{"id":1998574,"date":"2023-08-12T05:34:02","date_gmt":"2023-08-12T09:34:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/letter-to-the-editor-arkes-vs-schaefer\/"},"modified":"2023-08-12T05:41:42","modified_gmt":"2023-08-12T09:41:42","slug":"letter-to-the-editor-arkes-vs-schaefer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/letter-to-the-editor-arkes-vs-schaefer\/","title":{"rendered":"In response to Arkes vs. Schaefer: A brief letter to the editor."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fletter-to-the-editor-arkes-vs-schaefer%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1998574&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div>\n<h2>Engaging Text: A \u2062Debate on Natural Law and the Constitution<\/h2>\n<blockquote>\n<p>David Schaefer, a friend of \u200cmany years and a classmate\u200d from the University of Chicago, has, for me, an enduring license to sail into \u200bme for anything I have written. For\u2064 we had acquired, at Chicago, the temper of offering\u200b our critiques of one another without being overly worried about tenderness. Still, his\u200c criticisms of my book <i>Mere\u200d Natural Law<\/i> (&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/freebeacon.com\/courts\/a-moral-hazard-for-the-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A \u200cMoral Hazard for the Constitution<\/a>,&#8221; July 30, 2023) were set against the\u2062 places \u200bwhere \u2064he \u200baccorded \u200dfirmly \u200dwith my line \u2062of argument. He shares \u2062my concern for the\u2063 way that \u200ceven conservative justices have backed into assumptions of moral relativism\u2064 when dealing with the regulation of speech. What is lost \u200bhere is\u200c the moral ground of\u200d a civic order. \u2063Acts\u200c of speech can become instruments of serious assault, along with \u2063any other parts of our freedom. To lose all \u200dmoral limits to the use of\u200c speech is to lose as well the moral ground for defending the goodness or \u200brightness of \u2063free speech.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h3>Professor Schaefer&#8217;s Concern<\/h3>\n<p>Professor Schaefer&#8217;s\u200b concern, however, has been with\u2064 an appeal to natural law that must\u200d detach itself at times from the text of the Constitution. But the \u200bAmerican Founders \u200bdrew on principles that were there before the text they framed\u2014and they knew that those principles\u200c would still be there, as they\u200c knew, even if\u200b there \u2064were no \u2063text there. John Marshall said that \u200dit\u200b would be quite as wrong to compel people\u200c to make a contract they did not wish as to &#8220;impair&#8221; the obligation \u2063of a contract they had willingly made. Justice Story\u2062 would later say that\u2063 that point, that principle, would be \u2062true even if there was no Constitution.\u200b Much as John Quincy Adams would later say\u2063 that the &#8220;right to petition&#8221; the government is simply implicit in the idea of a free\u2063 regime: It would be there even if it hadn&#8217;t been mentioned in the First Amendment; \u200bit would be there \u2063even if there were no First Amendment, and it would \u2063be there even if there were no \u2062Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>Schaefer strangely \u200dclaims that he knows of &#8220;no precedent for this understanding \u200bof the judicial role among the deliberations of those\u2064 who\u200c wrote and ratified the Constitution.&#8221; He could say that only if he has not been \u200c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/fbi-fla-authorities-investigating-hack-on-pinellas-county-water-supply\/\" title=\"FBI, Fla. authorities investigating hack on Pinellas County water supply\">paying close attention<\/a>. As I&#8217;ve shown in this book \u200cand others, the members of that Founding generation quite often appealed beyond the text\u2062 of the\u200b Constitution to the principles that were there before \u2064the\u200c text\u2014and doing\u200b it for the sake of explaining\u200b their judgments. Schaefer has apparently forgotten Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s elegant account \u200bin <i>Federalist<\/i> 33, showing why the \u2062Supremacy Clause \u200dwould\u200d be there even \u200bif it \u200bhadn&#8217;t been mentioned in the Constitution, for it was baked into the logic of this government. And the &#8220;Necessary \u2064and Proper Clause,&#8221; as he sought to show, was implicit\u2064 in the very idea of a moral agent, reasoning about the rightful \u200duses of his freedom.<\/p>\n<p>But surely the most dramatic refutation of Schaefer&#8217;s\u2063 charge\u200c would\u2063 be found in John Marshall&#8217;s classic argument\u200d in <i>Fletcher <\/i>v.<i> \u2064 Peck <\/i>(1810). The case involved the rescission of a grant in lands by the legislature of Georgia. Innocent buyers would \u2062be affected, and so this\u2062 was clearly a case of &#8220;impairing the obligation \u2063of \u2063contracts&#8221; (Art. I, Sec. \u206410). But instead of handling it \u200bthat way, \u200cMarshall did something far more elegant: He showed \u200bhow the Contracts Clause could be \u2063drawn deductively from that deeper\u2062 principle barring \u2062 <i>ex post\u200d facto<\/i> \u200b laws. That principle\u2063 was so bound up with the rule of law that James Wilson and Oliver Ellsworth thought it needless to mention in\u2062 the Constitution. With\u200c that understanding in \u200cplace, Marshall\u2062 could go on then\u200b to a conclusion truly striking: Georgia, he said, was \u2063a great state, part of the American Union; but\u2064 even if Georgia were a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ukraine-wants-china-to-play-important-role-in-ending-russian-war\/\" title=\"Ukraine Wants China to Play 'Important Role' in Ending Russian War\">separate sovereign state<\/a>, outside the union, outside the Constitution, and outside Art. I Sec. 10, this law in Georgia would\u200c still be wrong because \u2064its \u2062wrongness was rooted \u2063in\u2064 a principle that did not depend at all for its\u2062 validity on being mentioned in the text of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>But when Schaefer turns to my treatment of natural law, he \u200cseems to detach himself from his\u200b methods long\u200c settled: The man who could deal with the \u200dmost refined sentences\u2062 in Montaigne suddenly gives the most caricatured\u2063 account of my understanding of natural law and \u200cits bearing on that momentous\u2062 issue\u200c of abortion. Montaigne here is replaced with \u200bthe subtlety\u200b of <i>The Tonight Show<\/i>. \u2063Schaefer says I would simply &#8220;have declared practices\u200b like \u200dabortion and \u200csame-sex marriage\u2062 wrong on the\u2063 ground that they violate the principles of\u2064 natural law.&#8221; He treats the natural law as some magic word that is invoked. \u200dWhat he leaves out is the \u2063moral reasoning that forms the practical ground of the moral law. In \u200d <i>Roe\u200c <\/i>v.<i> Wade <\/i>the lawyers from\u2062 Texas had drawn on the \u2064updated findings of embryology to put these points before the Court: that the offspring in the \u2062womb has never been\u200d anything other than a human being from its \u2064first moments, \u200cand never merely a part of its mother&#8217;s \u200cbody. With those points in hand the Court \u200bcould simply have\u200d concluded here, as\u200d it has in other cases, \u2064that the \u2064government of Texas had established \u2064ample, compelling grounds to\u2064 show why it was justified in enacting its law\u2014in this case a law that cast \u200bprotections over small human beings in wombs. And that bringing \u2064of moral reasoning \u2064to a practical judgment would do as much\u2014or more\u2014than a jurisprudence of natural law would require.<\/p>\n<p>It is\u2063 quite bizarre then to say, as \u200bSchaefer does, that\u2062 I would have the\u2064 Court &#8220;impose an outright ban on abortion.&#8221; The Court cannot\u2062 do such\u2064 a thing. What\u200d the \u2062Court could have \u2062done, in\u200d 1973 or \u200bin 2022, is confirm\u2062 that \u2063the child in the womb has the standing\u200d of a\u2063 human being. \u2063It would then simply return matters to\u200c the states, inviting\u200b them to deliberate on the question of how the killing of these small human beings will be reconciled \u2064with their other\u200d laws on homicide. And\u2063 if the Court \u200dhad \u2064established that simple, decisive \u200bpremise\u2014that would have been quite \u200denough to establish the ground\u200b for \u200bCongress to act under the 14th \u2062Amendment when blue states were systematically withdrawing\u200b the protections of the law from a whole subset of \u2064human\u2064 lives.<\/p>\n<p>But finally Schaefer surprises me by offering that most worn-out \u200dclich\u00e9 we have seen: Liberal judges have made use of\u200c moral reasoning outside the text of the \u200bConstitution \u2064for \u200dthe\u2062 sake of establishing extravagant\u200b and\u2063 implausible new\u2063 &#8220;rights,&#8221; and if conservatives engage in moral reasoning as well, the other side will do things even wilder.\u2062 The ingenious solution here is for the conservatives to avoid altogether the moral reasoning that must ever be bound up with the law. As \u2063though that will \u2062somehow shame the judges\u200c of the \u2062Left and induce them to abate their passion to rule. But if \u200bwe think that the judges have used specious \u2064reasoning to produce \u2062implausible &#8220;rights,&#8221; \u200dthe corrective \u200csurely\u200d is to show what is specious in their reasoning. The conservatives offer no solution\u2064 here if they disarm themselves from the\u2064 reasoning\u200b they need to shape a coherent jurisprudence.<\/p>\n<p>Schaefer slips at last into an argument that is not only inapt but wounding: for \u2062he has evidently forgotten\u2014or never \u2064read\u2014the arguments I&#8217;ve made over the years, in other books,\u200b taking a firm Lincolnian line\u2063 on the authority of the political \u200cbranches to\u2064 counter, narrow, and even overturn judgments of the Supreme\u200d Court.\u2064 The Lincoln administration countered and \u2063overturned the decision in\u200d <i>Dred Scott<\/i> through a combination of administrative decisions and congressional \u2064legislation. If \u2064Schaefer had read me closely,\u200b he would know that, in my understanding,\u2063 a \u200bjurisprudence\u2062 of natural\u2063 law \u200cwould not involve \u200bjudges winging it, with no\u2064 discipline,\u2063 with no\u200c moral \u2064or legal \u2063limits on their judgment. The judges who fit my description would have a sharper sense of the \u200dboundaries that\u2063 restrain the reach and\u200b inventiveness of \u2063judges. But they would give us, beyond that, \u2063a law that \u200ccan give\u200c a morally \u200ccoherent \u200caccount of itself.<\/p>\n<p><i>Hadley Arkes<\/i><br \/> <i>Ney\u200b Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus, \u200bAmherst College<\/i><br \/> <i>Founder and Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights \u200c&#038; the\u2064 American Founding<\/i><\/p>\n<p><b>David Lewis Schaefer\u200d responds:<\/b> Responding to my review of \u200b <i>Mere Natural Law<\/i>, my \u2064learned friend Hadley Arkes faults me for failing to\u2064 acknowledge that the Founders, along with John Marshall, Joseph Story, and John Quincy Adams, grounded the Constitution in part on objective moral principles of natural\u2063 law that they held \u2063to \u200cbe true, even if the document never\u200c explicitly mentions\u2064 them. But\u2014leaving aside Arkes&#8217;s \u2064disregard of the fundamental differences between Thomistic natural law (implicitly based in part on biblical faith) and its modern counterpart (ultimately derived from the quite different teachings of Hobbes \u2062and Locke, which ground men&#8217;s duties on \u2063their natural rights, in contrast to both the classical and Christian \u200cviews)\u2014there \u200dis\u2064 no disagreement between us on that point. The\u2063 issue, rather, is how far\u200b it is the role of <i>judges<\/i><b> <\/b>to ground their \u2064assessments \u2064of the constitutionality of governmental actions\u200b on \u200dintuitively known principles of morality, without any textual basis.<\/p>\n<p>It is true, as Arkes observes, that in <i>Fletcher<\/i> v. <i>Peck<\/i>, John Marshall\u200d appealed to &#8220;certain great principles of justice, whose authority is universally acknowledged, that ought \u200dnot to be <i>entirely <\/i>disregarded,&#8221; in justifying the Court&#8217;s abrogation \u200cof a corrupt\u200b land grant by the Georgia legislature. \u200dSuch principles included, for \u200dinstance, the\u200c fact that an individual&#8217;s \u200cproperty cannot be seized without just compensation. Marshall proceeded \u200bto base the Court&#8217;s decision,\u200d however, on the Constitution&#8217;s \u2063contract clause, and ended \u200bhis opinion (as Christopher Wolfe\u2062 observes in his \u2063fine study <i>The\u200d Rise of Modern Judicial Review<\/i>)\u200d in a thoroughly ambiguous manner, saying\u200d that the legislature&#8217;s act was rendered invalid &#8220;<i>either<\/i>&#8221; because it violated the \u2062&#8221;general principles&#8221; \u2062of America&#8217;s &#8220;free institutions,&#8221; &#8220;<i>or<\/i>&#8221; on account of its \u200dviolation of the contract clause (my emphases). And as Wolfe adds, this \u2063was the <i>only <\/i>opinion\u2014from relatively early in Marshall&#8217;s long career\u2014that\u200d &#8220;explicitly relied on natural justice as opposed to constitutional\u200b provisions.&#8221; More generally, Wolfe observes, while judicial appeals to principles of natural justice as\u2064 a basis for assessing state legislation &#8220;did exist during early American history,&#8221; they were &#8220;very\u200c rare,&#8221; \u200cand were &#8220;usually combined \u200dwith an argument\u200d from the Constitution itself,&#8221; or else were nonbinding <i>dicta.\u2062 <\/i>Additionally, Wolfe notes that Story&#8217;s <i>Commentaries on the Constitution <\/i>address the \u2062topic of judicial review <i>solely <\/i>as Marshall had described it in <i>Marbury <\/i>v.<i> \u200d Madison <\/i>(following, I add, Hamilton&#8217;s\u200c justification in <i>Federalist <\/i>78), as an instrument of defending the Constitution\u200d against \u200blegislative or executive actions that violated what Hamilton called its &#8220;manifest tenor&#8221; (that is, its obvious meaning).<\/p>\n<p>The historical origins of judicial review aside, what Arkes&#8217;s position seems to disregard is\u200b the problematic consequences \u200d(from both his and my point of view) that resulted \u200bwhen <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/is-the-democrats-election-heist-too-big-to-fail\/\" title=\"Is the Democrats\u2019 Election Heist \u2018Too Big to Fail\u2019?\">federal courts<\/a> beginning in the mid-20th\u200d century not only altered\u2063 the sense of key provisions of the Bill of Rights (notably, the \u2063First Amendment) in accordance with new conceptions of &#8220;morality,&#8221; but also\u2064 started to &#8220;incorporate&#8221; those provisions\u2014originally a set of \u200brestrictions on federal\u2063 authority\u2014into the 14th Amendment, so as to\u2062 authorize judges \u2062to\u2062 alter or overturn state and local laws and \u2062practices that embodied what \u2062had\u2064 formerly \u2064been taken\u2064 for granted as the moral foundations of civic life. Hence, under the Warren and Burger courts, as Arkes rightly laments, \u200dthe guarantee \u2062of freedom of speech\u2062 was held\u2064 to include the right to wear a jacket bearing the slogan &#8220;F\u2014 the flag&#8221;\u200d into \u2062a courthouse; in other cases he doesn&#8217;t \u200bdiscuss, freedom of\u200d the press was interpreted to include the\u2063 right\u200b to produce pornographic films and magazines; \u2062the ban on the establishment of religion was judged to prohibit a nondenominational blessing\u2062 on\u2064 a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/letter-to-the-editor-arkes-vs-schaefer\/\" title=\"In response to Arkes vs. Schaefer: A brief letter to the editor.\">graduating \u2063middle-school class<\/a>; and \u200cso on. \u2062Most egregiously \u2062and \u200bshamelessly, the Court \u200dinvented a &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; supposedly generated by \u200d&#8221;emanations&#8221; \u2062from various passages in the Bill of\u2064 Rights, paving the way for its &#8220;discovery&#8221; of a constitutional right to abortion.<\/p>\n<p>Arkes, it seems to me, draws precisely the wrong lessons from these distortions \u2063of our system of constitutional government. Appeals to &#8220;natural law&#8221; will hardly serve to correct\u2062 them, since\u2014regrettable as this is\u2014Americans, and especially judges and their &#8220;influencers&#8221; (law schools, law \u200dreviews, &#8220;prestige&#8221; media like the <i>New York Times <\/i>and <i>Washington Post<\/i>, and their Washington \u200dpeers) no longer share the consensus on natural rights and even on the fundamental \u2062elements of\u200d civic decency\u200b that existed at the time of the Founding (and in large part until the middle of the past century). (A few decades ago journalist\u2064 Tom Bethell invented the &#8220;Strange New Respect&#8221; award to describe how \u2064justices and \u2062federal officials \u2062previously thought to be conservative were\u200d honored on\u200d the front page of the <i>New York Times Magazine <\/i>in response and\u200d encouragement to what were \u200bthought to be signs of \u2064movement toward the morally libertarian and egalitarian Left.)<\/p>\n<p>Our only hope for defending\u2062 America&#8217;s constitutional order against these judicial assault is the return to a text-based originalist interpretation of our nation&#8217;s fundamental law. As\u2062 noted in my review, \u2062to invite \u2062judges to base decisions on \u2063(what they regard \u200cas) the higher or &#8220;natural&#8221; law\u2064 is to turn judicial\u2062 deliberations into seminars on\u200d &#8220;moral \u2063philosophy&#8221;\u2014situations in which, \u2063given\u2064 the tenor of most law schools as well as philosophy departments, conservatives are likely to lose. (Dismissing this observation as a &#8220;clich\u00e9,&#8221; as Arkes does, in no\u200c way refutes it.)<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/a-moral-hazard-for-the-constitution\/\" title=\"Constitution's Moral Hazard\">textualist interpretation<\/a> of\u2062 the Constitution must also be &#8220;originalist&#8221; in that it interprets \u2062the words of that document \u200b(and of congressional enactments) in the sense the words commonly had at the\u200c time of \u2064enactment. Understanding the proper meaning of the constitutional text of course entails trying\u200b to grasp the reasoning that underlies \u2063it; \u2062but our primary source for appreciating that reasoning is the text. Simply put, Justice\u200c Gorsuch&#8217;s reinterpretation of the \u20631964 Civil Rights\u200d Act to include \u2063&#8221;sexual orientation&#8221;\u200d as protected against discrimination under the \u2064rubric\u200b of &#8220;sex&#8221; was a willful\u200c misreading (perhaps animated by a longing\u200b for that Strange New Respect award).<\/p>\n<p>In its <i>Dobbs <\/i>ruling, the Roberts\u2063 Court properly\u200b absolved\u2063 itself of\u2062 having to decide how far, if at all, the\u2062 Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, since the document gives federal courts no authority to decide such issues.\u200b Conversely, in its ruling that race-based preferences violate\u200d the Civil Rights Act \u2062(at least in the case \u200bof public universities), the\u200b Court\u200c was upholding the rule\u200d of law. Perhaps it\u2064 is \u200ctoo late to reverse \u2062the judicial invention of a right to same-sex marriage. But we ought at\u2064 least\u200c to pray \u200cthat the Court will hold the line against those who would guarantee \u2063the \u200cright of parents\u2014or, worse, of educational institutions\u2014to \u2063authorize \u2064sex-changing surgery on minors.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m unsure what\u2062 Arkes found &#8220;wounding&#8221; in my argument that would be redressed by considering Lincoln&#8217;s view of the authority of the political branches of government to narrow or overturn Supreme Court judgments. But as Arkes knows, Lincoln did not \u200dclaim that those branches \u2062could overturn \u200bthe \u200bjudgment \u2064in <i>Dred Scott.\u2063 <\/i>Rather, he challenged, based on three criteria, its validity as a precedent. It would be up to future presidents and \u2063Senates, backed by public opinion, to \u2063deny it that standing. There&#8217;s no disagreement between us on that\u200c score.<\/p>\n<p><i>David Lewis Schaefer<\/i><br \/> <i>Professor Emeritus of Political Science<\/i><br \/> <i>College of the Holy Cross<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>my writing are always constructive and valuable. We developed a strong bond during our time at the University of Chicago, where we freely exchanged feedback without fear of hurting each other&#8217;s feelings. David&#8217;s input has been invaluable, and I appreciate his enduring permission to challenge and improve my work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1996,"featured_media":1998575,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[544],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1998574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-free-beacon"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1998574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1996"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1998574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1998574\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1998575"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1998574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1998574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1998574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}