Biographies of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams and histories of the revolutionary era have been bestsellers and Pulitzer Prize winners in the past several years. What explains this recent surge of interest in the founding fathers of the American nation? What does the fascination with the founding fathers tell us about our own time? What would the founders have to say about the state of the nation today?

Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? The original pledge, written in 1892 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy, did not contain the words "under God." Congress added these two words in 1954. And it is these words that caused the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule in June 2002 that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools violated the First Amendment's so-called separation of church and state. Now the case is before the Supreme Court. Will the Court rule that reciting the current pledge in schools is okay, or do the words "under God" have to go?

Despite repeated criticisms, the political ideal of individual rights--to life, liberty, and property--is very relevant in our time. Although officially affirmed only a couple of centuries ago, the idea has ancient roots and continues to deserve support. It is morally sound and makes possible the most peaceful and prosperous community life for human beings anywhere.

Yet the view that government ought first and foremost protect our right to freedom is under constant attack, belittlement, and ridicule among many intellectuals, politicians, and the even members of the general population. Despite the miserable failure of collectivist alternatives, many still cling to the vain hope that some version of collectivism--communitarianism, market socialism, economic democracy, and so on--will solve all our problems.

This essay argues against this misplaced hope and suggests that it is more promising for us to work out the implications of the individualist alternative than to stick to utopian collectivist dreams. Indeed, this is borne out by the fact that many who attack individualism seem to need to distort it first to make their attack carry some measure of plausibility. But such a tactic is duplicitous and should be resisted.

How do you pay those “defined” benefits?

Federal regulators lock arms with college athletic departments to gut men’s sports in the name of equality

Bit by bit, courts are being forced to ponder the laws and licenses that stifle people’s freedom to work. By Clint Bolick.

Black Americans sign up for school choice

In the summer of 2002, the Supreme Court will announce its decision on a Cleveland school voucher case that many are calling the most important case on educational opportunities since Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954. In the Cleveland vouchers program, 96 percent of the participating children use government-funded tuition vouchers to attend religious schools. Is such an arrangement constitutional, or does it violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which has served as the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state? Just how should the Supreme Court rule, and what effect will its ruling have on the future of vouchers in the United States?