapprochement was exactly their aim, and for others the more altruistic approach was true? Could it be that in some cases where conspiracy theorists see a smoking gun there was no imperialistic intent at all, yet for some segments of the government at that time, or other eras, the expansion of American power was exactly what it was all about?
The paradoxical nature of the Great Rapprochement, simultaneously embodying both high-minded principles and base material interests, need not be resolved by choosing between competing narratives. History rarely operates according to pure motives, and the rapprochement likely represents a classic case of what contemporary political scientists call “motivated reasoning” on a national scale, where different actors pursued different objectives through the same diplomatic framework. The complexity of human motivation suggests that both the mainstream historical celebration of American Western Hemisphere affinity and the critical focus on resource extraction can simultaneously contain elements of truth.
The historical record provides numerous examples of this duality in action. Theodore Roosevelt, a key architect of the rapprochement, genuinely believed in American civilizational destiny while simultaneously pursuing American commercial interests with calculated pragmatism. British imperialists like Joseph Chamberlain promoted cultural solidarity while explicitly seeking economic advantages through “Imperial Preference.” This alignment of sincere belief and self-interest created a powerful synergy that propelled the rapprochement forward, with neither element exclusively driving the process. The diplomatic warming occurred at the intersection of shared values and shared ambitions, making it difficult to disentangle one from the other without oversimplification.
The compartmentalized nature of government operations further explains how both altruistic and imperialistic motives could coexist. The State Department might pursue rapprochement based on genuine American interests and security concerns, while another government faction or segment simultaneously calculated the financial advantages of Western Civilization monetary cooperation. Some military leaders might value the strategic alignment against Germany while business interests saw opportunities for expanded trade and investment. This bureaucratic reality means that the rapprochement was never monolithic in purpose but rather a convergence of multiple agendas, some noble, some self-interested, most a complex mixture of both.
The temporal dimension adds another layer of complexity to this synthesis. The rapprochement evolved over decades, with different motivations gaining prominence at different stages. The initial rapprochement during the Venezuela Crisis may have been driven primarily by pragmatic security concerns, while later stages during the Spanish-American War and the buildup to World War I increasingly emphasized shared cultural values. Economic interests likely intensified as American industrial capacity grew and the need for overseas markets and resources became more pressing. This evolutionary process means that the rapprochement was not a single event with consistent motives but a developing relationship that adapted to changing circumstances and priorities.
The concept of “moral licensing” provides a useful framework for understanding how actors could reconcile seemingly contradictory motives. By framing their actions in terms of manifest destiny and Western solidarity, policymakers could pursue material interests while maintaining a self-image of noble purpose. This psychological mechanism allows individuals and nations to pursue self-interested goals while sincerely believing they act according to higher principles. The rapprochement thus functioned as both a genuine alignment of like-minded peoples and a convenient cover for more calculating ambitions, with many participants likely unaware of their own mixed motives.
The enduring legacy of the rapprochement further supports this synthesis. The “special relationship” has indeed served as a force for Western unity against existential threats like fascism and communism, validating a legitimate interpretation of civilizational solidarity. Yet it has also facilitated cooperation in resource extraction and economic dominance in the developing world, lending credence to critical perspectives. The relationship contains both elements because it was built from the beginning on this dual foundation of shared values and shared interests. Rather than viewing this as hypocrisy, we might recognize it as the realistic complexity of international relations, where noble purposes and practical advantages often intertwine in ways that defy simple categorization.
The Great Rapprochement ultimately teaches us that historical events rarely conform to singular interpretations. Its complexity and contradictory motives reflect the messy reality of human affairs, where sincerity and calculation, idealism and self-interest, rarely exist in pure form. By embracing this complexity rather than forcing it into simplistic narratives, we gain a more nuanced understanding of how diplomatic transformations occur; not through the exclusive operation of either principle or pragmatism, but through their complex interaction in the minds and actions of historical actors who themselves likely struggled to reconcile their own mixed motives.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We’ve all seen those man-in-the-street videos like with Johnny on Jesse Watters Primetime Tonight. We laugh at how little people know about history, politics, and other basic knowledge some of us take for granted. But, according to Todd Starnes, More than Two-Thirds of Gen-Z Don’t Know What America 250 Commemorates.
The Todd Starnes highlights a deeply concerning trend that aligns with what many of us have observed for years. The Cato Institute’s 2026 Fourth of July Survey revealing that 61% of Gen Z doesn’t know what America’s 250th anniversary commemorates is indeed alarming, but perhaps not surprising to those who’ve been tracking the decline of civic education in our country.
What we’re witnessing isn’t merely an educational shortfall but a systematic erosion of our national identity. When 52% of Gen Z can’t identify Great Britain as the nation we declared independence from, and 67% don’t understand why that declaration was necessary, we’re seeing the fruits of an educational philosophy that has deliberately de-emphasized American exceptionalism.
The founding fathers supported the concept of public education, but they envisioned it as a local and state responsibility. Jefferson’s model for Virginia placed education firmly in community hands, with parents and local school boards determining curriculum. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states or the people, and education is nowhere mentioned in the enumerated powers.
The federal Department of Education, established in 1979, has become precisely what the founders feared: a centralized authority that can impose ideological conformity through funding mechanisms. When federal dollars come with strings attached, local control evaporates, and we end up with national curricula that prioritize social justice narratives over fundamental civic knowledge.
Gabriel Delaney’s warning about this knowledge vacuum leaving young people vulnerable to socialism is particularly prescient given that 53% of Gen Z now views socialism favorably compared to 45% for capitalism. This isn’t accidental. It’s the predictable outcome of an educational system that:
- Minimizes the failures of socialist and communist regimes
- Exaggerates America’s historical flaws while ignoring its achievements
- Presents rights as government-granted rather than God-given
- Replaces civic knowledge with identity politics
The Marxist strategy of capturing educational institutions has been wildly successful. As Antonio Gramsci theorized, the “long march through the institutions” would be more effective than violent revolution. What we’re seeing now is the culmination of that strategy: generations of Americans who lack the historical knowledge to defend the very system that has produced unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
This isn’t just about failing to memorize dates or facts. It’s about losing the narrative of American history. It’s about allowing an invader tell Americans not to believe their eyes and ears and soiling the incredible story of a Union of States founded on revolutionary principles of individual liberty and limited government. When that story is replaced with narratives of oppression and grievance, the foundation crumbles.
The solution must begin with restoring local control of education and returning to curricula that teach American history and civics without apology. This means restoring the moral and virtuous nature of our culture, and eliminating federal interference, supporting school choice, and ensuring that students understand both the principles and the practical applications of constitutional government.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Mexico has initiated direct legal action in the U.S. against ICE over the deaths of 17 Mexican nationals, following a recent string of fatal incidents. The Mexican government, under President Claudia Sheinbaum, is moving beyond diplomatic complaints, appealing to international legal channels in what they consider to be an attempt to hold individual agents and agencies accountable. The specific actions in question include a recent Houston shooting. Mexico announced it will pursue legal action following the fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston. ICE claims Salgado Araujo rammed an officer’s vehicle and attempted to run them over, and the shooting was a response in self-defense. Mexico claims witnesses and Araujo’s family dispute the federal government’s claims, stating he was on his way to work and not the intended target of the operation. Mexico is filing criminal complaints directly with U.S. prosecutors regarding the deaths of 14 Mexican nationals in ICE custody and 3 others killed during ICE field operations along with civil lawsuits against the private companies that operate the U.S. detention centers where their citizens died. Mexico is submitting formal requests for investigation to the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Mexico’s legal actions against ICE represent an unprecedented infringement on U.S. sovereignty. This represents foreign interference in domestic immigration enforcement.
The U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. International agreements and oversight mechanisms like the UN or Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hold no authority over American constitutional principles. Any legal actions Mexico attempts through these channels would be symbolic at best.
The central point regarding these actions are in regards to allegiance. By actively seeking to protect Mexican nationals who died while resisting U.S. immigration enforcement, Mexico is essentially claiming special rights for its citizens who are in the U.S. illegally. This does raise legitimate questions about where their primary allegiance lies, particularly when they’re engaged in confrontations with U.S. law enforcement.
For Mexico, despite the deception being used, this isn’t simply about protecting citizens abroad, but about attempting to shield those who have violated U.S. immigration laws from the consequences of their actions. The Houston case involving Lorenzo Salgado Araujo exemplifies this. Mexico is essentially defending someone who ICE claims was attempting to harm federal officers during an enforcement operation inside the United States.
The legal strategy Mexico is pursuing, filing criminal complaints through the DOJ and civil suits against private detention facilities, represents an escalation that is deeply inappropriate. It’s one thing for Mexico to express diplomatic concern; it’s quite another to attempt to use the U.S. legal system against its own immigration enforcement agencies.
What’s particularly concerning is the precedent this sets. If Mexico can successfully challenge U.S. immigration enforcement actions on behalf of its citizens who have illegally entered this country, it effectively creates a privileged class of foreign nationals who are partially exempt from U.S. law; something fundamentally at odds with the principle of equal justice under law.
Any nation has the right to defend its borders and enforce its immigration laws, especially when those facing enforcement have demonstrated allegiance to a foreign power through that government’s aggressive intervention on their behalf.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Constitution clearly lays out that foreign relations belongs only to the federal government. In Article I, Section 10 it reads: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with… a foreign Power.” This is a foundational principle of our federal system. Yet last week, we witnessed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration attempt to do precisely what the Framers forbade, only to be stopped by the State Department.
Commissioner Ana María Archila, who leads Mamdani’s Office for International Affairs, scheduled a meeting with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir-Saeid Iravani. The timing could not have been more egregious, coming after the Iranian leadership fired missiles at commercial ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz in direct defiance of an interim peace agreement. Mamdani’s office, however, didn’t simply make a diplomatic misstep; it was a constitutional affront during active military operations.
Let’s be clear about who Iran is: a designated state sponsor of terrorism whose leaders have American blood on their hands and whose regime chants “Death to America” as a national mantra. This is not a country with whom we exchange pleasantries while they target our citizens and allies.
The Logan Act explicitly prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign powers that have disputes with the United States. While prosecutions under this law are rare, its purpose is clear: to prevent exactly what Archila attempted; a freelance foreign policy that undermines the federal government’s exclusive constitutional authority to conduct international relations.
What makes this incident particularly alarming is the ideological alignment between Mayor Mamdani’s Democratic Socialist agenda and Iran’s anti-American posture. Mamdani has condemned President Trump’s “illegal war of aggression” against Iran, positioning himself not as an American mayor but as a global citizen critical of U.S. foreign policy. This ideological sympathy with our adversaries creates a dangerous precedent when combined with official actions like the planned meeting with Iran.
Archila’s background is not in diplomacy but in activism as co-director of New York’s progressive Working Families Party, whose official position is that the war in Iran “can and must be stopped.” Her appointment to lead international affairs was controversial from the start, with insiders noting she was “woefully unqualified for the job.” Yet here she was, prepared to meet with representatives of a regime that actively works against American interests.
The State Department correctly intervened, calling it “unconscionable” that a New York City official would even consider such a meeting. This marks the second known instance in recent weeks where the Trump administration has stepped in over the Mamdani administration’s contacts with foreign leaders, highlighting a pattern of behavior that threatens to undermine national security.
Mayor Mamdani claims he was unaware of the meeting until receiving a press inquiry, calling it “made in error.” This excuse strains credulity. Either he is incompetent, unable to control his own administration, or he is complicit in these dangerous overtures to our enemies. Neither possibility inspires confidence in his leadership of America’s largest city.
The Office for International Affairs was designed to foster trade and exchange best practices, not conduct foreign policy. Yet under Mamdani’s leadership, it appears to have become a vehicle for advancing a specific political agenda that aligns more with our adversaries than with American interests.
This incident reveals a dangerous mindset among some on the radical left who view America not as a force for good in the world but as an imperialist power that must be checked. When this ideology infects local governance, we see officials like Archila attempting to normalize relations with regimes that seek our destruction.
The constitutional principle at stake is not trivial. Our federal system assigns foreign relations exclusively to the federal government precisely to prevent states and cities from pursuing independent foreign policies that might conflict with national interests or create confusion on the international stage. This principle becomes even more critical when dealing with hostile powers like Iran.
What happened in New York last week wasn’t just a diplomatic faux pas; it was a constitutional crisis narrowly averted. It serves as a warning about the dangers of electing officials who prioritize ideology over constitutional principles and national security.
As we face increasing threats from adversaries around the world, we cannot afford to have local officials playing at diplomacy with our enemies. The Constitution provides clear guidance on this matter, and the State Department’s intervention reinforces what should be obvious: America speaks with one voice to the world, and that voice belongs to the federal government, not to ideologically driven municipal officials in New York City.
The American people deserve better than leaders who sympathize with our enemies and attempt to undermine our foreign policy. They deserve leaders who understand and respect the constitutional framework that has kept our Union secure for over two centuries.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Once again, with a new slate of rulings, the United States Supreme Court has revealed to Americans how far it has strayed from the United States Constitution. I am not necessarily referring to their rulings in particular, but that fact that they are operating in the manner that they are. The judicial branch was designed by the Constitution to be the weakest of the three branches (which flies in the face of the “three co-equal branches” lie you were taught in school). Judicial Review is unconstitutional, interpreting the Constitution and federal law in the manner that the federal courts do is unconstitutional, and striking down laws and executive orders with their rulings are unconstitutional. And I know that this constitutional perspective I am tossing at you regarding Judicial Review and the current state of the Supreme Court must seem confusing to some of you. What it should do is raise for you fundamental questions about the proper role of the judiciary in American governance.
First, Judicial Review is unconstitutional. I don’t care how long the legal system has claimed otherwise. The very idea that Judicial Review is unconstitutional has substantial historical support. The Constitutional Convention rejected proposals for judicial review of legislative acts. James Madison’s notes indicate that the framers explicitly considered and rejected granting courts this power. Marbury v. Madison (1803), however, has been used as the mechanism that codified Judicial Review into law, with supporters of the concept arguing that Judicial Review was created through judicial assertion. But, all legislative powers belongs to Congress. All amendments must be ratified by the States. In the case of Judicial Review, neither legislation, nor the amendment process, was used to breathe life into it. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion simply established what he called the “essential dignity” of the judicial branch, which was nothing more than an innovative unconstitutional interpretation rather than a clearly enumerated power.
Once the courts believed they could wield this power without retribution, the launch of a self-expanding federal government boomed into action. If the federal judiciary can determine the scope of federal power, then the federal government that is supposed to be limited in its authorities may also operate as the same entity determining those limits; a clear conflict with the principle of limited government that animated the Constitutional Convention.
As a result, ideology has naturally emerged on the Court. And when adherence to original intent is labeled as “conservative” or “partisan,” it reveals how far we’ve strayed from the original constitutional design. The constitutional job of the justices from an original viewpoint is to apply the law. Not interpret it. Not review it. Not strike it down. Their jobs is simply applying the law as written, not creating policy preferences. The very fact that we can predict how justices will rule based on their supposed ideological leanings demonstrates that constitutional interpretation has become the norm, and in modern politics it has evolved into policy-making.
The current situation where we classify justices as “leftist” or “conservative” would have horrified the framers of the Constitution. Article III judges were intended to be insulated from politics precisely so they could apply law impartially. Life tenure was meant to free them from political pressure, not to entrench ideological factions.
The distinction between applying versus interpreting the law is crucial. The modern view that the Constitution is a “living document” that requires creative interpretation has effectively transformed justices into legislators. This judicial activism has accelerated as both political parties have recognized the Court as a policy-making body rather than a legal one.
The problem compounds itself: once Judicial Review was established, it became inevitable that presidents would nominate justices based on their expected policy outcomes rather than their judicial temperament. This has created the polarization we see in today’s courts, and it is very problematic.
From a constitutionalist perspective, the solution would be a return to the framers’ vision: justices who apply the law as written rather than according to their policy preferences. This would mean recognizing that the Constitution doesn’t contain many policy prescriptions; it establishes a structure of government and leaves policy decisions to the political process.
The existence of Judicial Review, and the tension between limited government and Judicial Review is perhaps the central constitutional paradox of our time. If the federal judiciary can determine the scope of federal power, then limited government becomes whatever the courts say it is, which is no limitation at all.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary