Latest news with #JamesMadison
Newsweek
6 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
America Needs a State Revival
Democrats and Republicans often disagree, but they have more in common than they realize—especially when they are dissatisfied with the occupant of the Oval Office. In those moments, the importance of the states—the role they play and the powers they hold—snaps into focus. But championing the states shouldn't depend on political convenience. Both parties would do well to consistently recognize the dangers of an overreaching federal government—and the benefits of more state autonomy. The sun sets behind the U.S. Capitol building on a spring day on May 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The sun sets behind the U.S. Capitol building on a spring day on May 24, 2025, in Washington, Founders, very familiar with tyranny under the British monarchy, understood the perils of centralized power. That's why they built a system that delegates certain necessary powers to the federal government, but retains more among states, communities, and individuals. This is the heart of the 10th Amendment. James Madison was clear in Federalist 46 that rather than being duplicative governing structures, "The federal and state governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes." Our federal government, in other words, was intended to serve only a limited set of functions. Over time, however, we've seen the federal government overstep and meddle in issues where it has less local knowledge, effectiveness, and flexibility than states. As a result, the policy areas that the federal government has encroached upon, such as education, welfare, and energy, often result in one-size-fits-all, massively expensive mandates that fail to accommodate for differences across states, and serve taxpayers poorly. Take the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which required states to implement standardized tests for grades 3-8 in order to receive federal funding. NCLB imposed uniform requirements on states and school districts, ignoring differences across states and districts and the unique circumstances of students across the country. As a result, the program didn't deliver the intended results. Despite billions in taxpayer funding, test scores remained flat years after implementation. While NCLB has been replaced with the slightly more flexible Every Student Succeeds Act, both pieces of legislation demonstrate that when the federal government attempts to solve state-level problems, the outcomes are subpar, and state innovation is stifled. While the federal government has continued to test its limits and impose itself on the states, the Constitution makes clear where boundaries exist. Federal limits have been affirmed by recent Supreme Court cases, such as West Virginia v. EPA. In that case, West Virginia challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s authority to impose regulations to effectively control the state's energy policy through the Clean Power Plan. West Virginia's victory in the case reinforced state autonomy and confirmed the limited role of the federal government. States have primary authority to address energy and environmental matters within their own borders—not federal agencies. When the states are able to practice this authority, they craft policies that improve American lives and livelihoods. From welfare and workforce development policies that help people break the cycle of poverty in their families, to more effective management of natural resources, to building infrastructure, states demonstrate more efficiency and innovation than federal agencies—and they do it while keeping their budgets balanced. The states also offer a way to tame the partisanship and political division that rattle our country. The stakes are high when D.C. makes policy decisions for 340 million Americans. In contrast, policies shaped at the state and local level can reflect the values, needs, and priorities of the communities those governments serve—leading to more tailored, representative, and often less divisive solutions. As America continues to grapple with polarization and growing distrust in Washington, let's hope more leaders champion state control—and not just when it's politically convenient. The genius of the Constitution, and the Founders that designed it, was in placing power closer to the people through the states—creating a government that is more responsible, accountable, and effective. Our nation should recapture that spirit. Madison Ray is the senior director for the Center for Practical Federalism at State Policy Network. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
'They believe in what we're building here' Mike Elko is bullish on Texas A&M's 2025 season
Wednesday night's Brazos Country Coach's Night saw Texas A&M head coach Mike Elko, ahead his second season at the helm, preview what fans and media should expect from the Aggies after the small sample size presented during the Maroon & White spring game. Starting off the night with a bang, Elko revealed that star senior running back Le'Veon Moss, whose season ending knee injury led to the Aggies' poor play down the stretch last season, is 100% healthy after spending the latter half of the 2024 campaign recovering, while his rehab this spring was faster than expected. Advertisement Overall, Elko is very bullish regarding the offense and defense improving next season, mainly due to roster retention and key leaders returning on both sides. "The core of our roster has battled through a lot of adversity here. They're here because they believe in Texas A&M. They believe in what we're building here. I believe we have kids who are truly committed to Texas A&M and what it stands for." On defense, Elko brought in James Madison defensive coordinator Lyle Hemphill to help fix the technical issues in the secondary, which included three horrific performances against Auburn, Texas, and USC in the Las Vegas Bowl, all resulting in losses. "We all understand how we finished the year. We played three bad games of defense to finish the year. We're all aware of that. That's not how we play defense at Texas A&M. We have to have a better commitment for getting the job done at a higher level." Again, "show, don't tell" is the theme for most of the Aggie fan base, but trusting Elko's defensive mindset is key, knowing that he is taking a bigger hand in the playcalling and overall structure compared to Jay Bateman's full control last season. Texas A&M's defense is relatively deep at nearly every position, and trusting Elko and his staff fix the remaining issues is all anyone can do, knowing that they at least have film to go off of compared to entering the 2024 season without anything to go off of. Advertisement Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes and opinions. Follow Cameron on X: @CameronOhnysty. This article originally appeared on Aggies Wire: Texas A&M HC Mike Elko knows he can win with his battle tested roster
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This Is The Oldest Brand Of Rye Whiskey You Can Buy In The US
There's a brand of rye whiskey you can sip today with a history stretching so far back that, at the time of its birth, the United States had a mere 7.2 million people, James Madison was president, and Louisiana was about to become a state. Old Overholt started as a small farm distillery in West Overton, Pennsylvania, in 1810 and would rise to become one of America's favorite whiskeys for a time. Among its devotees were two presidents who served nearly a hundred years apart: Ulysses S. Grant may have been an Old Crow bourbon fan, but he also loved Old Overholt, as did John F. Kennedy. It would survive Prohibition thanks to a Gilded Age millionaire, but the brand lost some of its prestige over the years and ended up on the bottom shelf, along with some bourbons that are still worth buying. Still, Old Overholt weathered good times and bad to endure for more than 200 years, and it remains the oldest continuously produced whiskey -- not just rye -- in America. Read more: 12 Bourbons You Should Leave On The Shelf While the name of Old Overholt is forever associated with Abraham Overholt (his face is still on the label), it was his father, a German Mennonite farmer named Henry, who first began producing the rye before Abraham took over and turned it into a booming business. In the 1880s, it would pass into the hands of one of Abraham's grandchildren, Henry Clay Frick, who was already rich from a coal empire. Frick partnered with another robber baron, Andrew Mellon. When Prohibition began in the United States in 1920, Mellon, who had become U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, wrangled a medicinal license to keep producing the rye, guaranteeing its existence when many other brands died out. Old Overholt soldiered on and in the late 1980s, the James B. Beam company bought it and moved Old Overholt's production to Kentucky. Thanks to Beam, it's possible to enjoy a Sazarac, a staple New Orleans cocktail, with a rye that predates the old-school drink's invention by more than 20 years. In the last few years the brand has come out with various iterations, including a 10-year-old cask strength version that's garnered new fans for this very old whiskey. Read the original article on Chowhound.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Approval of Oklahoma religious charter school would not violate Constitution
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School does not yet exist, but it may soon decide the future of religious liberty in public education. Approved as a public charter school by Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, St. Isidore plans to offer tuition-free education grounded in Catholic teaching — to all, required of none, and publicly accountable. Its opponents argue that a religious school should never receive public funding, even if it meets every academic and legal standard. But their objection reveals a deeper question: Does the First Amendment require the government to exclude religious institutions from public life, or does it forbid that exclusion? That question is not rhetorical. It defines whether neutrality means fairness — or forced secularism. It tests whether religious families are full citizens in a pluralist democracy — or guests, welcome only on secular terms. The First Amendment contains two clauses, often cited as if they compete, but in truth they complete each other: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' These words are not in tension. They are in balance. One forbids the state from controlling religion through top-down mandates (such as requiring the Bible to be taught in every public school classroom). The other forbids it from excluding religion when it is a bottom-up expression of the people. Together, they form a constitutional architecture that neither privileges belief nor penalizes it. James Madison, author of the First Amendment, insisted that religion was not a right granted by government but a natural liberty. In his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," he wrote that religion must be left to 'the conviction and conscience of every man.' Government could neither compel nor suppress it. The modern phrase 'separation of church and state' appears nowhere in the Constitution. It comes from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson, who — ironically ― attended religious services held inside government buildings. Separation, to the Founders, meant institutional noninterference, not spiritual exclusion. Religious participation in public life was assumed — not feared. To exclude a faith-based school from a neutral public program today is not fidelity to the First Amendment. It is the exact opposite. More: Drummond: Allowing St. Isidore school would threaten religious liberty | Opinion The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken plainly: A religious institution cannot be excluded from a public benefit program simply because it is religious. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), Missouri denied a church preschool access to a public playground resurfacing grant solely due to its religious status. The court ruled this exclusion unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts called it 'odious to our Constitution.' In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the court held that if a state provides public scholarships to private schools, it cannot deny them to religious schools because of their religious identity. 'A State need not subsidize private education,' the court said. 'But once it decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.' Two years later, Carson v. Makin (2022) extended this logic from religious status to religious use. Maine had denied tuition assistance to parents who selected schools that provided religious instruction. The court ruled this, too, unconstitutional. Finally, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the court upheld a school choice program that allowed public funds to follow families — whether they chose secular or religious schools — so long as the program was neutral and driven by individual choice. The line across these cases is unbroken: When the government opens a public benefit to private participants, it may not disqualify religious institutions merely because they are religious. That principle is not advisory. It is controlling law. More: OK must improve education. Supreme Court should allow religious charter school. | Opinion Attorney General Gentner Drummond argues that charter schools are public in every constitutional sense — that because they are funded and authorized by the state, they must remain strictly secular. But that logic confuses funding with control, and oversight with ownership. Oklahoma law defines charter schools as nonprofit entities initiated by private actors through a contract with the state. They are publicly accountable but independently operated. The state does not dictate curriculum, hiring or religious affiliation — nor should it. This distinction is critical under Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982), where the Supreme Court ruled that even a privately operated school receiving over 90% of its funding from the government was not a state actor. The key issue was who made internal decisions — not who wrote the checks. In Mitchell v. Helms (2000), the court upheld public aid to religious schools, so long as the aid was neutral and distributed without favor or control. That principle governs here. Charter schools are private educational partners within a public system — not government entities. If funding alone made them government entities, the same would apply to hospitals, foster agencies and food banks. And yet, religious organizations partner in all of those spheres — without controversy, and without violating the Constitution. Attorney General Drummond relies on mid-20th-century Establishment Clause cases — Engel v. Vitale (1962), School District of Abington v. Schempp (1963), and McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) — to argue that religious expression in any publicly funded school violates the Constitution. But these cases addressed a very different context: state-mandated religious practice inside traditional public schools. In Engel, the state composed a prayer and required its recitation. In Schempp, Bible readings were compulsory. In McCollum, religious instructors entered public classrooms during school hours under state authority. None of these apply to a privately initiated, independently operated charter school selected voluntarily by families. St. Isidore imposes no religious exercise. It is not the state mandating prayer — it is the community requesting a public option that reflects its convictions. It does not conscript students into belief. It invites families into a curriculum they freely choose. The Establishment Clause prohibits government imposition — not religious presence in public life. A school like St. Isidore does not violate that clause. It fulfills the balance the Founders intended: a state that neither commands faith nor forbids it. To invoke Engel or Schempp against such a model is not constitutional fidelity. It is historical misapplication. Opponents of St. Isidore argue that public education must remain entirely secular because taxpayer dollars are involved. But this objection collapses under the one feature that changes everything: parental choice. The Supreme Court has consistently held that when parents — not the government — choose where public funds go, the state does not endorse religion by permitting religious options. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the court upheld a school voucher program even though many parents selected religious schools. The decisive factor was this: The program was neutral and the funding flowed through individual family decisions. This echoes Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), which affirmed that 'the child is not the mere creature of the state.' Parents have a constitutional right to direct their children's education. And in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the court went further — holding that religious communities could withdraw from state schooling altogether to preserve their faith formation. St. Isidore is not imposed. It is chosen. It is not the state prescribing theology — it is the state respecting the constitutional primacy of the family. When the government offers diverse public options, it cannot punish parents who choose a religious one. That's not neutrality. That's control. Brian Montgomery is a licensed occupational injury examiner in Oklahoma with significant experience in both insurance and ministry. A native of Cyril, Oklahoma, Brian holds a bachelor's degree from East Central University and a master's degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Court should rule in Okla. religious charter school's favor | Opinion
Daily Mail
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Secret tunnel discovered beneath US Capitol floorboards
A US congressman has revealed a secret tunnel beneath the Capitol building that may have been stormed by British Soldiers during The War of 1812. In a clip, Congressman Tim Moore (R-NC) unveiled the hidden passage in the Lincoln Room, lifting up a floor board to show a staircase spiraling down to what appears to be a dimly lit hallway. During that siege, known today as the 'Burning of Washington,' the soldiers used torches and gunpowder paste to set fire to the Capitol, the president's house and other government buildings. This marked a serious blow to the US during the war, and forced President James Madison to arrange for Congress to use Washington's only available building, Blodgett's Hotel, as a temporary meeting space. As representatives gathered in this makeshift legislative chamber to determine the best way forward, construction workers began rebuilding the Capitol. It took nearly 15 years to fully repair it. These hidden stairs are one of the few parts of the original building that remain intact today. 'You can see there's a passageway,' Moore said as the camera pointed down to show the inside of the hidden stairwell. 'These were old stairs that used to be here but were closed off,' Moore said. 'Believe it or not, my big self [has] actually gotten down and more importantly out of this hole.' He explained that small tour groups often have the chance to climb down and explore this underground chamber, which leads outside of the Capitol building. The Lincoln Room served as the House post office during Abraham Lincoln's time in Congress. Before becoming president in 1861, he represented Illinois from 1847 to 1849. During that time, 'he sat by the fireplace in this room to read his letters,' Moore wrote in the X post. In the early days of the Capitol building, the House of Representatives convened in a room right next door called Statuary Hall, which now serves as a gallery devoted to sculptures of prominent Americans. Whether the secret tunnel beneath the Lincoln Room was actually involved in the Burning of Washington remains unverified. But it is possible that the British troops who sailed into the Chesapeake Bay and up the Patuxent River, then fought their way towards Washington, climbed these hidden stairs to gain access to the Capitol undetected. The War of 1812 acted as a pseudo-Revolutionary War that further solidified US independence from the British Empire. It began in June, 1812 — erupting out of heightening tension and repeated skirmishes between the US and Great Britain — and ended in February 1815. The Burning of Washington in 1814 was a devastating blow to the US that resulted in destruction and chaos. The fires burned for at least a full day until a storm rolled in and doused them. But it also triggered a tornado that caused further damage. After the weather calmed, looters ravaged the city, many of whom were American citizens. Whether the passageway beneath the Lincoln Room was involved in this violent attack or not, they harken back to a time when the US was a burgeoning nation still clawing its way onto the global stage. Want more stories like this from the Daily Mail? Visit our profile page and hit the follow button above for more of the news you need.
