Topic: The Constitution
“When the Founders spoke of “pursuit of Happiness,” what they meant might be understood today as in essence “pursuit of Blessedness.” That is, an individual must be free to live as his Creator ordained—to flourish. Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought. This pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family—marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like.”
One interpretation of this is that he (and by extent, the authors of Project 2025), wish to dictate what it is we “ought” – that is, have families and children. He goes on to say that the government resents that we (Americans) don’t want to be told how to live (I agree), but then tacitly supports the government dictating how people should live.
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“Above all, the President and those who serve under him or her must be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Ideally, I agree! Except that the writer goes on to say in the same paragraph, “…the White House Counsel “must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 53, paragraph 1.) This sounds suspiciously like advocating for removing all checks and balances from the Federal government, which certainly does not support The Constitution.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“It is crucial that all three branches of the federal government respect what Madison called the “double security” to our liberties: the separation of powers among the three branches, and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states.”
Protecting the President from “encroachments by Congress” is the exact opposite of the separate but equal powers/checks and balances enumerated in The Constitution.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“The Civil Rights Division should spend its first year under the next Administration using the full force of federal prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional and legal requirements.”
This one is insidiously awful. Out of context, he appears to be combating discrimination, which is something we can all get behind. IN context, however, he has argued that DEI and anti-discrimination policies are actually discriminatory to “non-woke” people, and he’s promising to weaponize the DOJ against states who actually have real anti-discrimination laws in place. He does not detail what those prosecutions would look like. His vague language is intentional.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“Today, initiatives aimed at “inclusivity” are in fact creating exclusivity and stringent selectivity in deciding what types of small businesses and entities can use SBA programs. For example, even though the SBA under President Donald Trump proposed a rule to remove all of the unconstitutional religious exclusions from its regulations to conform with Supreme Court decisions that have made their unconstitutionality clear, the SBA has not acted on the proposed rule and still uses religious exclusions in determining eligibility for business loans.”
In context, Kerrigan is arguing that the rules that prevent certain religious organizations or businesses with religious affiliations from benefiting from SBA programs, are exclusionary and unconstitutional. I’d argue that since the SBA is a government program and we have separation of church and state, such restrictions are precisely Constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling she’s likely referring to here is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), where the SCOTUS ruled that denying public benefits to an organization solely because of its religious character was unconstitutional. More about the ruling and why it was wrong in the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.5: Small Business Administration here.
“An end to SBA direct lending.”
Without direct SBA loans, small businesses would have to rely solely on private banks and financial institutions for funding. This shift could make it harder for small businesses – especially new, underserved, or high-risk enterprises – to access the capital they need. Banks may view these businesses as too risky without the SBA’s direct involvement.
It would also result in higher interest rates for the businesses that CAN get private funding – SBA offers lower interest rates than businesses can typically get from private lenders. This would reduce access for businesses in marginalized and underserved communities.
Kerrigan goes on to argue that neither should the SBA provide disaster relief funds to small businesses, and that no new direct lending programs be developed at the SBA.
Kerrigan then goes on to argue for making religious entities eligible for SBA loans. This raises a key question: Is the goal to end SBA lending altogether (as explicitly stated), or to expand access to religious organizations? This is a contradictory position. It’s possible that she’s arguing for ending direct SBA loans, which are loans disbursed directly by the SBA, but not other forms of SBA support like loan guarantees or R&D grants. This isn’t explicitly defined, however, so I’m left speculating in order to give Kerrigan the benefit of the doubt.
Kerrigan may also be arguing here to shift the SBA’s focus from direct lending to facilitating private lending, which would allow religious organizations to access capital via guaranteed loans rather than direct SBA funds. But again, this isn’t specified.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.5: Small Business Administration here.
“In general, the President can appoint people to these commissions but cannot remove them, which makes them constitutionally problematic in light of the Constitution’s having vested federal executive power in the President.”
The President CAN remove them, for specific causes (inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance.) The author is referring to the vesting clause of the Constitution when they claim that this is constitutionally problematic. The vesting clause gives executive power to the President.
However, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of these independent commissions. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Court ruled that Congress can create independent agencies and restrict the President’s power to remove their members, as long as the agency performs quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, rather than purely executive functions. This supports checks and balances.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies here.