- What factors should a party consider when nominating its presidential candidate?
R – When nominating a presidential candidate, a party should consider the qualifications of the candidate. A candidate should be trustworthy and have a history of living up to campaign promises. The candidate should also be honest and not be implicated in scandals, lies, or cover-ups. Thirdly, a party should consider the background of their candidate, such as their personal successes (rising out of poverty or putting themselves through college), a possible military background, and the virtues of their candidate.
L – When measuring the qualities of a presidential candidate, there are three main dimensions to consider: Policy, Personality, and Experience. Let’s break them down one at a time.
Policy: In simple terms, this is what a candidate says they’re going to do if elected. What people ultimately want from a candidate is a promise that they will work to make their lives better, and their policy platform is where a candidate shows their plan to do that. The average person is smarter than the political class gives them credit for, and people will judge for themselves whether a policy will improve their lives. Having a candidate with good policy is just common sense.
Personality: The personality of a candidate is an often-overlooked aspect, but an essential one. Ultimately, people want a President that will look out for them, and no matter the policy agenda, this is going to come down to personality. Does it seem like a candidate cares? Do they seem smart enough to run a country? Ultimately, are they likeable? People want to be able to see themselves in a leader and feel like they are greater for being led by them.
Experience: Do you trust them? This is a major question any voter must ask themselves before casting their ballot in favor of a candidate. Do you trust them to do what they say and live up to who they seem to be? This ultimate question is answered by a candidate’s experience. The more a candidate has been on the public record, the more a voter has to draw upon to answer that question. Past actions imply future actions, so a seasoned candidate can be more accurately judged.
2. What is the best method of Constitutional interpretation?
R – The conservative writer Russell Kirk said that laws are the social expression of a people. This idea of laws exemplifies the ancient Roman idea of constitution. A constitution is not merely a set of laws, but a way of life. That being said, the best constitutional interpretation is a continual change of the laws according to the people’s changing attitudes. However, these laws must be grounded in founding principles and those of the natural law. In short, my constitutional interpretation is a mix between originalism and living constitutionalism.
L – The best method of Constitutional interpretation is all of them. I deny the idea that one should be taken as superior to the others, and believe all should be employed simultaneously when attempting to take away meaning from the document. All methods of Constitutional interpretation come from a different set of priorities, be it the present-day ramifications of a reading or the intellectual frameworks of the Founding Fathers. All those priorities are valid and should be considered when pulling meaning from the Constitution. Holistically is the only way to accurately take the Constitution, because all approaches come from valid concerns that any reader would be wise to consider.
3. What will be the most significant political ramifications of settling Mars?
R – The most significant political ramifications of settling Mars would be the form of government on the planet. Hopefully, we will learn from our mistakes and not let the planet descend into democratic drollery, but be made a great kingdom. Long live the king?!
L – The main ramification of the settling of Mars would of course be upsetting the balance of power with The Alliance. As we all know, the One World Government has established a tentative division of the Solar System, with the inner planets going to Humanity, and the outer planets to The Alliance of Non-Carbon Based Species. Nominally, this would leave Mars well within our bounds to settle, however one must consider the optics of the situation. Just like early American settlers crowding the Appalachian Mountains before the opening of the West, a flood of Humans crowding the edge of the Asteroid Belt will be taken as a sign of expansionist tendencies. The Rogue State of Amazon has already done enough to damage our credibility with the Alliance, and we do not need a perceived expansionist threat with the deal with the Alliance so new.
Instead, I believe we should focus our energy on growing the Venus Colony Project. The mining stations we already have floating on Venus’s dense cloud layer provide an easy point of expansion that could grow to include cities as well as large scale farming operations. The upper atmosphere of Venus also lacks the difficulties that the terrain of Mars provides, basically giving human engineers a blank slate to build on. The potential our sister planet offers is near limitless, without the terraforming needed for large scale Martian settlements.
All in all, a Martian settlement is more disruptive than it’s worth, and Venus is a far better alternative for expansion.