Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Vote for the Oath? Or count your fingers?

Vote for the Oath? Or count your fingers?
Getty Images

Nelson is a retired American attorney and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012, having been appointed to the court by then Republican Governor Marc Racicot.

An oath is defined as a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior. Every person joining the military, every peace officer and firefighter, and every elected public servant and member of the three branches of federal, state, and local government swears fidelity to either the federal or state Constitution or both.


Article III, section 3 of Montana’s Constitution, for example, prescribes the oath to be taken by members of the legislature and all executive, ministerial and judicial officers before they enter upon the duties of their offices: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God).” No other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust in Montana.

Whether one believes in God or not, the oath of office is a sacred promise to our fellow citizens--the giving of one’s word--regarding the future action or behavior of the person swearing the oath.

In Montana, people say that one’s word is his or her bond. As a lawyer, I have known men and women who could close a business transaction worth substantial money on a handshake—and mean and follow through on every word of it. I have also known men and women who, after the handshake, you’d do well to count your fingers.

In our State, one’s word and one’s oath are to be taken seriously. Both are sacrosanct and not to be denied or breached for any reason.

What brings this all to mind are the words that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, delivered in Arlington, Virginia, at a farewell ceremony before his retirement after four years in the position to which former president Trump appointed him.

General Milley stated, among other things:

“Today is not about anyone up here on this stage…. It’s about something much larger than all of us. It’s about our democracy. It’s about our republic…. It’s about the ideas and values that make up this great experiment in liberty. Those values and ideas are contained within the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the moral North Star for all of us who have the privilege of wearing the cloth of our nation. It is that document…that gives purpose to our service. It is that document that gives purpose to our lives. It is that document that all of us in uniform swear to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That has been true across generations, and we in uniform are willing to die to pass that document off to the next generation. So it is that document that gives ultimate purpose to our death. . . . We are one nation under God. We are indivisible, with liberty for all. ... We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.… We the American people, we the American military, must never turn our back on those that came before us. And we will never turn our back on the Constitution. That is our North Star, that is who we are, and that is why we fight.”

General Milley’s remarks are an inspiring reminder of what our oath to support, protect and defend our Constitution, what our word, means.

Despite Mr. Trump labeling General Milley a traitor who could be put to death, the General has stood by his oath, his word, in support and defense of the Constitution —-unlike the former President who managed to avoid military service and has ignored the rule of law on multiple occasions.

So, when election 2024 comes, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or independent, are you going to vote for the person who keeps his oath and his word?

Or are you going to vote and then count your fingers?


Read More

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door
photo of dollar coins and banknotes
Photo by Mathieu Turle on Unsplash

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door

America's tariff experiment, now nearly a year old, is proving more painful than its architects anticipated. What began as a bold stroke to shield domestic industries and force concessions from trading partners has instead delivered a slow-burning rise in prices, complicating the Federal Reserve's battle against inflation. As the policy grinds on, economists warn that the real damage lies ahead, with consumers and businesses absorbing costs that erode purchasing power and economic momentum. This is not the quick victory promised but a protracted burden that risks entrenching higher prices just as the economy seeks stability.

The tariffs, rolled out in phases since early March 2025, have jacked up the average import duty from 2 percent to around 17 percent. Imported goods prices have climbed 4 percent since then, outpacing the 2 percent rise in domestic equivalents. Items like coffee, which the United States cannot produce at scale, have seen the sharpest hikes, alongside products from heavily penalized countries such as China. Retailers and importers, far from passing all costs abroad as hoped, have shouldered much of the load initially, limiting immediate sticker shock. Yet daily pricing data from major chains reveal a creeping pass-through: imported goods up 5 percent overall, domestic up 2.5 percent. Cautious sellers absorb some hit to avoid losing market share, but this restraint is fading as tariffs are embedded in supply chains.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a paper that says "Ranked-Choice" with options listed below.
Image generated by IVN staff.

Why Mathematicians Love Ranked Choice Voting

The Institute for Mathematics and Democracy (IMD) has released what may be the most comprehensive empirical study of ranked choice voting ever conducted. The 66-page report analyzes nearly 4,000 real-world ranked ballot elections, including some 2,000 political elections, and more than 60 million simulated ones to test how different voting methods perform.

The study’s conclusion is clear. Ranked choice voting methods outperform traditional first-past-the-post elections on nearly every measure of democratic fairness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less