independent state essay

Democracy on the ballot—the “independent state legislature theory” will not empower state legislatures to override presidential election results

Subscribe to governance weekly, fred wertheimer fred wertheimer president - democracy 21 @fredwertheimer.

November 4, 2022

This is Part 4 of a series  which will take an in depth look at election deniers in the 2022 midterms in an effort to assess their likelihood of success, their plans if elected, and their impact on election administration and democracy.

This op-ed was adapted from Wertheimer’s Political Report , a weekly newsletter published by Democracy 21 .

Democracy 21 is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to protect and strengthen our democracy

There is a misconception that needs to be clarified about the potential impact of an upcoming Supreme Court case.

That misconception is this—if the “independent state legislature theory” is adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper , state legislatures will be empowered to override the choice of voters on Election Day in a presidential election.

That’s not correct.

Make no mistake, the Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper could dramatically and dangerously rewrite American democracy. Moore v. Harper will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 7. The case involves a gerrymandered North Carolina congressional map that was rejected by the state’s Supreme Court and is being defended by North Carolina legislators. They claim the state court’s decision violates the independent state legislature theory.

The independent state legislature theory has long been considered by many to be a radical, fringe idea. Simply put, it would prevent state courts from reviewing laws passed by state legislatures to redistrict congressional seats, or to establish voting rules or other laws applicable to federal elections.

In other words, a state Supreme Court would no longer have the right to decide whether state laws dealing with federal elections comply with the state’s own constitution.

The federal Constitution gives states the authority to regulate the “manner” of conducting federal elections in the state. When states exercise that authority, their laws have to comply with both federal constitutional requirements and laws (such as the federal Voting Rights Act) as well as state constitutional requirements (like anti-gerrymandering provisions that may be in a state’s constitution). But under the independent state legislature theory, the state legislature would be free to enact state laws to regulate federal elections in the state that would not be subject to review by state courts. In other words, the state legislature would be able to pass laws that are contrary to the state’s own constitution.

Just three years ago, the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause , rejected a request that the Court find another North Carolina redistricting plan to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the federal Constitution.

The Court majority rejected that request because it found that the federal Constitution does not set forth judicially manageable standards on what constitutes partisan gerrymandering. But some state Supreme Courts have said that their state constitutions or state laws do bar partisan gerrymandering. And in Rucho , the Supreme Court expressly said that while it would not strike down a redistricting plan on grounds of gerrymandering, there were other remedies that could be pursued, including state courts reviewing the actions taken by state legislatures.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated: “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.”

That position by the Supreme Court in 2019 directly contradicts the independent state legislature theory being advocated in the Moore v. Harper case.

Furthermore, Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the Rucho opinion by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, the very Justices who supporters of the fringe independent state legislature theory are relying on to win the case.

But, given the radical path the Supreme Court majority has been taking, there are no guarantees that this Court will practice what it preached just a few years ago.

It is, however, important to correct one key misconception regarding the state legislature theory—that if it is accepted by the Supreme Court, it could allow state legislatures to override the choice of voters in presidential elections.

To understand the independent state legislature theory with regard to presidential elections, we need to understand that in presidential elections, the U.S. Constitution and federal law control when presidential electors are chosen in a state.

Under Article II of the Constitution , Congress is empowered to choose the “time” when presidential electors will be chosen. Federal law implementing the Article has established that electors are chosen on Election Day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Furthermore, while the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors, every state legislature has delegated to the voters the power to choose the President by voting for the presidential electors of the candidate they choose. While a state legislature in theory could take this power away from voters prior to Election Day, it is politically unfeasible and would lead to a national firestorm.

Once electors are chosen on Election Day, state legislatures, under the U.S. Constitution and under implementing federal law, have no authority to replace the choice for electors made by the voters with electors chosen by the state legislature—apart from one loophole contained as part of the 19th-century Electoral Count Act.

Under that loophole in current law, if a state legislature decides, for whatever reason, that voters have “failed” to make a choice on Election Day, the state legislature can name its own electors after Election Day. This dangerous loophole was brought into sharp focus by former President Donald Trump’s effort to use state legislatures to help overturn the 2020 election.

Congress, however, is well on its way to closing that loophole.

Legislation that closes the “failed choice” loophole along with other important reforms has passed the House and similar legislation was reported out of the Senate Rules Committee in September. The Senate legislation, the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA), has strong bipartisan support, including 15 Republican sponsors—enough to overcome a filibuster. The bill is expected to be voted on by the full Senate in the lame-duck session following the midterm elections.

If the ECRA passes and the loophole is closed, state legislatures will then have no authority to override the presidential choice of the voters. Federal law, not state legislatures, will continue to control here, regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the  Moore  case and the independent state legislature theory. Because federal law would require electors to be chosen only on Election Day if the ECRA passes, state legislatures would have no power to choose different electors after Election Day even if they do not like the choice the voters made on Election Day.

Related Content

Elaine Kamarck

November 3, 2022

Elaine Kamarck, Norman Eisen

October 7, 2022

October 20, 2022

Campaigns & Elections Courts & Law

Governance Studies

Center for Effective Public Management

Constanze Stelzenmüller, Fred Dews

May 3, 2024

Elaine Kamarck, Jordan Muchnick

William A. Galston

May 1, 2024

LifeBridge Integrated Learning Centre

An effective bridge into the adult world of work

Ideas that influenced independent states – History G12

MODULE : HIS 12/1/T2/20 THEME : INDEPENDENT AFRICA TOPIC: Ideas that influenced the independent states

LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this module you will be able to: 1) Identify and explain the main principles of four important philosophical ideas that gave impetus to the move towards independence in Africa. 2) Critically compare the four main ideas and evaluate them by outlining the positive and negative aspects of each. 3) Analyse a contemporary sources in terms of the influence of the four key ideas.

LEARNING INPUTS All the input material is available on Wiki but you are encouraged to use any other source material you are able to find.

LEARNING TASKS Select one of the following essays to write a full, properly referenced essay of 500-600 words and prepare a detailed set of outline notes for each of the other two essays. Your outlines should be about 250 words in length. Do not “cut and paste” – use your own paraphrase of the material. Do reference all facts and quotes; organize your information systematically in separate paragraphs; base your response very carefully on the question; express your own personal opinions and ideas with supporting arguments.

1. List, arrange in order from most serious to least serious, and describe at least five significant challenges facing the governments of newly independent African states as a result of colonialism and explain briefly why and how these would impact on the way the country would have to operate giving your reasons for placing them in the order in which you have.

2. By referring to specific examples and the views of African scholars decide whether multi-party democracy or a one-party state would be a better model for the political organization of newly independent states in Africa and support your argument by comparing the benefits and pitfalls of each model.

3. Referring to the sources at your disposal write a brief essay and analyze why many newly independent African states would have preferred some form of “African Socialism” as the basis of their economy rather than capitalism and why this did not always work as well as it was hoped it would.

ASSESSMENT Your answers will be assessed in terms of the following criteria using a 4 point scale (0-1= Not evident or poor; 2-Adequate but may need some development; 3-Good, meets requirements but not exceptional; 4- Superior, displays real mastery) • Accurate use of source material • Coherent arrangement of content and structure • Proper referencing • Insight into multiple viewpoints and arguments • Support of own position • Clear statement of a personal interpretation and opinion • Clarity of expression. • Careful and accurate editing and quality control (maximum 2 points only) Total: 3 X 30 = 90

SUBMISSION The answers should be submitted electronically as word documents using 12 point Arial and 1,5 spacing with the file name: PH His 12 1 T2 20 Q (and question number) To [email protected] Send the assignment as an attachment to an e-mail, not as the body of the mail and use the words: Mr Rich History assignment Q (and number) as subject heading. Submission dates are as follows: 1st Outline – Tues14 April 2nd Outline – Friday 17 April 3 Full essay Wednesday 22 April SUPPORT You may contact Mr Rich on Whatsapp 0720452674 or On Skype at Johan.Rich1 Or by email at the lifebridge address above with any questions, comments of ideas.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Free and Independent: The States’ Declaration and the Articles of Confederation – Guest Essayist: Jennie Jones

LISTEN ON SOUNDCLOUD:

In thinking about what the Declaration of Independence meant for state powers, perhaps the better question is what powers didn’t the states have upon their independence? Consider the very first line and note what is emphasized: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” This is telling. Why use “unanimous” if all the states were considered one entity? Importantly, “united” is not emphasized. This also occurs in the last paragraph of the document with the reference to the “Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled…” “Nation” only appears once in the Declaration, and it refers to England, not America. Rather than “nation,” the reference used twice is “Free and Independent States.” Indeed, during this time and up until the Constitution was ratified, the United States was cast as a plural entity. So, if we were going to war with France, the wording would not be “the United States is going to war”, but “the United States are going to war…”

The Declaration clearly calls for the independence of thirteen new nations , not one—“a baker’s dozen of new nations,” as Willmoore Kendall put it, thirteen free and independent states.  What the Declaration meant for the powers of the states was that the states being free and independent, each state had the powers any nation is entitled to, but since God has given man ethical laws in nature and in His laws revealed in Scripture (“the laws of nature and of nature’s God”), no nation and no state is entitled to powers which violate the laws of nature and of nature’s God, nor are the people of any state justified in consenting to any powers that violate the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The Declaration leaves the form of civil government chosen by the people or the representatives of the people of each state up to the representatives and the people of that state. Each must choose for itself a form of government and powers of government which are consistent with preserving the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and thereby preserving the people’s freedom. The people of each state are justified in framing their own particular constitution, civil government institutions, and laws so long as they do not violate the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

The Declaration of Independence was both produced by the states and produced the states.  The colonies’ (then states’) representatives in the Continental Congress produced it.  It is a tremendously important but often misinterpreted document.  There was not a government of the thirteen united States. The Continental Congresses did not have the authority to require the states to do anything; the respective states’ legislatures had to decide whether to act on the recommendations of the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress was based upon the equality of all states, not upon the will of the majority of the people who live in all those states. There was no vote of the people of the States and no attempt to determine the majority will of the people who lived in those thirteen states. The Declaration was unanimous because the representatives of the people of each state agreed upon it, not because the majority, or all of the people, of all the states agreed to it.

Colonists started talking about independence in 1774, but no original powers of legislation were granted to the Congresses of 1774 and 1775. The government was temporary only; it was permitted only for a particular and temporary object, and the States could at any time recall any and every power which it had assumed. Nothing in the powers employed by the revolutionary government, as far as can be seen from its acts, is inconsistent with the sovereignty and independence of the States. Regarding external relations, Congress seemed to have exercised every power of a supreme government. They declared war; formed alliances and made treaties; contracted debts and issued bills of credit. These powers were not “exclusive” though. The colonies raised troops, commissioned vessels of war, and conducted military operations. In conducting the war Congress had no “exclusive” power, and the States retained, and asserted, their own sovereign right and power to do that. Congress exercised no power reducing the absolute sovereignty and independence of the States.  Many powers entrusted exclusively to Congress could not be effectively exercised except by the aid of the State governments. The States raised troops required by Congress. Congress was allowed to issue bills of credit, but not make them a legal tender. Nor could it require the States to redeem them, nor raise by its own authority the necessary funds for the purpose. In these and other important functions, the “sovereignty” of the Federal Government was merely nominal; its efficiency was wholly due to the co-operation of the State governments. The relation between the colonies and their Congress did not change once independence was declared. The chief difference was that the relation was now between the States and their Congress. [1]

Although the powers actually assumed and exercised by Congress were very great, they were not always allowed by the States. Thus, the power to lay an embargo was earnestly desired by Congress, but was denied by the States. [2] The Continental Congress was not a central government of the newly independent States.

There was no central government until the Articles of Confederation in 1781—five years after the colonies issued the Declaration. Even under the Articles of Confederation, it was clear that the states were intended to have the vast majority of civil government power. Article II (of the Articles) clearly stated that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Article III established the United States as a league of states that emphasized the right of each state to govern its own internal affairs. It was “a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…” The purpose of the Confederation was clearly defensive. It was deliberately left for each state to determine for itself how to order its own internal affairs.

Article VI limited the powers of the central government. Centralized power is incompatible with federalism and a confederate form of government. The power must be spread out and limited.

Article VII authorized state control of military ranks. The federal army was to be a very small standing army, supplied by the state militias.

Article VIII. Each state’s taxes were to be determined by the legislature of that state—not by the central government.

Article IX declared what the rights of the central government were. It meant that each state was a sovereign nation that had to be considered in forming any common governmental system for the peoples of the states to live under. The primary powers the central government had under the Articles were to declare war against foreign powers; establish standard weights and measures; mint coins and print currency; and serve as a mediator in all disputes between the states.

The Articles of Confederation was our first national constitution. The newly independent states created it because they recognized their weakness compared to European nations—and wanted to be able to defend themselves against attempts by other nations to conquer them.  They made their first constitution a confederacy because they wanted to continue to rule their own internal affairs, but still be able to join with the other states to defend against foreign aggression—based on religion or any other causes.

Although it was not ratified until March 1781, it was given to Congress in November of 1777, and it was essentially the structure of government that the United States operated under all through the War of Independence. In 1779, the Continental Congress passed a resolution acknowledging the operating status of the Articles prior to its being fully ratified by the states in 1781. [3]

The states declared their independence in order to be and remain independent, self-governing states. Their Declaration of Independence is neither our fundamental governing document nor the controlling authority for American civil government, law, and politics.  It is simply our original states’ declaration of their right to fight for their respective independence from England and of their equal status as free, independent nations. They created the Articles of Confederation to maintain their individual sovereignty, but to provide their united military power. When government under the Articles proved defective, many in the states sought to create a stronger central government; many others feared that the new central government would be too strong. The new governmental system that the colonies established under the Constitution was meant to retain the great majority of governmental power in the respective states , not to centralize power in the new, limited national government, nor to enable future officials in that government to centralize power. Those who advocated ratifying the finished Constitution insisted that the new central government did not and would not be a threat to the powers of the states.

Jennie Jones, Instructor of Government and History, Weatherford College

[1] Abel P. Upshur, The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character; Being a Review of Judge [Joseph] Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co., 1868), Reprinted by St. Thomas Press, Houston, Texas, 1977, p. 64-65

[2] Upshur, p. 66

[3] Dr. George Grant, Ph.D. Lit., King’s Meadow Humanities Curriculum: American Culture, Instructor’s Guide (Franklin, Tennessee: King’s Meadow, 2011). p. 202, 293

Click Here for the next essay. 

Click Here for previous essay.

Click Here to have the NEWEST essay in this study emailed to your inbox every day!

Click Here to view the schedule of topics in our 90 Day Study on Congress.

An interesting and vital point that the DoI was a declaration by the States to be independent of England.

The DoI has been used by many down through the years as litmus test of whether a political, governing, idea or social “contract” is consistent with the ideals upon which our nation was founded. Lincoln tested and proclaimed several monumental ideas based on his understanding of the DoI. The secessionist used the principles in the DoI to justify secession by the States.

A general observation is that when people use sound, good, best in class principles to justify wicked and evil practices the principle ultimately suffers diminished utility. Secessionists tried to used the DoI to perpetuate an evil system and in the end slavery was thankfully abolished, but at the lamentable expense of reduced States rights.

Thank you for thought provoking essay.

Each state is a sovereign nation, by law. True democracy and equality depends on this fact; since each nation-state is supremely ruled by its respective voters– i.e. consent to government, not subjugation under the will of elected officials.

Just one point: Each state not only was declared as a separate nation in 1776; they won their status as separate nations in 1783 via the Treaty of Paris, and did not surrender it at any time. The Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution after it, were international unions; not a national union with “limitations” that a state could not enforce directly. Rather, the Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation, retained principal sovereign authority to the individual states, and the federal government was simply the state’s delegated agent. However while the state legislature held principal (i.e. final) authority under the Confederation; the Constitution established the individual nation-states’ electorates — i.e their citizen-voters– as the state’s principal sovereign authority. So now government truly derived its power by consent of the governed: with the People– i.e. the electorate– of each nation state, holding final authority over their government; and having the power to overrule their government by popular vote. This is how the Constitution was ratified: i.e. the citizen-voters in each state ratified the Constitution, by deputies specially elected for that purpose. Thus, the VOTERS of the state were the national authority OVER their state. And they did NOT unite their states as a single sovereign federation, to which the states would become dependent states. Rather, the Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation, was an INTERNATIONAL compact, like the UN or the EU. The difference is that the state ELECTORATES held final authority: NOT their governments. And DEFINITELY not the FEDERAL government, which would be an imperial oligarchy. And that’s exactly what they fought Great Britain to get AWAY FROM, establishing democracy as not mere representation in an oligarchy; but governments deriving their just powers by CONSENT of the governed. The Constitution ACHIEVED this. This fact was denied via the Lincoln Administration; but it’s still a fact, and must be exposed.

The point is that the Constitution is an international compact, just like the UN or EU. EVERY international compact, agrees to restrain the exercise of certain national powers; otherwise there would be no point since they’d be free to ignore it. But that doesn’t unite the party-nations as a single nation; it’s still an international compact among separate nations. The Constitution simply established the voters of each state, as the state’s final authority, instead of the state legislature. It did not give final authority to the federal government, and it did not unite the states as a single nation. Nothing did. This is a fraudulent claim of history, which must be corrected if we are ever to restore true democratic consent to the American people, to their government. Until the truth is exposed, the government will remain the master, and the people will remain the servant.

Join the discussion! Post your comments below.

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

How Independent Can State Legislatures Be?

The Court arrived at the right decision in Moore v. Harper , but it still muddied the waters surrounding the independent state legislature theory.

The Supreme Court identified a reasonable outcome in Moore v. Harper (holding that state legislatures do not possess exclusive constitutional authority over redistricting decisions). But the majority opinion is a mishmash of previous precedent and conventional state practice. The Court’s reading of similar language regarding state legislative decision-making powers in different provisions of the U.S. Constitution remains a muddle of inconsistency.

The case concerns legal challenges in North Carolina courts to the North Carolina legislature’s congressional redistricting map. Congressional redistricting is a national -level responsibility given to state legislatures in Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The text provides that the “times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations.”

The North Carolina legislature, advancing the “independent state legislature theory,” claimed that the constitutional text confers redistricting powers exclusively on state legislatures. If read this way—which is consistent with the way other similarly-worded constitutional texts are read (such as regarding state legislative ratification of constitutional amendments)—the North Carolina legislature’s redistricting map is constitutionally the final word on the matter and cannot be challenged in North Carolina courts. (It also means that governors have no power under the U.S. Constitution to veto redistricting legislation and that states cannot remove redistricting authority from legislatures and give that authority to specialized redistricting commissions.)

In rejecting the independent state legislature approach to this provision, the problem with the majority opinion is not that it reads “legislatures” in Article 1, Section 4 as a synecdoche for full state legislative processes (including executive vetoes and judicial review). After all, the reference to “Congress” in the very same sentence of the Constitution is read naturally as a synecdochical stand-in for the full national-level legislative process.

Rather the problem with the majority’s opinion is one of inconsistent interpretation of similar language across the Constitution. The Supreme Court provided the correct reading of Article 1, Section 4 in this case—or at least the most reasonable reading of this provision. But the majority ties itself into rhetorical knots trying to justify reading the same language differently in other parts of the Constitution.

The irony is that the Court has a long line of precedent in which it has read, and still reads , state-legislative authority in these other, similarly worded parts of the Constitution fully consistent with the most radical versions of independent state legislature theory. As such, the Court’s reasoning in Moore gives lie to so much of the hyperbolic commentary prior to the decision about how novel and radical the “independent state legislature theory” is.

It’s the majority’s attempt to justify its inconsistent reading of the same words in different parts of the Constitution that’s the problem with its opinion. To be sure, as Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quip goes, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Nonetheless, the majority’s reasoning falls flat. Ultimately, it identifies little more than a proverbial “distinction without a difference.” There is little reason that constitutional delegation of national decision-making power to state legislatures should not be read uniformly across the Constitution, whether as an exclusive grant to state legislatures themselves, or, more reasonably, reading “legislatures” as a synecdoche for state legislative processes more generally.

State Legislative Decision-Making in the U.S. Constitution

To understand the Court’s seesaw interpretation of the role of state legislatures in the national Constitution, it is useful to canvas the various provisions that provide decision-making specifically for state legislatures. The several national constitutional provisions providing for state legislative participation in the national government are:

• The original version of Article I, section 3 that provided for state-legislative selection of U.S. Senators. (The election of U.S. Senators was of course subsequently changed to direct elections by the Seventeenth Amendment);
• Article I, section 4, the provision at issue in Moore v. Harper , in which state legislatures prescribe the time, manner, and place for selecting House members and Senators;
• Article I, section 8, in which Congress can assert exclusive legislation “over all places purchased” from within a state, with the proviso that the purchase must occur “with the consent” of the “legislature of the state”;
• Article II, section 1, which designates that state legislatures stipulate the manner of appointing presidential electors;
• Article IV, section 3, requiring that state legislatures consent when a state is formed by the “junction of two or more states, or parts of states”;
• Article IV, section 4, which allows U.S. national intervention in a state in a case of domestic violence “on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot convene”;
• Article V, which provides for state-legislative ratification of constitutional amendments (as well as calling a constitutional convention “on application of the legislatures of two-thirds” of the states).

In Moore , the majority sought to distinguish by “function” the role of state legislatures and, subsequently, when state legislatures act alone (by way of implicit application of the independent-state-legislature theory) and when the constitutional reference to “legislature” is a synecdoche for the broader state law-making process.

In doing so, the Court focused on the functions specified in four constitutional provisions in particular: national purchases of land, ratification of constitutional amendments, electing U.S. Senators (prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment), and redistricting House districts as part of the state legislative charge to “prescribe” the “time, places, and manner of elections for U.S. Senators and Representatives.”

The majority argued in Moore :

[The] Hawke and Smiley [cases] delineated the various roles that the Constitution assigns to state legislatures. Legislatures act as “Consent[ing]” bodies when the Nation purchases land, Art. I, §8, cl. 17; as “Ratif[ying]” bodies when they agree to proposed Constitutional amendments, Art. V; and—prior to the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment—as “electoral” bodies when they choose United States Senators, Smiley, 285 U.S., at 365; see also Art. I, §3, cl. 1; Amdt. 17 (providing for the direct election of Senators). By fulfilling their constitutional duty to craft the rules governing federal elections, state legislatures do not consent, ratify, or elect—they make laws.

First, we should not pass over too quickly the Court’s high-toned version of the Sesame Street Song, “ three of these things belong together, one of these things does not belong with the others ”: The Court argues that in crafting “the rules governing federal elections,” state legislatures act differently than when they [1] consent to purchase (and exercise exclusive jurisdiction) over land in the states, [2] ratify constitutional amendments, and [3] when they chose U.S. Senators (prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment).

Of note here is that, according to the Court, in these three areas independent-state-legislature theory properly applies. It is only with respect to “the rules governing federal elections” that the theory does not hold.

This provides a corrective to some of the overwrought commentary on the application of independent-state-legislature theory to redistricting. For example, writing in the L.A. Times , UC-Berkley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky asserted that the Independent state legislature theory “is a theory of recent vintage, never having been accepted in American history.”

There seems to be some disagreement in practice whether state legislative votes consenting to national land purchases should be listed among actions taken exclusively by state legislatures and, therefore, outside of the course of ordinary legislation.

Contrary to Chemerinsky’s assertion, not only has the theory long applied to these other provisions in the U.S. Constitution, other American courts “accepted” the theory in application to electoral rules as well. For example, in 1931 the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the independent state legislature theory (albeit, without the title), holding that, in referring to state legislatures in Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the drafters

made use of [the word “legislature”] in the ordinary sense with reference to the official body invested with the functions of making laws, the legislative body of the state, and that they did not intend to include the state’s chief executive as a part thereof. We would not be justified in construing the term as being used in its enlarged sense as meaning the state, or as meaning the lawmaking power of the state.

While the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Minnesota court’s reading of the provision, the 1931 state decision shows that even with respect to the elections provision in the Constitution, the theory is neither of recent vintage nor without serious legal acceptance. A vast amount of the commentary decrying the “radicalness” of the independent-state-legislature theory was little more than a smokescreen for the fact that the commentators preferred that Democratic candidates win more elections in North Carolina and that Republican candidates win fewer. Their hyperbolic criticisms were partisan, not principled.

Is Only One of These Things Not Like the Others?

The making of laws, the majority argues in Moore , is qualitatively different—more complicated—than up or down votes on ratification, consent to national land purchases, or even the (presumably more complicated) choice among Senate candidates prior to the adoption of the Seventh Amendment. So making laws administering national elections, the Court concludes, should be treated differently than legislative action in these other areas.

Yet the distinctions are not as neat and tidy as the Court suggests they are.

First, there seems to be some disagreement in practice whether state legislative votes consenting to national land purchases should be listed among actions taken exclusively by state legislatures and, therefore, outside of the course of ordinary legislation.

Contrary to the majority’s inclusion of state legislative consent in Moore along with ratification and Senate elections (prior to the Seventeenth Amendment), the several cases and sources I consulted suggest that the “consent” function of state legislatures for national government land purchases is part of the ordinary state legislative processes rather than actions taken by state legislatures alone.

Several of the most-cited Supreme Court cases litigating federal jurisdiction of nationally-acquired land within states all identify state statutes —which, with their passage, are sent to the governor for approval—as the basis for consent rather than legislative resolution (as presumably would occur if legislative consent were provided without presentation to the governor for approval).

The 1885 case of Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe cites Kansas session laws from 1874/1875 as the basis for state consent, and lists the consenting statute at issue in the case among ordinary statutes requiring gubernatorial approval. In contrast, legislative resolutions adopted during that session, actions that do not require gubernatorial approval, are listed separately in the volume from the statutes. So, too, “consent” for state land cessions to the national government seems to have been provided by ordinarily-adopted statutes in Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission (1937) and James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937).

More recently, the archived U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Resource Manual suggests as well that state consent does not derive exclusively from state legislative approval, but derives from ordinary statutory processes:

State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced by a specific enactment or by general constitutional or statutory provision. Cession of jurisdiction by the state also requires acceptance by the United States.  See   Adams v. United States , 319 U.S. 312 (1943);  Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook , 281 U.S. at 651-52. Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal question.  See   Mason Co. v. Tax Commission , 302 U.S. at 197.

In contrast, while the Court in Moore cites Hawke (1920) and Smiley (1932) on the point that “consent” for national jurisdiction proceeds by exclusive approval by state legislatures, neither of those cases cites any precedential authority, or even provides any history, for the claim of exclusive legislative approval.

The upshot of noting the contrary authority on whether “consent” is provided by state legislatures independent of the ordinary state-legislative processes is not that it imperils the Court’s decision in Moore . Rather the seemingly-contradicting precedent undermines the strength of the Court’s rationale for its other precedents, which read independent state legislature theory into other provisions of the Constitution, not least the provision relating to ratification by the states of proposed constitutional amendments. After all, if the simple up-or-down decision to consent to Federal land purchases (and the assertion of exclusive national jurisdiction) occurs via ordinary state law-making processes, then the simplicity of up-or-down ratification decisions could also be called into question as a rationale justifying their exclusive commitment to traditional state legislatures.

It’s not only here, however, that the Court introduced problems in reading similar texts in the U.S. Constitution. The expansive discussion of “legislature” in the 2015 case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission , a decision on which Moore draws heavily, also suggests in principle a way in which states might create mechanisms for state legislative ratification of constitutional amendments outside of a process confined to traditional state legislatures.

Plural Legislatures?

The topic of the “unitary executive” in the U.S. Constitution has been a topic of continuing and animated attention in recent decades. The “unitary executive” stands in contrast to the “plural executive” found in most state constitutions . In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission , the Court’s expanded definition of state legislatures extraordinarily recognizes the power of states to create “plural legislatures,” undermining the basis for claiming in Moore that the ratification of U.S. constitutional amendments must occur exclusively through the action of traditionally-understood state legislatures.

To be clear, a “plural legislature” does not mean a bicameral legislature. Legislative bicameralism exists when two legislative bodies share legislative power; one chamber cannot legislate without the affirmative consent of the other chamber to the same proposed legislation.

In contrast, the state of Arizona, according to the Court, delegated the whole of legislative power in the state to (at least) two distinct legislative bodies, both of which are empowered to legislate for the state without the affirmative consent of the other body.

The majority summarized the competing arguments in the case this way:

The Arizona Legislature’s complaint alleged that “[t]he word ‘Legislature’ in the Elections Clause means [specifically and only] the representative body which makes the laws of the people”; so read, the Legislature urges, the Clause precludes resort to an independent commission, created by initiative, to accomplish redistricting. The AIRC responded that, for Elections Clause purposes, “the Legislature” is not confined to the elected representatives; rather, the term encompasses all legislative authority conferred by the State Constitution, including initiatives adopted by the people themselves . (emphasis added, citations removed)

The Court agreed with the argument in favor of the independent commission.

In doing so, the claim the Court upheld is that “the Legislature” can refer to the people themselves as well as to the traditionally-understood legislature. Both are able to adopt legislation independent of the immediate consent of the other body.

In fact, however, I suggest that Court implicitly went a step further in the Arizona case: The people of Arizona were not themselves exercising legislative authority in adopting a redistricting plan. “The people” did not themselves legislate in this case. Rather, the people of Arizona created yet another legislature—albeit, one of limited jurisdiction—the Redistricting Commission. The Redistricting Commission holds the people’s legislative authority over Redistricting decisions alone. It is the Redistricting Commission that legislates in this area, not the people. After all, since at least the late 1600s (when John Locke discussed the topic) it has been accepted that legislatures cannot delegate legislative authority to another institution that is not the legislature. See, for example, INS v. Chada (1983).

The Court majority in the Arizona case misses the upshot of its own argument by insisting that ratification of constitutional amendments is not, properly speaking, a legislative function. The issue in the case did not concern what is a legislative decision, it instead concerned what institution the state identifies as its Legislature (or, perhaps better now, as one of its Legislature s ). Given the decision in Arizona, what prevents the people of a state from creating and naming what they call a state “Legislature” with responsibility limited to considering and voting on ratification of constitutional amendments proposed to the national constitution?

To be sure, I don’t expect the Court any time soon to overturn its long-held precedents holding that independent state legislature theory applies to legislative ratification of constitutional amendments even if it does not apply to state administration of national elections (or to state “consent” to national land purchases). Nonetheless, the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence is a mess as it pertains to interpreting the nature and scope of state-legislative participation in national governance. Moore v. Harper got the outcome right in this particular case, but unnecessarily doubled down on the muddled jurisprudence of state legislative participation in national governance.

Forum Constitutional Government After Chevron ? Adam White

Book Review Orwell’s Arresting Ambiguities Theodore Dalrymple

Book Review Market Liberalism, Chinese-Style Samuel Gregg

Essay China’s Three-Body Problem—and Ours  Spencer A. Klavan

Essay Flying the Unfriendly Skies David Krugler

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Examples >
• Essay Topics

Essays on Independent State

4 samples on this topic

On this website, we've put together a directory of free paper samples regarding Independent State. The intention is to provide you with a sample identical to your Independent State essay topic so that you could have a closer look at it in order to grasp a better idea of what a top-notch academic work should look like. You are also urged to use the best Independent State writing practices displayed by expert authors and, eventually, create a high-quality paper of your own.

However, if developing Independent State papers completely by yourself is not an option at this point, WowEssays.com essay writer service might still be able to help you out. For example, our writers can write an one-of-a-kind Independent State essay sample specifically for you. This example piece on Independent State will be written from scratch and tailored to your personal requirements, fairly priced, and delivered to you within the pre-set timeframe. Choose your writer and buy custom essay now!

The Middle Passage Research Paper To Use For Practical Writing Help

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• America and It's Independent State

America and It's Independent State - Essay Example

• Subject: History
• Type: Essay
• Level: Masters
• Pages: 13 (3250 words)
• Downloads: 2
• Author: acorwin

Extract of sample "America and It's Independent State"

• Cited: 0 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF America and It's Independent State

The american articles of confederation, american experience of democracy, american war of independence, the american revolution had commenced long before the war, colonialism and independence in latin american development, thomas paine on american independence, american history- american revolution & revolutionary war, importance of having an impartial and independent judiciary.

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Test Resources

TOEFL® Resources by Michael Goodine

Toefl independent writing master guide (2023 update).

Here’s how the TOEFL Independent writing question works:

• It is the second writing question on the TOEFL Test
• You will be asked a question about your personal opinion and be given 30 minutes to write about it.
• Questions can be about any topics, but they are most often about education, work and society in general.
• There is no minimum or maximum word count, but I think you should write between 380 and 400 words.

Styles of Questions

There are four main styles of TOEFL independent essay questions in 2022.  They look like this:

Agree/Disagree Style (most common)

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children should be required to follow strict rules set by their parents . Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Do not use memorized examples.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students do not respect their teachers as much as they did in the past . Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.  Do not use memorized examples.

Multiple Choice Style (common)

Which of the following values do you think is best to teach to a young child? being honest being helpful being patient Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Do not use memorized examples.

Preference Style (common)

There are many different styles of classes at schools nowadays. Some students prefer classes where they interact with their teacher and other students. Others prefer classes where they just listen to their teacher speak. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Make sure to use your own words. Do not use memorized examples.

Imaginary Situation (less common)

Imagine a situation where you have a school assignment and are unable to finish it before the deadline given by your teacher.  What do you think is the best thing to do in this case – submit an incomplete assignment, or wait until it is completely finished and submit it after the deadline. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.  Do not use memorized examples.

Note that questions are somewhat longer than in the past.

Coming up with Ideas

I get a lot of questions about how to come up with ideas about what to write.  To deal with this problem, check out my video .

How to Structure the Essay (Template)

To show you how to write the essay, I will use this question:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students do not respect their teachers as much as they did in the past . Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Writing an Introduction

The first part of your TOEFL independent essay is the introductory paragraph.  You could follow this template:

• Sentence One: The “Background Information” This is an interesting sentence that introduces the general theme or topic of the essay.  I recommend stating something that most people agree we should do :  “ Most people agree that everyone in the world should… “
• Sentence Two: The Main P oint This is your main argument and direct answer to the question. Start with “ Personally, I believe that… “
• Sentence Three: The T ransition Just use: “ I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay .”

For the above question, the introduction could look something like this:

Most people in the world agree that everyone should get as much education as possible. Personally, I believe that young people do not have as much respect for their teachers as in the past. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay .

There are a few things to keep in mind as you write your introduction:

• Don’t waste time on the opening line.  It isn’t very important.
• Don’t copy and paste from the prompt.
• Write about 50 words .

Writing Body Paragraphs

Next you must write two body paragraphs that support your thesis. You could dse this template for your first body paragraph:

• Sentence One: A Topic  Sentence This summarizes your first supporting reason. Begin with “ To begin with… “.
• Sentences Two and Three : The Explanation Explain what you mean, without talking directly about a personal experience.
• Sentence  Four: The Transition Just use: “ My personal experience is a compelling illustration  of this. “
• Sentence Six to End: The Personal  Example An example from your life that illustrates this argument. It should make up about 60% of the body paragraph.

This leads to a paragraph like this:

To begin with , there are many more ways for students to learn nowadays, which means they are less reliant on teachers than in the past. A few years ago, children could only acquire new skills by going to school and attending classes , so they respected their teachers a lot. In contrast , now they can easily use technology to learn independently. My personal experience is a compelling illustration of this .  For the past five years, I have studied English almost every single day. Although my native language is Korean, I am able to easily communicate in English without feeling any anxiety.  I expand my vocabulary by using a smartphone application that teaches me new phrases twice per day, and I practice pronunciation by watching videos on the Internet.  Consequently , I feel like old-fashioned classes with a teacher are not as important as they used to be.  If I had tried to become proficient in English twenty years ago, I would have depended on a teacher and respected her a lot.

Use a similar template for your second body paragraph:

• Sentence One: A Topic  Sentence This summarizes your second supporting reason. Begin with “ Furthermore… “.
• Sentences Two and Three : The Explanation Explain what you mean, without talking directly about personal experience.
• Sentence  Four: The Transition Just use: “ For instance, “
• Sentences Five to End: The Personal Example An example from your life that illustrates this argument. Again, it should be about 60% of the paragraph.

That would result in a paragraph looking something like this:

Furthermore , teachers are no longer strict, which means children don’t fear them at all. If teachers fail to discipline students when they misbehave, they do not feel obligated to respect them. This problem is very common nowadays.  For instance, a few months ago my little brother used profanity when addressing his math teacher.  Surprisingly, he wasn’t punished for this terrible behavior. His teacher was afraid of how our parents would react to my brother being punished, so he just ignored it. Since then , my brother hasn’t respected that teacher at all , and is often quite rude. In addition , a lot of his classmates have picked up on the fact that they can get away with impolite behavior and have started acting up as well. Based on this experience , I strongly feel that young people do not respect educators like they did in the past.

There are a few things to keep in mind as you write the body paragraphs:

• Use a mix of simple, compound and complex sentences.  This is mentioned as “syntactic variety” in the scoring rubric.
• Emphasize the examples.  They are easy to write, so they should make up about 60% (or more) of each body paragraph.  If you emphasize them, you will make fewer mistakes. 
• Avoid very short sentences (less than seven words) and very long sentences (more than 60 words).
• Don’t start sentences with coordinating conjunctions.  The e-rater seems to dislike this.
• Use a variety of discourse phrases (therefore, moreover, as a result, in addition, etc).
• Write about 150 words in each body paragraph.

Writing a Conclusion

Conclusions are easy. You just need to repeat your thesis and your two supporting arguments.  Try this short template:

• Sentence One: Restate the Thesis Paraphrase your thesis. Begin with “ In conclusion, I strongly feel that… “.
• Sentence Two: Restate the Two Reasons Just use: “ This is because ______, and _______. “

That will produce something that looks like this:

In conclusion, I strongly feel that children do not respect their teachers as much as they used to. This is because teachers are not as essential as they were a few decades ago , and they are too nervous to enforce rules .

Here’s what you should keep in mind:

• Paraphrase yourself. Don’t copy and paste from either the thesis or the topic sentences when you write the conclusion.
• Don’t introduce new arguments in the conclusion
• Write about 40 words in the conclusion

Final Thoughts

That’s how you write a strong TOEFL independent essay.  There are a final few points that are worth mentioning here, of course:

• There is no word limit.  You can write as much as you want.
• In multiple choice questions you can totally ignore the choices you don’t pick.
• The template works for all of the styles
• Practice does not make perfect.  Proper practice makes perfect.  For help, sign up for my evaluation program .
• You will not get punished for using a simple template.

Further Reading

We maintain a large collection of  complete sample essays , written using the above techniques.

You may wish to continue by reading our guide to the integrated essay .

Sign up for express essay evaluation today!

Submit your practice essays for evaluation by the author of this website.  Get feedback on grammar, structure, vocabulary and more.  Learn how to score better on the TOEFL.  Feedback in 48 hours.

Sign Up Today

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Becoming Independent Essay

IELTS Essay: Becoming Independent 

This model essay is about the issue of whether people in society today are more dependent on each other than the past or more independent. 

It was recently in the test. It's quite a tricky question to answer because deciding what amounts to being either 'dependent' or 'independent' is very subjective. 

Take a look at the question:

Some people think that in the modern world we are more dependent on each other, while others think that people have become more independent.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

How should I answer it?

This is a 'discuss two opinions' type essay, or what some call a discussion essay.

You have to make sure you discuss both sides of the argument, not just one. So you need to discuss these two things:

• Why people are more dependent on each other
• Why people are more independent

Being dependent on others means that you require other people in some way to support you. Being independent means you are self-sufficient and don't rely on others. 

And you must also of course give your opinion. One easy way to do that in this type of essay is to make one of the two points your opinion as well. 

You can have a separate paragraph if you want discussing your opinion but you have to then come up with more ideas or you could end up repeating yourself in the last paragraph. 

What about ideas?

Just try and come up with two examples of ways in which people these days depend on others, and two that show people are independent. 

Remember you are not marked on how good your ideas are (though they must answer the question of course) but how well you present and explain them. 

These are the ideas brainstormed for this essay:

Dependent on others for:

• Positive self-image
• Support in our busy lives

Independent because

• Families live apart
• People want privacy 

Becoming Independent Essay Sample Answer

Now take a look at a model answer.

Notice how each opinion is clearly expressed in a separate body paragraph, and the writers opinion is also the second body paragraph.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer:

It has always been the case that in certain ways our lives are intertwined with the lives of others. However, in the modern era, some people believe that dependency between people has increased, whereas others believe that people have grown to be more independent. 

One reason that people think we are more dependent on each other is because of our reliance on others to provide a positive image of ourselves. People are bombarded these days with pictures of beautiful models and people who seem to have perfect lives. Many people therefore feel the need to go on social media, such as Facebook and Instagram, in order to post pictures and they need others to get as many ‘likes’ as possible.  In addition to this, because of the hectic and busy lives some families lead, it is argued they are dependent on others to support them, such as with grandparents helping to take care of their grandchildren because the parents don't have time. 

However, despite this, overall I believe that people are generally more independent. This can be seen in the way that so many people live away from their families and lead their own lives. For example, families used to live nearby to each other, but nowadays people often reside in different cities to their parents and siblings or in other countries, seeing each other only rarely in some cases. Not only this, people prefer more privacy than in the past and do not require help from others, seen in the way that neighbours these days often do not know each other or interact at all.

In conclusion, although in certain ways people are more dependent, it is generally the case that people now live more independent lives. Only over time will it be revealed as to whether this is a positive or negative development for society.  

(305 Words)

So that is the best way to answer a question like that. 

You must make sure that you clearly discuss each opinion so it's best to just discuss each one within a separate body paragraph. 

It is a difficult question but don't spend too long thinking of the best ideas as the key is in the way you present and organise them.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

Formal and Informal Education Essay: What age should it start?

This formal and informal education essay is about whether it is best for children to begin their formal education at school when they are 7 rather than much younger.

IELTS Writing Example: What are the aims of a university education?

IELTS writing example essays. This is an essay on the aims of university education. In this essay, two opposing opinions need to be discussed. It is important to understand how to answer this type of question in the IELTS exam.

IELTS Essays: What is the best way to reduce crime?

IELTS essays online with comments by an IELTS instructor - A writing sample on the topic of reducing crime.

Sources for Stories Essay: Should parents read to their children?

This sources for stories essay asks for your opinion on the best way for children to get stories. Is it from parents reading to them or other ways?

Zoo Essay: Are zoos cruel or do they protect animals?

This is a recent zoo essay question from the IELTS test (June 2018). Essay about zoos have come up a few times in the IELTS test so it's worth studying same sample questions and sample essays about the topic.

Animal Rights Essay: Should animals be exploited for humans?

Animal Rights Essay for IELTS: Learn how to write an essay where you have to discuss two opinions. People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

Child Development Essay: What factors influence a child's development?

Child Development Essay for IELTS. The essay is about the factors that affect the way that children develop. It provides you with a model answer and comments on the response to help you know how to improve your band score.

Donating Money to Charity Essay: Where should the money go?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: IELTS model answer to an essay on the topic of giving locally or to national and international charities.

Diet and Health Essay: Who is responsible for diet and health?

Diet and Health Essay for IELTS: This model examines the extent to which individuals or governments should be responsible for health. Read a model answer and useful comments about the essay which will help you to improve your IELTS Score.

Extraterrestrial Life Essay: Should we look for life on other planets?

This extraterrestrial life essay is an IELTS opinion essay where you have to discuss both sides of an issue then give your own opinion.

Childcare Essay: Should family or carers look after young children?

Childcare Essay: In the essay you have to discuss two sides of an argument. The first is that it is better if pre-school children are looked after at home with relatives such as grandparents. The second opinion is that children should be looked after at childcare centres.

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay- Model answer for IELTS. Who has had the most influence on our world? In this essay you have to discuss both sides.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Paraphrasing in the IELTS Test: Speaking and Writing

May 03, 24 10:26 AM

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Full text of Xi Jinping's signed article on French media

A signed article by Chinese President Xi Jinping titled "Carrying Forward the Spirit that Guided the Establishment of China-France Diplomatic Relations, Working Together for Global Peace and Development" was published Sunday on French newspaper Le Figaro upon his arrival in Paris for a state visit to France.

Here is the full text of his article.

Carrying Forward the Spirit that Guided the Establishment of China-France Diplomatic Relations, Working Together for Global Peace and Development

President of the People's Republic of China

I am delighted to pay my third state visit to France at the invitation of President Emmanuel Macron.

France holds a special fascination for us Chinese. This country has produced a galaxy of philosophers, writers, and artists with global appeal who have inspired all humanity. Over 150 years ago, French nationals helped China found its Fujian Navy Yard and the Fujian Naval Academy. France was also the first country to welcome government-sponsored students from China. A century ago, a number of young Chinese traveled to France for further education. Some of these young patriots went on to make remarkable contribution to the founding and development of New China. France was also the first major western country to enter into formal diplomatic ties with New China.

The year 2024 is of special significance. I will visit France bringing with me three messages from China.

—China will work with France to carry forward the spirit that guided the establishment of their diplomatic ties, build on past achievements and open new vistas for China-France relations.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of China-France relations. Six decades ago, General Charles de Gaulle, with a strategic vision based on the trend of the time, resolved to establish diplomatic relations with New China. It wasn't easy to make this independent decision at the height of the Cold War, but it has proven to be right and foresighted. With the establishment of China-France relations, a bridge of communication between the East and West was built, and the international relations were able to evolve in the direction of dialogue and cooperation.

In these six decades, China-France relations have stayed abreast of the times. Our two countries took the lead in establishing a comprehensive strategic partnership and launching institutional strategic dialogue in China's relations with Western countries. We spearheaded cooperation in aviation and nuclear energy and on third-party markets. We were among the first to mutually open cultural centers and start cultural year activities, providing guidance for mutual learning between civilizations. China-France cooperation contributed to the conclusion of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, boosting strongly the implementation of the global climate agenda.

History is our best teacher. We live in a world that is far from being tranquil and is once again facing a multitude of risks. China is ready to work with France in the spirit that guided the establishment of our diplomatic ties to forge a stronger comprehensive strategic partnership between our two countries and make new contributions to stronger cooperation of the global community.

—China will open even wider to the world and deepen cooperation with France and other countries.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. Through 75 years of perseverant hard work, the Chinese people have turned China from an impoverished country into the second largest economy in the world. Several hundred million people in rural areas were lifted out of poverty, a miracle in the history of humanity. The Chinese economy registered 5.2 percent growth in 2023, and is expected to grow by around 5 percent in 2024 with greater progress toward high-quality development. China will remain a source of global growth and create opportunities for all countries.

One thing that has made China's development possible is our firm commitment to opening up. We welcome more quality French farm products and cosmetics to the Chinese market to meet the ever-growing needs of the Chinese people for a better life. We welcome investment by companies from France and other countries to China. To this end, we have fully opened up China's manufacturing sector, and will move faster to expand market access to telecom, medical and other services. We also have a 15-day visa-exemption policy for visitors from many countries including France, and we have taken further measures to facilitate travel and payment by foreigners in China.

While opening up itself, China also encourages Chinese companies to go global. France is advancing re-industrialization based on green innovation, whereas China is accelerating the development of new quality productive forces. Our two countries can deepen cooperation on innovation and jointly promote green development. Some Chinese companies have set up battery plants in France. The Chinese government supports more Chinese companies in investing in France. And we hope that France will ensure that they operate in a fair and equitable business environment.

—China will strengthen communication and coordination with France to uphold world peace and stability.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Seven decades ago, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai put forth in full the five principles for the first time —"mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence." Through 70 years, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence have been widely accepted and recognized by countries across the world. They have become an important norm governing contemporary international relations.

China has faithfully practiced the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Over the past 70-plus years since its founding, New China never provoked a war or occupied an inch of foreign land. China is the only country around the world that includes in its Constitution the commitment to the path of peaceful development, and China is the only country among the major nuclear-weapon states that is committed to no-first-use of nuclear weapons.

I have proposed in recent years the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. As part of China's efforts to help improve global governance and resolve tough question regarding human development, the three initiatives have won the support of more than 100 countries and international organizations.

China understands the repercussions of the Ukraine crisis on the people of Europe. China did not start the Ukraine crisis, nor is it a party to or a participant in it. Nonetheless, China has been playing a constructive role in striving for peaceful settlement of the crisis. I have made many appeals, among others, observing the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, and addressing the legitimate security concerns of all sides. I have stressed that nuclear weapons must not be used, and a nuclear war must not be fought. China has delivered to Ukraine many shipments of humanitarian aids, and sent its special representative many times to mediate among the countries concerned. The longer the Ukraine crisis drags on, the greater harm it will do to Europe and the world. China hopes that peace and stability will return to Europe at an early date. We stand ready to work with France and the whole international community to find a reasonable way out of the crisis.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict pulls on our heartstrings as well. The fundamental solution lies in the establishment of an independent State of Palestine. History has repeatedly shown that the recurrent Palestine-Israel problem is rooted essentially in the failure of actual enforcement of relevant UN resolutions, in the continued erosion of the foundation for the two-state solution, and the deviation of the Middle East peace process. China and France have many in common on the Palestine-Israel issue. It is thus critical that we strengthen cooperation and help restore peace in the Middle East.

Confucius observed that "a man of true moral integrity is one who is both friendly but independent, and who does not compromise his principles, and who is independent without any bias or taking sides. How unflinchingly firm he is in his strength!" French writer Romain Rolland said that "it is so much easier to allow oneself to be guided than it is to think for oneself. This abdication is the kernel of the mischief." Both China and France value independence as two major countries. Our interactions in the long course of history have released tremendous energy swaying the trajectory of the world. Now we are standing at another historical starting point. Let us join hands together on this new journey toward greater progress in China-France relations to the benefit of our two countries and the world!

• Learn Chinese

EXPLORE MORE

DOWNLOAD OUR APP

Copyright © 2024 CGTN. 京ICP备20000184号

Disinformation report hotline: 010-85061466

• Terms of use
• Privacy policy

Advertisement

Bernie Sanders to Run for Re-Election, Seeking a Fourth Senate Term

The 82-year-old Vermont independent, a leading progressive in Washington, cast November’s elections as a fight for democracy.

• Share full article

By Kayla Guo

Reporting from Washington

• May 6, 2024, 12:49 p.m. ET

Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading progressive voice on Capitol Hill, announced on Monday that he would seek a fourth term in the Senate this fall, calling November’s elections a fight for democracy and equity.

Mr. Sanders, an 82-year-old Vermont independent and two-time presidential candidate, caucuses with Democrats in the Senate. He is the longest-serving independent in Congress, having previously served in the House for 16 years. If re-elected, he would be 89 years old at the end of his term.

“This is the most important national election in our lifetimes,” Mr. Sanders said in a statement that also cited battles over other hot-button issues including economic equity, reproductive rights and climate change. “We must fight to make sure that we remain a democracy, not an authoritarian society.”

“The stakes are enormous,” he added. “This is an election we must not lose.”

Mr. Sanders said he was “proud” of his role in expanding veterans’ access to health care, easing student debt, lowering prescription drug prices, fighting climate change and voting to protect abortion rights. But, he said in a video announcement , “much, much more needs to be done if we are to become the state, and the nation, that our people deserve.”

“The political revolution continues,” read the subject line of a fund-raising email Mr. Sanders sent out shortly after his announcement.

Mr. Sanders wields significant power as chairman of the Senate health committee. He also serves on the Democratic leadership team and sits on several other committees, including on the budget, environment and public works and veterans’ affairs. He previously was the chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

“I have been, and will be if re-elected, in a strong position to provide the kind of help that Vermonters need in these difficult times,” he said.

In his statement, Mr. Sanders also addressed the war in Gaza, which has become a flashpoint among Democrats and prompted ire from liberal voters angry over how elected officials including President Biden have approached Israel’s conduct in the conflict.

Mr. Sanders faced criticism from many of the same progressive activists who powered his presidential runs for not calling for an “immediate” and “permanent” cease-fire early in the war, which began after the brutal attack led by Hamas on Oct. 7. Still, Mr. Sanders, who is Jewish and whose father’s family was killed in the Holocaust, has been a leading and vocal proponent for conditioning U.S. aid to Israel — a position at odds with many other Democratic members of Congress.

“Israel had the absolute right to defend itself against this terrorist attack, but it did not and does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people, which is exactly what it is doing,” Mr. Sanders said, citing the staggering death toll and dire hunger crisis in Gaza. “U.S. tax dollars should not be going to the extremist Netanyahu government to continue its devastating war against the Palestinian people.”

Mr. Sanders won re-election to the Senate in 2018 with 67.4 percent of the vote.

Kayla Guo covers Congress for The New York Times as the 2023-24 reporting fellow based in Washington. More about Kayla Guo

Our Coverage of the 2024 Election

Presidential Race

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent candidate, tries to get on the ballot in all 50 states, he’s confronting fierce resistance .

​​Donald Trump told donors at a Republican National Committee retreat that the Biden administration was like the Gestapo .

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, defending her tale of shooting and killing her family’s dog, suggested that President Biden’s German shepherd had merited a similar fate .

A Foot Soldier for Trump:  Republicans have spent years drawing Latino evangelicals into their fold. One pastor’s conversion shows how Trump is reaping the benefits .

Talk of Escape:  At Washington dinner parties, dark jokes abound  about where to go into exile if Trump reclaims the White House.

Insulin Takes Center Stage:  Biden says lowering the cost of insulin for seniors is among his proudest domestic policy achievements. He now faces the challenge of selling it to Americans of all ages .

Politics Without Trump?:  Democrats call Trump dangerous, while Republicans see him as revolutionary. For young Trump voters, he is just normal .

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Trump will speak at the Libertarian National Convention as he woos independent voters

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, at the Waukesha County Expo Center in Waukesha, Wis. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks to supporters during a campaign event, Sunday, April 21, 2024, in Royal Oak, Mich. (AP Photo/Jose Juarez)

• Copy Link copied

NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump will speak at the Libertarian National Convention in Washington, D.C. later this month as he tries to woo voters beyond the Republican base and avoid losing support to independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“Libertarians are some of the most independent and thoughtful thinkers in our Country, and I am honored to join them in Washington, DC, later this month,” Trump said in a statement issued Wednesday. “We must all work together to help advance freedom and liberty for every American, and a second Trump Administration will achieve that goal.”

He went on to make the case that, “If Libertarians join me and the Republican Party, where we have many Libertarian views, the election won’t even be close. We cannot have another four years of death, destruction, and incompetence. WE WILL WORK TOGETHER AND WIN!”

The event comes as Trump’s campaign has ramped up its attacks against Kennedy, who is running as an independent against Trump and President Joe Biden after dropping his Democratic primary bid. Kennedy has appealed to disaffected Democrats and Republicans looking for an alternative to the pending rematch of the 2020 election.

Kennedy has talked up his support for the Libertarian Party, telling CNN in January that he had a “really good relationship” with the party. A Kennedy alliance with the Libertarian Party could expedite his effort to gain ballot access in all 50 states, including battlegrounds that tiny margins could decide in November, though Kennedy told ABC last month that he didn’t plan to run on the Libertarian ticket.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Democracy: American democracy has overcome big stress tests since 2020. More challenges lie ahead in 2024.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.
• Read the latest: Follow AP’s complete coverage of this year’s election.

On Wednesday, the primary super PAC supporting Trump blasted out an old video clip of Kennedy that appeared to show him criticizing red states. “RFK hates you!” they wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Kennedy’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While Trump has insisted publicly that he believes Kennedy’s candidacy hurts him less than it does Biden, he has been lacing into him in interviews and on his social media platform.

“RFK Jr. is the most Radical Left Candidate in the race, by far,” he wrote last month on Truth Social, calling Kennedy “a big fan of the Green New Scam, and other economy killing disasters.”

Trump campaign aides also went after him on social media Wednesday, calling him “a radical leftist lunatic,” and charging that , “Any ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ letting this left-wing lunatic come on their platform to whitewash his decades of far-left liberal positions & activism are aiding and abetting Joe Biden.”

The Libertarian Party said in a release announcing the speech that they will share a list of their top ten issues with Trump ahead of the convention, “hoping to make an impact on the policy positions of a past, and possibly future, President.”

“For 50 years, we’ve been trying to get our candidates on the main stage with major party POTUS candidates and we’ve finally succeeded in bringing one to our stage,” said Angela McArdle, the party’s chair, in a statement. “We will do everything in our power to use this incredible opportunity to advance the message of liberty.”

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Betting Sites
• Online Casinos
• Wine Offers

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Book Review: Memoirist Lilly Dancyger’s penetrating essays explore the power of female friendships

In 2021 lilly dancyger’s first book, “negative space,” was praised for its unflinching portrait of her father’s heroin addiction, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails, thanks for signing up to the breaking news email.

Who means more to you — your friends or your lovers? In a vivid, thoughtful and nuanced collection of essays, Lilly Dancyger explores the powerful role that female friendships played in her chaotic upbringing marked by her parents’ heroin use and her father’s untimely death when she was only 12.

“First Love: Essays on Friendship” begins with a beautiful paean to her cousin Sabina, who was raped and murdered at age 20 on her way home from a club. As little kids, their older relatives used to call them Snow White and Rose Red after the Grimm’s fairy tale, “two sisters who are not rivals or foils, but simply love each other.”

That simple, uncomplicated love would become the template for a series of subsequent relationships with girls and women that helped her survive her self-destructive adolescence and provided unconditional support as she scrambled to create a new identity as a “hypercompetent” writer, teacher and editor. “It’s true that I’ve never been satisfied with friendships that stay on the surface. That my friends are my family, my truest beloveds, each relationship a world of its own,” she writes in the title essay “First Love.”

The collection stands out not just for its elegant, unadorned writing but also for the way she effortlessly pivots between personal history and spot-on cultural criticism that both comments on and critiques the way that girls and women have been portrayed — and have portrayed themselves — in the media, including on online platforms like Tumblr and Instagram .

For instance, she examines the 1994 Peter Jackson film, “Heavenly Creatures,” based on the true story of two teenage girls who bludgeoned to death one of their mothers. And in the essay “Sad Girls,” about the suicide of a close friend, she analyzes the allure of self-destructive figures like Sylvia Plath and Janis Joplin to a certain type of teen, including herself, who wallows in sadness and wants to make sure “the world knew we were in pain.”

In the last essay, “On Murder Memoirs,” Dancyger considers the runaway popularity of true crime stories as she tries to explain her decision not to attend the trial of the man charged with killing her cousin — even though she was trained as a journalist and wrote a well-regarded book about her late father that relied on investigative reporting. “When I finally sat down to write about Sabina, the story that came out was not about murder at all,” she says. “It was a love story.”

Readers can be thankful that it did.

AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Want an ad-free experience?

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre

Strange Glow Over Moscow Skies Triggers Panic as Explosions Reported

B right flashes lit up the night sky in southern Moscow in the early hours of Thursday morning, new footage appears to show, following reports of an explosion at an electrical substation on the outskirts of the city.

Video snippets circulating on Russian-language Telegram channels show a series of flashes on the horizon of a cloudy night sky, momentarily turning the sky a number of different colors. In a clip shared by Russian outlet MSK1.ru, smoke can be seen rising from a building during the flashes lighting up the scene.

Newsweek was unable to independently verify the details of the video clips, including when and where it was filmed. The Russian Ministry of Emergency situations has been contacted via email.

Several Russian Telegram accounts said early on Thursday that residents of southern Moscow reported an explosion and a fire breaking out at an electrical substation in the Leninsky district, southeast of central Moscow.

Local authorities in the Leninsky district told Russian outlet RBC that the explosion had happened in the village of Molokovo. "All vital facilities are operating as normal," Leninsky district officials told the outlet.

The incident at the substation in Molokovo took place just before 2 a.m. local time, MSK1.ru reported.

Messages published by the ASTRA Telegram account, run by independent Russian journalists, appear to show residents close to the substation panicking as they question the bright flashes in the sky. One local resident describes seeing the bright light before losing access to electricity, with another calling the incident a "nightmare."

More than 10 villages and towns in the southeast of Moscow lost access to electricity, the ASTRA Telegram account also reported. The town of Lytkarino to the southeast of Moscow, lost electricity, wrote the eastern European-based independent outlet, Meduza.

Outages were reported in the southern Domodedovo area of the city, according to another Russian outlet, as well as power failures in western Moscow. Electricity was then restored to the areas, the Strana.ua outlet reported.

The cause of the reported explosion is not known. A Telegram account aggregating news for the Lytkarino area described the incident as "an ordinary accident at a substation."

The MSK1.ru outlet quoted a local resident who speculated that a drone may have been responsible for the explosion, but no other Russian source reported this as a possible cause.

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Moscow with long-range aerial drones in recent months, including a dramatic wave of strikes in late May.

On Sunday, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said the region's air defense systems had intercepted an aerial drone over the city of Elektrostal, to the east of Moscow. No damage or casualties were reported, he said.

The previous day, Russian air defenses detected and shot down another drone flying over the Bogorodsky district, northeast of central Moscow, Sobyanin said.

There is currently no evidence that an aerial drone was responsible for the reported overnight explosion at the electrical substation in southern Moscow.

Related Articles

• Russian Soldier Bashes Drone With Shovel After Detonation Failure: Video
• Russia Headed for Disappointment in Battles Along Dnieper River: UK
• Ukraine's Military Receives Good News From Multiple NATO Allies

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial

New York State Senator James Tedisco

Republican, Conservative

( R, C ) 44th Senate District

Tedisco: Hochul Obstructs Freedom of Information Law Inquiry for “Independent” COVID Report Contract

James Tedisco

April 30, 2024

• COVID-19 Nursing Home Deaths; Investigation
• Coronavirus Pandemic; executive orders
• Combating COVID-19 and Protecting New Yorkers; Protecting Nursing Home Residents
• Health Commissioner

File Governor Hochul's office response to Sen. Tedisco's FOIL request

Senator Jim Tedisco (R,C-Ballston Lake) today is calling out Governor Kathy Hohul for failing to release her administration’s contract for a so-called “independent” pandemic policy review of the deaths of 15,000 New Yorkers who lost their lives to COVID in state-regulated nursing homes -- a document the legislature, media and public have a right to see.  

Tedisco filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request on March 19, 2024 seeking a copy of the contract between the Hochul Administration and the Virginia-based Olson Group, LTD, with respect to the firm’s “reviewing the policies and decisions of the State of New York pertaining to the COVID-19 epidemic.”

The Governor’s Office has responded to Senator Tedisco’s FOIL request by claiming they “require additional time to complete our response” and that they will provide Tedisco’s Office with a status update “on or before May 14, 2024.” ( See attached ). 

“The public has a right to know what their government is doing in their stead. Where is the Governor’s $4.3 million pandemic policy review of the deaths of 15,000 of our most vulnerable citizens in nursing homes from the Olson Group? Why should it take months for the Governor’s office to send me a copy of a simple contract for this report that should be publicly accessible for all to read? Does her staff need to look in between the couch cushions for it? Is it buried under a stack of old vacation photos? Do they have to scour through all the junk drawers in the Governor’s office looking for this contract? Gimme a break! This is verging on obstruction!” said Senator Jim Tedisco. 

“The Governor said this so-called ‘independent report’ on the pandemic response and nursing home deaths would be a year-long review.  This should have been done five or six months ago at the latest. Where is this report and why hasn’t it been released?  Hochul has been totally silent on its status and despite her promises to do so, has shown a real lack of transparency. That’s why I originally filed this FOIL request to get ahold of her contract with the Olson Group who is doing the policy review and find out what the specific timetable is for delivering the report to the Governor and what, if any, penalties there are for it being late. Sadly, all we continue to get from this administration is radio silence,” said Senator Tedisco.

Background :

          On May 24, 2022 , Governor Hochul announced she had ordered “a wide-ranging and independent review of the state’s policies during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. ”  Hochul said:

“History deserves to have a true record of what happened here, and I want an outside look at it…I have to be able to leave future governors what was learned, not just in the health care space and the response dealing with nursing homes, but also decisions that affected our economy, decisions that affected families.”

             On November 2, 2022, it was revealed that the Hochul Administration hired an outside firm, the Olson Group, Ltd, for a $4.3 million contract to perform a year-long study with the review originally to begin that month.  However, the start of the review apparently was delayed until January 2023.  It’s now March 2024, the day before the 4th anniversary of Cuomo’s pandemic executive order and this report remains elusive.

             Senator Tedisco has been an outspoken critic of the previous administration’s March 25, 2020 executive order mandating the placement of Covid-positive patients in nursing homes. Tedisco joined the Empire Center in successfully suing the Cuomo Administration to get the real number of nursing home deaths publicly released. 

             Tedisco is the sponsor of bi-partisan legislation for an independent investigation with subpoena power into the nursing home deaths ( S.2419/A.9700 ) that has the support of families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in what’s become one of the worst disasters in New York State history in terms of loss of life.

related legislation

Share this article or press release.

Press Release

Tedisco Welcomes Saratoga Central Catholic School Students to New York State Capitol

April 24, 2024

Statement from Senator Jim Tedisco on State Budget Extender

April 11, 2024

Tedisco Honors Burnt Hills West Point Cadet at Capitol

April 9, 2024

2023 Women of Distinction Honoree

2023 new york state senate veterans' hall of fame honoree.

The Campus-Left Occupation That Broke Higher Education

Elite colleges are now reaping the consequences of promoting a pedagogy that trashed the postwar ideal of the liberal university.

Listen to this article

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here .

F ifty-six years ago this week, at the height of the Vietnam War, Columbia University students occupied half a dozen campus buildings and made two principal demands of the university: stop funding military research, and cancel plans to build a gym in a nearby Black neighborhood. After a week of futile negotiations, Columbia called in New York City police to clear the occupation.

The physical details of that crisis were much rougher than anything happening today. The students barricaded doors and ransacked President Grayson Kirk’s office. “Up against the wall, motherfucker, this is a stick-up,” Mark Rudd, the student leader and future member of the terrorist organization Weather Underground, wrote in an open letter to Kirk, who resigned a few months later. The cops arrested more than 700 students and injured at least 100, while one of their own was permanently disabled by a student.

In other ways, the current crisis brings a strong sense of déjà vu: the chants, the teach-ins, the nonnegotiable demands, the self-conscious building of separate communities, the revolutionary costumes, the embrace of oppressed identities by elite students, the tactic of escalating to incite a reaction that mobilizes a critical mass of students. It’s as if campus-protest politics has been stuck in an era of prolonged stagnation since the late 1960s. Why can’t students imagine doing it some other way?

Perhaps because the structure of protest reflects the nature of universities. They make good targets because of their abiding vulnerability: They can’t deal with coercion, including nonviolent disobedience. Either they overreact, giving the protesters a new cause and more allies (this happened in 1968, and again last week at Columbia), or they yield, giving the protesters a victory and inviting the next round of disruption. This is why Columbia’s president, Minouche Shafik, no matter what she does, finds herself hammered from the right by Republican politicians and from the left by her own faculty and students, unable to move without losing more ground. Her detractors know that they have her trapped by their willingness to make coercive demands: Do what we say or else we’ll destroy you and your university. They aren’t interested in a debate.

Michael Powell: The unreality of Columbia’s ‘liberated zone’

A university isn’t a state —it can’t simply impose its rules with force. It’s a special kind of community whose legitimacy depends on mutual recognition in a spirit of reason, openness, and tolerance. At the heart of this spirit is free speech, which means more than just chanting, but free speech can’t thrive in an atmosphere of constant harassment. When one faction or another violates this spirit, the whole university is weakened as if stricken with an illness. The sociologist Daniel Bell, who tried and failed to mediate a peaceful end to the Columbia occupation, wrote afterward:

In a community one cannot regain authority simply by asserting it, or by using force to suppress dissidents. Authority in this case is like respect. One can only earn the authority—the loyalty of one’s students—by going in and arguing with them, by engaging in full debate and, when the merits of proposed change are recognized, taking the necessary steps quickly enough to be convincing.

The crackdown at Columbia in 1968 was so harsh that a backlash on the part of faculty and the public obliged the university to accept the students’ demands: a loss, then a win. The war in Vietnam ground on for years before it ended and history vindicated the protesters: another loss, another win. But the really important consequence of the 1968 revolt took decades to emerge. We’re seeing it now on Columbia’s quad and the campuses of elite universities around the country. The most lasting victory of the ’68ers was an intellectual one. The idea underlying their protests wasn’t just to stop the war or end injustice in America. Its aim was the university itself—the liberal university of the postwar years, which no longer exists.

That university claimed a special role in democratic society. A few weeks after the 1968 takeover, the Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter gave the commencement address to a wounded institution. “A university is a community, but it is a community of a special kind,” Hofstadter said—“a community devoted to inquiry. It exists so that its members may inquire into truths of all sorts. Its presence marks our commitment to the idea that somewhere in society there must be an organization in which anything can be studied or questioned—not merely safe and established things but difficult and inflammatory things, the most troublesome questions of politics and war, of sex and morals, of property and national loyalty.” This mission rendered the community fragile, dependent on the self-restraint of its members.

The lofty claims of the liberal university exposed it to charges of all kinds of hypocrisy, not least its entanglement with the American war machine. The Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who became a guru to the New Left, coined the phrase repressive tolerance for the veil that hid liberal society’s mechanisms of violence and injustice. In this scheme, no institution, including the university, remained neutral, and radical students embraced their status as an oppressed group.

Charles Sykes: The new rules of political journalism

At Stanford (where my father was an administrator in the late ’60s, and where students took over a campus building the week after the Columbia revolt), white students compared themselves to Black American slaves. To them, the university was not a community dedicated to independent inquiry but a nexus of competing interest groups where power, not ideas, ruled. They rejected the very possibility of a disinterested pursuit of truth. In an imaginary dialogue between a student and a professor, a member of the Stanford chapter of Students for a Democratic Society wrote: “Rights and privacy and these kinds of freedom are irrelevant—you old guys got to get it through your heads that to fight the whole corrupt System POWER is the only answer.”

A long, intricate , but essentially unbroken line connects that rejection of the liberal university in 1968 to the orthodoxy on elite campuses today. The students of the ’68 revolt became professors—the German activist Rudi Dutschke called this strategy the “long march through the institutions”—bringing their revisionist thinking back to the universities they’d tried to upend. One leader of the Columbia takeover returned to chair the School of the Arts film program. “The ideas of one generation become the instincts of the next,” D. H. Lawrence wrote. Ideas born in the ’60s, subsequently refined and complicated by critical theory, postcolonial studies, and identity politics, are now so pervasive and unquestioned that they’ve become the instincts of students who are occupying their campuses today. Group identity assigns your place in a hierarchy of oppression. Between oppressor and oppressed, no room exists for complexity or ambiguity. Universal values such as free speech and individual equality only privilege the powerful. Words are violence. There’s nothing to debate.

The post-liberal university is defined by a combination of moneymaking and activism. Perhaps the biggest difference between 1968 and 2024 is that the ideas of a radical vanguard are now the instincts of entire universities—administrators, faculty, students. They’re enshrined in reading lists and codes of conduct and ubiquitous clichés. Last week an editorial in the Daily Spectator , the Columbia student newspaper, highlighted the irony of a university frantically trying to extricate itself from the implications of its own dogmas: “Why is the same university that capitalizes on the legacy of Edward Said and enshrines The Wretched of the Earth into its Core Curriculum so scared to speak about decolonization in practice?”

A Columbia student, writing to one of his professors in a letter that the student shared with me, explained the dynamic so sharply that it’s worth quoting him at length:

I think [the protests] do speak to a certain failing on Columbia’s part, but it’s a failing that’s much more widespread and further upstream. That is, I think universities have essentially stopped minding the store, stopped engaging in any kind of debate or even conversation with the ideologies which have slowly crept in to every bit of university life, without enough people of good conscience brave enough to question all the orthodoxies. So if you come to Columbia believing in “decolonization” or what have you, it’s genuinely not clear to me that you will ever have to reflect on this belief. And after all this, one day the university wakes up to these protests, panics under scrutiny, and calls the cops on students who are practicing exactly what they’ve been taught to do from the second they walked through those gates as freshmen.

The muscle of independent thinking and open debate, the ability to earn authority that Daniel Bell described as essential to a university’s survival, has long since atrophied. So when, after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Jewish students found themselves subjected to the kind of hostile atmosphere that, if directed at any other minority group, would have brought down high-level rebukes, online cancellations, and maybe administrative punishments, they fell back on the obvious defense available under the new orthodoxy. They said that they felt “unsafe.” They accused pro-Palestinian students of anti-Semitism—sometimes fairly, sometimes not. They asked for protections that other groups already enjoyed. Who could blame them? They were doing what their leaders and teachers had instructed them was the right, the only, way to respond to a hurt.

Adam Serwer: The Republicans who want American carnage

And when the shrewd and unscrupulous Representative Elise Stefanik demanded of the presidents of Harvard and Penn whether calls for genocide violated their universities’ code of conduct, they had no good way to answer. If they said yes, they would have faced the obvious comeback: “Why has no one been punished?” So they said that it depended on the “context,” which was technically correct but sounded so hopelessly legalistic that it led to the loss of their jobs. The response also made nonsense of their careers as censors of unpopular speech. Shafik, of Columbia, having watched her colleagues’ debacle, told the congresswoman what she wanted to hear, then backed it up by calling the cops onto campus—only to find herself denounced on all sides, including by Senator Tom Cotton, who demanded that President Joe Biden deploy the United States military to Columbia, and by her own faculty senate, which threatened a vote of censure.

T he right always knows how to exploit the excesses of the left. It happened in 1968, when the campus takeovers and the street battles between anti-war activists and cops at the Democratic convention in Chicago helped elect Richard Nixon. Republican politicians are already exploiting the chaos on campuses. This summer, the Democrats will gather again in Chicago, and the activists are promising a big show. Donald Trump will be watching.

Elite universities are caught in a trap of their own making, one that has been a long time coming. They’ve trained pro-Palestinian students to believe that, on the oppressor-oppressed axis, Jews are white and therefore dominant, not “marginalized,” while Israel is a settler-colonialist state and therefore illegitimate. They’ve trained pro-Israel students to believe that unwelcome and even offensive speech makes them so unsafe that they should stay away from campus. What the universities haven’t done is train their students to talk with one another.

Can you trust 2024 election polls on Donald Trump and Joe Biden? Here's how to cut through the noise.

Love them or hate them, political polls aren’t going anywhere. As the 2024 presidential election kicks into high gear, the internet will be flooded with surveys tracking the horserace between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

Keeping track of the numbers can be daunting: Who's ahead in national polls? Who's ahead in state-level surveys? Figuring out which numbers to pay attention to – and whether any of it actually matters – can be even more challenging.  

Luckily, the USA TODAY Network has got you covered. Here’s a refresher on why polls matter, whether you can trust them and what to look out for this year.  

What do polls tell us about the election?  

Think of polls as quick snapshots rather than crystal ball readings.  

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

They don’t necessarily predict the results of an election. Rather, they’re used to gauge how people feel about a race during a specific period. Pollsters may ask questions about the future, but surveys have more to say about the voters' current temperature.

Polls also tend to have a short shelf life. Public opinion can shift quickly, meaning that the results of polls are often only a reliable measure of the state of a race during the time they were taken. 

A survey taken two months ago won’t reflect the state of a race today, and a poll fielded tomorrow won’t tell us who is going to win the presidential election in November.

However, that doesn't mean polls captured at the beginning of a campaign cycle don't matter. The insights from early polls tease out the major issues voters are thinking about that could shape the race.  They also help trace the trendlines of how a candidate is performing – whether they’re gaining traction, stagnating or losing support. 

Pollster John Zogby likened the importance of looking at early polling to checking benchmarks while trying to reach an exercise goal.  

“Am I going to get on the scale the day before to see how I did?” said Zogby. “No, I get on the scale every so often to say what am I doing? How am I doing? What am I doing right?” 

Conducting polls early in a race and often throughout the course of an election allows political scientists, journalists and the public to track trends and spot major inflection points in campaigns.  

Beware of two-candidate polls  

Not all polls are built the same. The way a survey is designed, from how questions are worded to the demographics of the participants chosen, can influence the accuracy of its results.  

David Paleologos , director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said political polls are most accurate when they replicate as closely as possible the questions and options voters will see on their ballot.

For instance, he said that polls on the 2024 presidential election should include choices beyond the two major party candidates – Trump and Biden – because most ballots will contain third-party and independent candidates who will garner some support.  

“If the polls only show a binary choice, between Trump or Biden, you're not getting the full picture,” Paleologos said.

He pointed to close margins in critical swing states, including Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, during the 2020 election as an example. Trump lost in those states by fewer votes than Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen received.  

If Jorgensen had not been in the race, the results in those battlegrounds, and possibly the outcome of the election nationally, could have looked markedly different, Paleologos said.

The Libertarian Party hasn’t yet chosen its candidate for the 2024 election. But early polls that include the party and other independent candidates as options are likely to more accurately show how disaffected voters are looking at their options, he explained.

Suffolk University and USA TODAY have a partnership collecting polling data and insights.

Who's being polled?

Another factor that can impact a poll’s accuracy is the sample population surveyed. Polls randomly select a small sample of people designed to represent the broader views and attitudes of a larger population. But every organization uses different methodologies to create their samples.  

For instance, some election polls take the temperature of the general population, while others only include active voters or likely voters. They also may weigh demographic information, such as the ratio of Democrats to Republicans, differently.  

In the 2024 race, Zogby, author of the forthcoming book "Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read Polls and Why We Should," suggested that the most accurate polls include only likely voters, the pool of people already planning to cast a ballot in November.

“A likely voter today may not be a likely voter on October 31,” Zogby said, but capturing these voters allows political scientists to better understand the Americans who will choose the next president.

Should I pay attention to national polls or state surveys?

Pollsters were lambasted in 2016 for projecting that then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would win the election over Trump.

But national polls , which are supposed to reflect the popular vote across all states, were technically right. Overall, Clinton won nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump.  

So, what went wrong? Many analysts overstated Clinton’s lead in national polls, and few organizations conducted state-specific polls in former Democratic strongholds, such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, that Trump was able to capture. His wins in those states ultimately landed him the electoral college victory.  

That’s not to say that national polls are inferior to state polls, but you should think of them differently.

“National polls are more valuable to understand what the issues are impacting likely voters,” Paleologos said, while state polls better represent the horserace.

He and other polling experts told USA TODAY that Biden needs to lead Trump by three to four percentage points in a national poll to be tied with the Republican in the electoral college . That's because large liberal-leaning states like California and New York tend to tilt the results of national polls in Democrats’ favor, whereas the "electoral college these days skews Republican," Zogby said.

In other words, a national poll showing Biden and Trump tied would tell a similar story to a swing state poll that shows Trump leading Biden by a few points.  But generally, experts warn against comparing national and state surveys, which are built off of different methodologies, against one another.

Can you trust the polls?  

Mostly. Because polls are analyzing a myriad of shifting factors, they'll always have some level of uncertainty baked in, regardless of the specific election. Organizations also don’t collaborate on what states they plan to poll, or when, which means there’s always potential for blind spots, like in 2016. 

Some political observers rely on poll averages, such as a tally from Real Clear Politics. These are generally reliable, but they can miss trends.

But when interpreted properly, polls often provide an accurate portrait of the state of an election. 

“There are folks that will say, ‘Oh, you missed the election by two points,’” Zogby said. "Well, two points – that showed the ballpark of what was going to happen.” 

And the more polls there are, the easier it is to evaluate the race.  

• Got a Scoop?
• Arts & Entertainment
• Food & Drink
• Real Estate
• Indy Parenting
• Cover Stories
• Classifieds
• Create Event

Board of Supervisors Selects Sites for Future Housing

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Press releases are posted on Independent.com as a free community service.

(SANTA BARBARA, Calif.)  –  The County Board of Supervisors met on  Tuesday, April 30, 2024, in Santa Maria and Friday, May 3, 2024, in Santa Barbara to review and select sites to accommodate affordable housing throughout the county. On Friday, the Board voted to rezone ten sites in the North County and 17 sites on the South Coast that can accommodate affordable housing units for lower-, moderate-, and upper moderate- income households countywide. The Board also selected nine County-owned sites to provide needed housing units, all in the South County. This is the final step in the Housing Element Update process and ensures the County remains in compliance with State Housing Law.

The selection of sites is the end of a long process that began in 2021 when the State Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) through its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA, pronounced  REE-nah ) process mandated how many housing units the County had to accommodate as part of the current Housing Element Update cycle. For this cycle, State HCD required that Santa Barbara County identify sites to accommodate 5,664 new housing units in unincorporated portions of Santa Barbara County between 2023 and 2031.  This is an 8-fold increase from the last cycle. The RHNA was further broken down to require 4,142 units in the South Coast region and 1,522 units in the North County region. This breakdown attempts to address the current jobs-housing imbalance. The State further mandates the number of units the County accommodate at lower-, moderate-, and above moderate affordability.

The Board of Supervisors selected more sites than required to meet the RHNA, and asked owners of sites to guarantee more affordable units than are required under State and local housing regulations.

The Board voted to rezone 9 of 18 potential rezone sites identified in the North County region. The majority of the North County rezone sites fall within Orcutt, with one site in Cuyama, and one site in Santa Ynez. The Board also voted to rezone one pending project in Vandenberg Village. The Board’s North County selections exceed the State’s requirements for lower-income affordable units plus a 15% buffer by nearly 200 units.

At the North County hearing on April 30, Supervisor Bob Nelson, whose district includes Vandenberg Village and Orcutt, began the North County selection of sites, acknowledging, “The decisions that we make here are going to be lasting and impactful.”

In the South Coast region, the Board voted to rezone 15 of 18 potential rezone sites, nine County-owned sites and two pending projects. The Board’s selections exceed the State’s requirements for lower-income affordable units plus a 15% buffer by 360 units and moderate-income units by just over 250 units.

“This is a significant step to provide much needed lower- and moderate-income housing in our County,” said Lisa Plowman, Director of Planning and Development.

“We worked to make the rezones itself an opportunity to promote more of what our community needs. Low-income housing by encouraging partnerships with the Housing Authority and other low-income housing developers with a record of keeping their housing affordable over time.  Workforce housing by encouraging partnerships with employers with the South Coast Chambers Housing Consortium.  And community benefits such as parks, trails, childcare, and other opportunities we also encouraged,” said Supervisor Joan Hartmann.

The County’s Interactive Map,  available on the County’s website , will be updated to show the sites that were rezoned by 5 p.m. Tuesday, May 7.

As part of the process, the Board certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU). The final document, comments received, and the County’s responses are available on the  County Planning and Development website .

The County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) on December 5, 2023.  The California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD)  found  the County’s adopted housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law on January 22, 2024. The Adopted HEU can be found at:  https://www.countyofsb.org/3177/Housing-Element-Update .

The Housing Element Update is one of the mandated components of a General Plan. It directs local governments to plan for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This is the 6 th  Housing Element cycle, covering 2023-2031.

Below is a list of sites the Board selected to rezone. These sites may be seen on the County’s Balancing Act tools (North and South), available on the  County’s website :

Get News in Your Inbox

Please note this login is to submit events or press releases. Use this page here to login for your Independent subscription

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Not a member? Sign up here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.