Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonprofit advocate for amending the Constitution to allow more federal and state regulation of money in politics.
Let’s face it: To unite Americans and renew our democracy and republican form of government, we need to amend the Constitution — again.
Why should we expect any less? Every generation has had to do this.
Millions of Americans alive today participated in winning constitutional amendment campaigns. Those amendments ended the discriminatory and racist poll tax; gave District of Columbia residents the right to vote in presidential elections; enfranchised millions of young Americans who were “old enough to fight, old enough to vote;” and stabilized our government with a succession plan and provisions for an incapacitated president.
Not bad; four constitutional amendments in just a decade between 1961 and 1971. Boomers may get their share of criticism but this historic achievement can stand up to any generation’s accomplishments.
Perhaps they learned it from their grandparents. A generation earlier, Americans ratified four constitutional amendments between 1913 and 1920: voting rights for women; senators elected by the people; fundamental tax reform and, well OK, prohibition. Another amendment 10 years later ended prohibition.
Things must have been easier then, right? Americans and our politics must have been less divided, or there must have been some lost magic trick in the Constitution to make amendments more achievable. We can’t do that anymore, right?
No, none of that is true.
We are no more divided or challenged today than Americans after the Civil War, in the Gilded Age/Progressive Era or in the 1960s. Those were times of chaos, political violence, rapid technological change, challenges with mass immigration and racism, war, pandemic, political crisis, and dysfunction. Sound familiar?
So how did Americans secure democracy with constitutional amendments? No “dangerous” constitutional convention, no “civil war,” no drama. Just the common, dogged, heroic acts of every-day citizenship for Americans.
Learning, speaking out, talking with neighbors, organizing, voting and demanding that politicians vote for the persistent good idea that won’t go away.
That’s how constitutional amendments get the required two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. That’s the simple but challenging way Americans have advanced and preserved constitutional democracy for two centuries.
There are always skeptics who say it can’t be done. A few weeks ago, the New Yorker explained “ The United States’ Unamendable Constitution ” to its readers. Why is the Constitution unamendable, despite the clear and well-used amendment provisions?
The usual reasons, says the New Yorker: We haven’t done it in a long time, and we’re too divided. These are the same reasons the Washington Post gave in 1904 when it explained, just before a wave of four amendments, that the Constitution is “effectively unamendable.” Americans have ratified 12 amendments since then.
There’s no shortage of constitutional amendment proposals now. Dark money and election integrity? Term limits? Fiscal responsibility? Equal rights? Electoral College?
Which amendment has the most unifying support from all political viewpoints, is most likely to succeed, would have the most impact, and could possibly kick-start other constitutional reform, as happened in previous eras?
My bet is on the amendment to end the corruption of money in elections, and put voters instead of elite donors in charge. This proposal is real, has been vetted and has momentum.
It’s the For Our Freedom Amendment. It protects the First Amendment and empowers ‘we the people’ to enact effective rules about money in elections to protect free speech, representation, and election integrity for all Americans.
Just about every American knows that unlimited and unaccountable money in our elections is one of the biggest reasons for systemic corruption, non-stop misleading attack ads, terrible candidates, poor governance, lack of free speech for all but the wealthiest donors, civic distrust, and disconnection between voters and our government.
We can’t fix this without a constitutional amendment because the Supreme Court invented a theory that regulation or limits on money in elections violate free speech rights of those with unlimited money.
That’s not what the First Amendment meant for the first 200 years of America. It’s a “clever lawyer” theory that doesn’t make sense in the real world. But an activist Supreme Court simply decreed the new theory, struck down our anti-corruption laws, and opened the floodgates for money from billionaires, global corporations, big unions and even foreign interests.
Millions of Americans already are advancing the For Our Freedom Amendment with the simple, powerful civic actions that get constitutional amendments done.
They have volunteered, signed petitions, gathered ballot signatures, voted on resolutions, visited representatives, presented to Rotary Clubs and local Chambers of Commerce, written letters to the editor, shared or commented on social media, and set up tables at farmers’ markets or wherever Americans gather to discuss opportunities for change.
As a result, 22 states have formally demanded that Congress pass the amendment so the states can begin the ratification process. Hundreds of members of Congress support this approach. Polls and votes in state and local referenda show consistent supermajority support from three out of four Americans.
While skeptics continue to buy into the myth that our Constitution is unamendable, millions of Americans are actually getting it done. The nonpartisan organization American Promise is a good place to start (I volunteer as president of American Promise).
Lord knows, America is imperfect and we often fall short of the promise of liberty, equal rights and self-government. But we do believe in that promise. We are persistent. We don’t give up. And we act when the chips are down. That’s why the United States of America has one of the longest-living constitutions and democracies in the history of humanity.
The Constitution is how the government obtains the consent of the governed. If it is “unamendable” by the people, it’s game over. Let’s not end the game without taking our shot.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.