where science and ethics intersect with politics
In Federalist No. 7, Alexander Hamilton argues that unresolved disputes between states would inevitably lead to violence—making a strong federal authority essential to peace. But the logic that consolidates power to prevent conflict also reshapes how force is justified, centralized, and normalized. This essay examines where prevention ends and permission begins, and why that line still matters today.
In Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton argues that separate American states would eventually clash out of rivalry, ambition, and economic competition — making the Constitution essential to preserving peace.
In Federalist No. 5, John Jay warns that separate American confederacies would drift toward rivalry and conflict — making unity essential for lasting peace.
In Federalist No. 4, John Jay explains that foreign nations are less likely to challenge a strong, unified America — making unity essential to preserving peace.
John Jay argues that a strong national government is essential for preventing conflict and protecting America’s peace — a truth that remains relevant in an interconnected world.
Hamilton warns that the nation must choose whether it will be shaped by reasoned choice or by accident and force — a question that continues to define American democracy.
Before the Constitution could be written, America had to answer a single question: can a nation govern itself by reason — or will it fall to accident and force?
The State Department’s new directive classifying abortion access and DEI programs as potential human-rights violations marks a major shift in U.S. foreign-policy language. By reframing reproductive autonomy and equity initiatives as infringements on “God-given rights,” the policy reverses long-standing human-rights interpretations and raises constitutional concerns. This editorial examines the implications of the directive, its conflict with the Ninth Amendment, and its potential impact on global human-rights reporting.
The Humane Herald 