Since Trump was elected, his approval rates have dropped increasingly lower. This is happening despite an implication that he and the GOP were serving to promote Christian values. Additionally, even some Christians are holding that they disagree with Trump’s presidency. This brings into question why he was elected, and how we can avoid presidencies that hold poor conduct. The problem that has been continuously shaping American society has been the matter of morality voting vs. issue voting. In understanding this we can begin to disclose why Trump was elected despite the disapproval of many. Firstly, neither of the two are fully accepted by the American public, and the way in which individuals vote is constantly criticized. Still, Trump’s primary pillars within his campaign were arguably immigration and abortion by which he gained many votes from Christian voters, rather than his qualities altogether. A multitude of Christians felt undocumented immigration was a threat to our country in modern times, and that we should prioritize enforcement. Those that felt abortion was wrong voted for him to make abortions unavailable. This ultimately led to the choice of many to ignore his other traits. While people appeared to be feeling distraught by having to choose between these issues and other ethical risks, they were ready to upend their morality for the sake of a ‘counted’ vote. On the contrary, what would the outcome have been if we had chosen not to vote for a president that doesn’t hold our equal moral compass? Likewise, what if we had not voted for someone who speaks with the toxicity of politicians that constantly bring us discomfort? Morality voting may seem impossible, but there are many benefits to surfacing it. Morality voting would bring us individuals who showed empathy through policy, made ethical considerations, and unified both logic and care. Morality voting would allow us to tell the political realm that we do not tolerate corruption, indecency, and selfishness. Morality voting would destroy the current web of financially bribed representatives. Remember, the American government runs under the power of the people. Had we voted on morality, and had we done this many times before that, perhaps our presidencies may have held more ethical approaches. The Trump presidency outcome was never an issue of Trump versus Kamala. It represents the failure of millions of American voters who continue the tradition of far-end party identifications rather than electing moral presidents. While the two party system dreads us and never seems to end, we continue to feed into the most polarizing parts of it. Unfortunately, aligning with our approaches to other issues, inaction due to fear of uselessness sustains the problematic parts of American and world politics. Our votership is a privilege, just as is our ability to be sustainable or speak empathetically to diverse groups of people. We should consider how this reflects us as a people, or our freedoms and privileges may be gone too soon to act. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Megan Fincher
On Monday, Pope Leo XIV issued a roughly 42,300-word encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” warning of the rise of artificial intelligence and calling for greater regulation and stronger protections for workers. As more people are facing societal and economic disruptions due to unreliable AI-generated information, environmentally hazardous data centers, and a decrease in job opportunities for the next generation, the Pope has criticized the new technology. He warns about “the growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed.” His statements are proving to be very popular with the public, as 57% of voters believe the risks of AI outweigh its benefits. The encyclical implores the defense of humanity in an increasingly automated world. It emphasizes that although the Pope is not opposed to innovation, “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity.” He urged for stronger safeguards to prevent human agency from being corroded. Interestingly, Pope Leo XIV’s statements mirror a similar warning issued by his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, in 1891. Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum” addressed the consequences of the Industrial Revolution and its impact on people’s livelihoods at the time. Many have made direct comparisons between the two eras, as many now call the rise of AI a “new industrial revolution.” Pope Leo’s call for AI to be “disarmed” has also sparked some Catholics to argue that they can now object to the implementation of AI in their work for religious reasons. However, it has yet to be proven if that argument holds any water. However, the general public’s perception of AI is widely negative, and the Pope’s comments only further dissuade people from the upcoming technology. It is unclear what the future holds for artificial intelligence and the people who use it, but what is clear is that if the world is to be more receptive to AI, there must be a major change in how it is implemented.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
May is coming to a close which means the U.S. The Supreme Court is entering one of the busiest and most observed periods of its term. In the coming weeks, the Court is expected to release several major decisions that could shape national debates on immigration, privacy, civil rights, and presidential power for years to come. Here are five Supreme Court cases Americans should keep an eye on before the justices conclude their term this summer: 1. Birthright Citizenship One of the most closely watched cases involves President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action. At the center of the dispute is a constitutional question: how much authority does a president have to reinterpret a long-established understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment without action from Congress or a constitutional amendment? Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The case will ultimately decide whether children born in the United States to certain non-citizen parents are automatically granted citizenship under that provision, which could impact future debates and immigration policy nationwide. The decision may also address a separate but still significant issue: whether federal judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies while legal challenges are pending. 2. Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports Another closely observed case involves state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that restrict transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “It is not gender-identity discrimination at all, much less sex discrimination.” Supporters argue that the law helps preserve competitive fairness in women’s athletics, while opponents contend they unfairly discriminate against transgender students. Although these cases originate in only two states, the Court’s decision could set a precedent for the legality of similar restrictions nationwide. This ruling may determine whether such laws in over two dozen states remain enforceable or become vulnerable to legal challenges, thus affecting student athletes and local policy across the country. But as debates over gender identity, athletics, and equal protection continue across the country, the Court’s decisions could be among the most significant rulings affecting school sports in years. 3. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Immigrants Another case involves Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a federal program that allows immigrants from countries experiencing war, natural disasters, or other irregular circumstances to temporarily live and work in the United States. Created in Congress in 1990, TPS does not provide a path to citizenship, but it does protect recipients from deportation while conditions in their home remain unsafe. The Court is reviewing challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to end TPS for immigrants from Haiti and Syria. The key legal question here is can courts review a president’s decision to end TPS, or does the executive branch have the higher authority in this scenario? The case could affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have built lives in the U.S. More than 330,000 Haitians and thousands of Syrians—out of about 1.3 million people in the broader program—rely on TPS protections. While the immediate dispute focuses on Haiti and Syria, the Court’s decision could set a standard for how easily future presidents can end TPS designations for other countries, affecting the stability and planning of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who depend on this protection. 4. Cell Phone Location Data and Privacy In an era when smartphones track much of our daily movement, the Supreme Court is considering a case with significant implications for digital privacy. The dispute centers on what legal steps law enforcement must take before obtaining a person’s cellphone location data and whether existing protections are sufficient in the age of modern technology. The issue has become increasingly relevant in recent years as police departments have relied on so-called “geofence warrants” during criminal investigations. These warrants allow law enforcement to request location data from devices that were present in a specific area at a specific time, whether investigating a major crime or a more routine offense. Critics argue that while these warrants can help identify suspects, they may also collect data from dozens or even hundreds of innocent people who happened to be nearby. As a result, the Court must consider whether collecting large amounts of location data from many people constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Its decision could redefine digital privacy standards and limit or expand police access to data in future investigations. 5. Presidential Firing Power Now, you may not know the names Lisa Cook or Rebecca Slaughter, but chances are you have seen the headlines about President Donald Trump attempting to remove multiple officials from independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve or the Federal Trade Commission. Now, while presidents have long had the ability to appoint and remove many government officials, the Court is now considering whether that power extends to leaders of these independent agencies that Congress designed to operate with a degree of political independence. The dispute stems from Trump’s efforts to remove officials from agencies whose leaders have traditionally been protected from dismissal without cause. Supporters argue that, because these agencies are part of the executive branch, the president should have the authority to remove officials who implement federal policy. Opponents contend that allowing presidents to freely dismiss independent agency leaders could undermine the agencies’ ability to operate free from political pressure. This case goes beyond individual officials—it could redefine the degree of presidential control over independent federal agencies in both Republican and Democratic administrations and thus affect how agencies operate free from political influence. The Court’s decision could impact how checks and balances function in future governments. As the Supreme Court approaches the end of its term, Americans can expect decisions on several of the year’s most closely watched cases, with filings likely to be released before the Fourth of July. From birthright citizenship and immigration protections to
By Alan Jimenez
Follow Us