David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, an attorney (concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is the author or co-author of several books including, most recently, the No. 1 New York Times bestselling Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the past president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and a former lecturer at Cornell Law School. He has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom. David is a former major in the United States Army Reserve (IRR). In 2007, he deployed to Iraq, serving in Diyala Province as Squadron Judge Advocate for the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, where he was awarded the Bronze Star. He lives and works in Columbia, Tennessee, with his wife, Nancy (who is also a New York Times bestselling author), and three children.

Among the many problems with constitutional ideological ideas is that they never seem to go away. Let's take the concept of banning "hate speech." It always seems to be lurking — mainly in the academy — beckoning Americans to turn their backs on the First Amendment for the sake of a simple, alluring thought. Wouldn't it be good if people were less cruel? After all, what does hate speech add to public debate — besides fear and intimidation?

But what is hate speech, exactly? Ask 100 people, and you'll get 100 different answers. It's a term that can't be objectively defined because it depends inescapably on subjective listener reaction. Take, for example, a recent survey in which two-thirds of college students agreed that hate speech was "anything that one particular person believes is harmful, racist or bigoted." In other words, my rights depend on your feelings, and if your feelings are hurt, then I must shut up.

How will you fare if the GOP tax plan is enacted?

Well, on net, most Americans will see a significant tax cut under the proposed plans from Republican lawmakers, including virtually all lower- and middle-income workers and a majority of upper-income earners.

Both the House and Senate versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would, on average, provide immediate tax cuts across all income groups, according to analysis from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

This analysis does not, however, show how those tax cuts would vary based on factors such as total income, type of income, number of children, and itemized deductions.

Guy touched on this this morning, but it seems that even liberal media outlets are quite appalled by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s remarks about sexual harassment on Sunday’s broadcast of Meet the Press. Politico’s Tim Alberta noted how this media appearance represented the hyper-tribalism in Washington D.C. Vox’s Laura McGann had this itemized breakdown of how Pelosi became that woman; a reference to when Madeline Albright said there was a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women. Of course, she was referring to the lackluster support for Hillary among the sisterhood of the traveling pants during the 2016 election. Yet, more importantly, it was a red flag that women will support the best candidate, not just because they happen to share the same gender. A lot of women distrusted Hillary Clinton, especially those in the Bernie Sanders camp. For Trump, well, he nabbed 52 percent of white women and 62 percent of white working class women last year. But I digress.