{"id":4158,"date":"2005-10-16T01:13:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-16T05:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/10\/16\/publius-seems-dubious\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:29","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:29","slug":"publius-seems-dubious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/10\/16\/publius-seems-dubious\/","title":{"rendered":"Publius seems dubious"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

For years, I’ve wanted to re-acquaint myself with <\/FONT>The Federalist Papers<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
They are, of course, practically <\/SPAN>Holy Writ for many of my <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>blawgi<\/EM>sphere <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
colleagues, who quote them often.   Refreshing my recollection seems like <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
a very good idea, therefore — if only to make sure the Devil isn’t doing the <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
quoting.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
 \"MiersBush\"  Since the nomination of Harriet Miers for a seat on the <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Supreme Court, I’ve been especially eager <\/SPAN>to sit down with my recently-<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
purchased copy of TFP. <\/EM>  I’ve been wanting to see whether — beyond the <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
cronyism dis<\/FONT>cussion in The <\/EM>Federalist <\/EM>No. 76<\/U><\/FONT> (prior post<\/FONT><\/A><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>) — it might help <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
me better <\/FONT><\/SPAN>understand: <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
(1) <\/SPAN>the <\/SPAN>runaway<\/FONT><\/A> rush<\/A><\/FONT> to judgment<\/FONT><\/A> by so many law-wonk <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and “movement” (love that word) conservatives; <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
(2) the <\/FONT>bitterness<\/FONT><\/A> in the <\/FONT>bickering<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>between<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>those<\/FONT><\/A> who <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
support<\/FONT><\/A> Miers and <\/FONT>those<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>who<\/FONT><\/A> oppose<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>her<\/FONT><\/A>; <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
(3) the cocksure assertion <\/SPAN>by so many <\/SPAN>“federalists”<\/SPAN> that <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
only their <\/SPAN>con<\/SPAN>struction-theory-alchemy <\/SPAN>offers an <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>orthodox, <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
objective mechanism for interpreting the <\/SPAN>Constitution; <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>(4) their demand <\/FONT>for affirmative action<\/FONT><\/A> — sorta like<\/FONT><\/SPAN> a <\/SPAN>quota —  \"mjudge\"<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ensuring <\/SPAN>a conservative, pointy-headed, strict-constructionist<\/FONT><\/A> <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
or <\/SPAN>origin<\/SPAN>alist <\/SPAN>seat on <\/SPAN>the Supreme Court; and <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
(5) the constant complaining<\/A> <\/FONT>by conservative intellectuals<\/A> that<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
they have heroically endured the gauntlet <\/SPAN>of <\/SPAN>academia <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>(and <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
think-tankademia), while Harriet Miers <\/SPAN>has <\/SPAN>purportedly never<\/EM> <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
done “anything <\/SPAN>brave, <\/SPAN>anything that took <\/SPAN>backbone.”  [Note<\/EM>: <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Hamilton, Madison and Jay were real<\/EM> revolutionaries, as well as <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
intellectuals, who truly <\/SPAN>risked their lives by living their <\/SPAN>principles;<\/SPAN> <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and<\/EM> Harriet Miers was a true trailblazer <\/SPAN>for <\/SPAN>women in the muy <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
macho Texas Bar.]<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
With all this in mind, I went to bed last night intending to <\/FONT><\/SPAN>spend a good   <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
deal of time today with The Federalist Papers<\/A><\/EM>.   <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>To <\/SPAN>my amazement, an <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
email arrived at my In Box overnight that seems to have saved me a lot <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of time.  I don’t know the identity of the sender, who used the pseudonym <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
PubliEsq<\/EM>.  The Subject line rather cryptically says: “you can’t always<\/EM><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pick your followers<\/EM><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>.”  <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>There was no explanation in the message, but <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
merely a number <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>of passages <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>from The Federalist Papers<\/EM>, with links to <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
an <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>online version<\/A>.<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>   <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
\"MadisonMug\" I’m not going to speculate on PubliEsq<\/EM>‘s purposes<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>.  I won’t even <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
add <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>our breathless punditry to discern lessons<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT> we might <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>apply to the Miers <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
confir<\/SPAN><\/SPAN>mation process, or to point fingers at those who may be violating <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the spirit of Hamilton, Madison and Jay<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT>. <\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
Instead, I’m going to place the excerpts — from five of the numbered <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>papers — <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/SPAN>in a separate post, available here<\/A>, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>and spotlight below a few lines from each <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/SPAN>of them, which were <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>in <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>bold print in the version sent by PubliEsq.  <\/EM>Those <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>who <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
are far more familiar than I with TFP<\/EM> may be able to point us to other <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>pertinent <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
sections.  My hope, and probably that of PubliEsq<\/EM>, is that f<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>air-<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>minded people <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
will draw <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>reasonable conclusions from the text <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>and start to <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>act accordingly.<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/A><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  from Federalist<\/EM> <\/FONT>No. 1<\/FONT><\/U><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
. . .<\/STRONG> we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
magnitude to society.  This circumstance, if duly attended to, <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
. . . Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many   \"FedPapersG\"<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  from Federalist<\/EM> <\/FONT>No. 10<\/FONT><\/A>:<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man<\/STRONG>; and <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
we <\/FONT><\/SPAN>see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
as <\/FONT><\/SPAN>well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
other <\/FONT><\/SPAN>descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
passions, <\/FONT><\/SPAN>have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
mutual <\/FONT><\/SPAN>animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
oppress <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN>each other than to co-operate for their common good.<\/STRONG> So strong <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
is <\/FONT><\/SPAN>this <\/FONT><\/SPAN>propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
excite their most violent conflicts<\/STRONG>. <\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
“tny check”  from Federalist<\/EM> No. 37<\/A>:<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
[These papers] . . . solicit the attention of those only, who add to a<\/STRONG> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
sincere <\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/SPAN>zeal for the happiness of their country, a temper favorable to <\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
a just estimate of the means of promoting it.<\/FONT><\/STRONG> <\/SPAN>       <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>Persons of this character will proceed to an examination of the plan submitted <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
by the convention, not only without a disposition to find or to magnify faults; but <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
will see the propriety of reflecting, that a faultless plan was not to be expected<\/STRONG>. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Nor will they barely make allowances for the errors which may be chargeable on <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
the fallibility to which the convention, as a body of men, were liable; but will keep <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
in mind, that they themselves also are but men, and ought not to assume an <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
infallibility in rejudging the fallible opinions of others.  <\/STRONG>. . . . <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
\"FedPapers\"   Experience has instructed us that no skill in the science of govern-<\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
ment <\/SPAN>has <\/SPAN>yet been able to discriminate and define, with sufficient certainty, its three <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
great <\/SPAN>provinces the legislative, executive, and judiciary; or even the privileges and <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
powers <\/SPAN>of the different legislative branches. Questions daily occur in the course of <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
practice, <\/SPAN>which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
the <\/SPAN>greatest adepts in political science. . . . <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>Here, then, are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions: indistinctness <\/FONT><\/SPAN>of <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
the object, imperfection of the organ of conception, inadequateness of the <\/FONT><\/SPAN>vehicle of <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
ideas. Any one of these must produce a certain degree of obscurity.<\/STRONG> <\/FONT><\/SPAN>. . .  There <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
are features in the Constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN>and as far <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
as either of them is well founded, it shows that the convention must have <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN>been <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>considerations.<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN>
\n
\"tiny  from Federalist<\/EM> 78<\/A>:<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/STRONG><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/STRONG><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM>: Today’s NYT<\/EM> has an article that reminded me of the <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
treatment of Harriet Miers in the blogisphere — “Confronting <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
Bullies Who Wound with Words<\/A>” (Oct. 16, 2005).  Although <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
its focus is middle school, the article notes:<\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/SPAN>“And the Internet is making matters a great deal worse . . <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
because it provides a cloak of anonymity and removes <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
physical size and bravery from the equation. Children as <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
young as 7 or 8, who would never have dared to belittle <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
or confront a classmate face to face, are empowered to <\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
be vulgar and vengeful at the keyboard.”<\/SPAN><\/STRONG><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
vain clouds
forming vain peaks
in vain<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n


scolding
vain man…
the autumn moon<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
sparrows at the gate–
the brothers’ first
fight<\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Kobayashi Issa<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
       translated by <\/FONT>David G. Lanoue<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/FONT>  <\/DIV>
\n

\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>
\n
<\/STRONG><\/SPAN><\/DIV>all through
his temper tantrum
her calm<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n

\n

\n
<\/FONT>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n


after speaking importantly
  she quickly resumes
  sucking her thumb <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

<\/FONT> <\/P>
\n

      <\/STRONG><\/FONT>Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/STRONG><\/FONT>
\n

     <\/STRONG>      from Homework<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (2000)<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

<\/P><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

                                                                                                              \"FedPapersN\"<\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/STRONG><\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For years, I’ve wanted to re-acquaint myself with The Federalist Papers. They are, of course, practically Holy Writ for many of my blawgisphere colleagues, who quote them often.   Refreshing my recollection seems like a very good idea, therefore — if only to make sure the Devil isn’t doing the quoting.      Since the nomination of Harriet […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-154","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4158"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12969,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158\/revisions\/12969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}