The ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge strives for a more inclusive democracy—one in which all voices are heard. We envision a country in which the electorate mirrors our country's makeup and college students are democratically engaged on an ongoing basis, during and between elections and not just at the polls.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

A large white building with a fountain in front of it
Photo by Tomasz Zielonka on Unsplash
We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power
Sep 15, 2026
On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.
If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.
That is why it is time to reform the president’s pardon power to bring it more in line with the requirements of constitutional governance. That power was modeled after the prerogative of British monarchs. For that reason, it has always stood out and seemed anomalous in this country.
As Chief Justice John Marshall explained in 1833, in the first Supreme Court decision about the scope of the pardon power, “The power of pardon in criminal cases had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance. We adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon.”
“A pardon,” Marshall continued, “is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.”
And from that time until now, the president’s exercise of that power has been unreviewable. Once granted, neither Congress nor the courts can undo it.
Some advocate amending the Constitution to change that. However, constitutional change to limit the pardon power is neither feasible nor necessary to address the problems highlighted in Raskin’s report.
A better approach is laid out in the so-called No Payoffs For Pardons Act, introduced in Congress on August 6 by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Representative Joe Morelle, who serves as his party's leader on the Committee on House Administration. Their bill would mandate disclosures by recipients of clemency of “financial gifts made in connection with their clemency, both at the time it is granted and for four years afterward.”
“Publicity,” as Louis Brandeis wrote in 1913, “is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” What he said then is as true today as it has ever been.
Disclosure would deter the kind of pay-for- play that Raskin highlights and promote political accountability for presidential abuses of power. While the path to that kind of reform will not be easy, it is important to make the case for its necessity.
Raskin’s report is a step in the right direction.
Other critics of President Trump’s use of the pardon power often focus on what he did with regard to the January 6 insurrectionists on the first day of his second term. However, Raskin is concerned with more than that.
“President Donald Trump and a coterie of MAGA insiders,” the report observes, “have built up in his second Administration a cottage industry of shady operatives, big campaign donors, and lawyer influence-brokers who lobby the White House and the Trump family to secure presidential pardons and commutations on behalf of unrepentant white-collar fraudsters and unbending con men, corrupt foreign government officials and kleptocrat presidents, and international narcotraffickers.”
The report noted that the president has ignored the standard route for clemency requests and that “the MAGA pardon underworld operates entirely on the supplicant’s willingness to pay for access to the President and his associates in his inner circle.”
And it concludes that Trump’s abuse of the pardon power “robs victims of nearly $1.7 billion in restitution and fines, and effects a massive redistribution of wealth in favor of convicted criminals, MAGA insiders, and the President himself.”
That’s a pretty damning indictment and one that calls out for reform. Such reform is long overdue.
The rogues’ gallery of presidential pardons has a long history.
For example, in the notoriously corrupt administration of President Warren Harding, Attorney General Harry Daugherty, though not the president himself, was tried (but not convicted) for taking bribes in return for recommending pardons to Harding. Fast forward to 2001, when Bill Clinton pardoned financier Marc Rich, soon after his ex-wife contributed $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library.
Even some of Clinton’s closest allies were appalled. One, Senator Pat Leahy labeled it “terrible, “inexcusable,” and “outrageous…”
Then there was George W. Bush, who announced he was pardoning convicted fraudster Isaac Toussie in 2008, close to the end of his term, after Toussie’s father made substantial contributions to Republican politicians. When that came to light, the president claimed he was unaware of it and took the extraordinary step of rescinding the pardon before it was finalized.
Abuses of the clemency power have not been limited to American presidents. In 1979, aides to Tennessee Governor Roy Blanton were indicted and convicted of “operat(ing) a scheme to sell pardons and commutation of jail sentences during Blanton's four years in office.”
Of course, as Raskin’s report points out, all of that pales in comparison to what has happened since Trump returned to the Oval Office in January 2025.
The No Payoffs for Pardons Act is an important response. It requires that “Not later than 90 days after receiving executive clemency for an offense against the United States, each clemency recipient that has provided a covered benefit to a covered recipient… shall file with the Attorney General a disclosure report identifying each covered benefit provided to any covered recipient during the disclosure period.”
That obligation continues for four years after the grant of clemency.
The act also directs the Attorney General to make disclosure reports available “on a searchable, machine-readable website maintained by the Department of Justice….” It imposes civil and criminal penalties for failing to file the required report or for falsifying information contained in it.
Finally, it updates federal bribery law in light of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision to make clear that “immunity only attaches to the President and does not extend to private individuals who corruptly offer things of value to obtain clemency, or act as intermediaries in such corrupt arrangements.”
The No Payoff for Pardons Act does not impinge on the president’s clemency power, which, as the Brennan Center for Justice explains, “is an awesome power” and “When used as intended, it is a powerful tool for justice.” The report released by Congressman Raskin shows that “it can also be a tool of greed and perversion if used inappropriately and contrary to its purpose.”
We are not powerless in the face of such corruption. Let’s work to reconcile the pardon power with constitutional government by supporting the disclosure bill now before Congress and urging state legislatures across the country to pass similar legislation.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

AI researchers and leaders are sounding the alarm about the widespread, intense harm this technology can cause within the decade -- which may be as extreme as human extinction.
Jason marz/Getty Images
The Killer Robots Have Arrived
Sep 15, 2026
Back in April, I published an op-ed that began, “AI may not be the only existential threat out there, but it is coming for us the fastest.” Only five short months later, here we are. Are you scared yet?
You should be.
Jacob Coxon spent the last three years doing research at both OpenAI and Anthropic, and he just resigned. He called out AI companies for acting irresponsibly and “gambling with our lives” and said that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” Anthropic’s alignment science lead Evan Hubinger publicly agreed: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.” His next line offers little comfort: “I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.” Over a 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade. How could anyone take those odds?
In July, OpenAI’s own internal research agents (not humans, robots) quietly built an unmonitored message board, started calling themselves a “swarm,” divided up labor, and used the access they’d engineered for themselves to break into a separate company entirely: Hugging Face. OpenAI confirmed later that it happened and called it a warning shot. It was a hacking and an unauthorized coordination, all happening inside a frontier lab and discovered by accident. This is the moment in the movie where the robot escapes its cage.
Unfortunately, the robots are only getting better at breaking out of their cages. Critically, while their ability to break out of cages rapidly improves, we aren’t building cages fast enough to contain them. Drake Thomas, who works on safety at Anthropic, raised the stakes when he tweeted, “Not only is AI ‘not guaranteed’ to make a dramatically better future, the odds of failure are terrifyingly high: I think* there's something like a 40% chance we get an outcome around as bad as human extinction or worse.” If it is impossible to turn the ship around, can’t we at least drop the anchor?
While all of this has been unfolding, diplomats in Geneva have been trying to determine the amount of human judgment that should be required before an AI-powered machine is allowed to kill. In discussions regarding lethal autonomous weapons systems, or LAWS, the proposed safeguard is often a standard called “meaningful human control.” Without overexplaining the concept, the diplomats dropped the word “meaningful.” As Nicole van Rooijen of Stop Killer Robots put it, the text was “substantially diluted.” Apparently, it was the United States (and Russia) who pushed for more flexibility in the language, especially when it came to areas regarding exercising human judgment. The decision now waits for a November conference. Maybe by then Washington will be done playing fast and loose with machines that could wipe out our species.
No “meaningful human control” means Claude, or GPT, is in control, which really means the company that built it is. And if these companies can’t control the technology, or be honest with us, why should we trust them with the authority to kill? LAWS still requires decision-making, but that responsibility merely shifts to whoever writes the rules, trains the model, or signs off on the policy. Right now, that’s either Secretary Hegseth or OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
There are few guys I trust less. In the aftermath of this Hugging Face episode, virtually all the data OpenAI let investigators see was from July 7 to July 13, despite the company having records of their agents hacking a German website back in May. That may not have had Sam Altman’s fingerprints on it directly, but the company is his. That level of transparency is matched by the Pentagon, which has all but stopped having briefings. They have yet to take full accountability for the strikes on the girls’ school in Minab, which occurred the very first day of the war, and while Congress still doesn't have an answer on whether AI was used to identify the target, no one's forcing one.
Congress should have been calling for emergency hearings yesterday. At least, after Coxon’s resignation went public, veteran Rep. Pat Ryan sounded the alarm: “We need emergency hearings on pacing the frontier – NOW!! This November, we need to elect leaders willing to stand up to AI oligarchs and fight for the American people.” He’s right. Where are his colleagues? A few members of Congress are coming to their senses, but they could be issuing subpoenas and writing legislation right now.
If your elected officials aren’t beating the drum on regulating AI, then find new ones. I spent the last year working for Alex Bores, one of TIME Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in AI, but more importantly, an elected official actually working to regulate it. He is a New York State Assemblymember, and his RAISE Act is one of the most progressive AI safety bills in the nation, requiring increased transparency and reporting from powerful frontier AI developers. This bill is copy and pasteable. You can replace New York with your state’s name. You can remind your state representatives of this.
So start making calls and put the pressure on all your elected officials. Though we have a chance to send some AI safety champions to Congress this November, it’s never too late to push those in office to do their jobs now. One way or another, your leaders should start leading on AI safety, or they should find a new line of work.
The existential risk here is not theoretical. What we decide now may determine our fate.
This should not be a partisan issue. This is about the survival of the human race.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less

Attendees monitor results during an election night event for Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who won the Minnesota Democratic Senate primary on Aug. 11, 2026.
Ellen Schmidt/AP
Everyone Wants To Win Working-Class Voters. But Have They Realized Many Are Women?
Sep 15, 2026
Congressional candidate JoAnna Mendoza can quickly rattle off prices from the grocery store in the small town of Eloy, Arizona, where she grew up. A couple of months ago, a pound of ground beef was going for about $13, a tomato was $1.50 and “a freaking cucumber was like $3.”
She knows because she’s a single mom to a 10-year-old, and she’s struggled with the same things most working women are facing: finding a steady job, a good pediatrician and childcare that isn’t going to break the bank. Mendoza’s parents were farmworkers, and she spent 20 years in the military because there were few economic opportunities for her back home. Now she’s running for a seat in the U.S. House to represent Arizona’s 6th congressional district.
Working class people, and especially women, like Mendoza, have rarely had a seat at the political table, though they make up nearly half of working-class voters, the group Republicans desperately want to cling onto and that Democrats hope to draw back.
It’s a group that is more diverse now than it’s ever been. Gone are the days when the only image of a working-class voter was a blue-collar White man who works in a factory and drives a truck, though that is still who politicians often pander to.
Political messaging that speaks to the everyday needs of the diversifying working class could recapture the interest of the group, which has long been disillusioned by political candidates who don’t actually understand them.
Definitions of what makes a working-class voter differ depending on who you ask. If it’s education — those who have less than a bachelor’s degree — then nearly half of the working class is women; in parts of the country, most of them are also people of color, said Valerie Wilson, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute who has studied working-class people. If working-class voters are those working low-wage jobs, then they are already majority women, who occupy two-thirds of the 40 lowest-paid occupations.
“The sort of traditional view of ‘working class’ was a White man in a hard hat, a construction worker, maybe someone who was in manufacturing,” Wilson said. That’s gone now as those jobs have disappeared and service-sector jobs dominated by women have become the primary field for people without college degrees. Working-class people are now mostly service, retail and care workers, a group often forgotten in political and economic conversations in part because the work has been seen as gendered labor, though they have a front seat to most of the financial troubles that have plagued the country over the past several years. You don’t have to tell women, who do the majority of consumer purchases in this country, that groceries and gas are more expensive. They’ve lived it.
A fundamental misunderstanding of working-class voters — and the messages that resonate with them — caused Democrats to fumble their advantage with this group in recent years. Twenty years ago, Democrats enjoyed a 14-point advantage with voters who didn’t have a bachelor’s degree. By 2024, Republicans had a 6-point advantage instead. In the 2024 presidential election, working-class voters favored President Donald Trump by 14 points.
Republicans have effectively understood that their voters want good, secure jobs that allow them to live independently and support their family. Working-class voters respect people who talk to them directly — Trump’s “straight talk” — and those who have been successful through their own hard work, social inequality expert Joan C. Williams argued in 2016.
“What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. Trump promises that,” Williams wrote after Trump was elected in 2016. “I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.”
A decade later, Trump indeed has not delivered on many of his economic promises. His second term has been dominated by war in Iran and aggressive tariff policies that have driven up prices rather than balanced trade, as he promised. That has eroded Trump’s advantage with his strongest working class supporters, White people, who now disapprove of his handling of the economy.
Democrats see an opening this midterm cycle. A recent poll found that adults who self-describe as working class expect progressive Democrats to best represent their interests, followed by moderate Republicans. Working-class women already tend to skew more progressive than men: Every racial subgroup of working-class women, except White women, favored Kamala Harris over Trump in 2024.
This year, Democrats, more than Republicans, have put up women working-class candidates who have both a personal background and message that could connect with voters. It’s something of a litmus test for the Democratic Party: Can working-class women candidates help them win back working-class votes?
For her part, Mendoza said she’s not a fan of the Democrats’ messaging.
“Can Democrats just be normal and not have to use $50 words to talk to people?” Mendoza said. “Spending 20 years in the military, retiring from the Marine Corps, I personally drop about 20 to 30 f-bombs a day,” she said. “Sometimes you gotta throw an f-bomb.”
She approaches conversations with voters the way she talks to the moms of the children on her son’s little league baseball team. They’re worried about the cost of child care, which is so expensive that it doesn’t even make sense to get back into the workforce even though they could use the extra income. They’re worried about school supplies and utility bills, just like Mendoza, who spent more than $100 on her son’s supplies this summer and $391 on her most recent electric bill.
“The majority of women are what I like to call the chief financial officers of their families, and they’re sitting here trying to figure out how they’re going to make ends meet,” Mendoza said.
Congressional candidate JoAnna Mendoza has leaned into her working class background as she runs for a seat in the U.S. House to represent Arizona’s 6th congressional district. (Courtesy JoAnna Mendoza campaign)Williams argued in her book “Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back” that Democrats have focused too much on college-educated liberals and forgotten about working-class people. The messages became about policies that would help people advance in their jobs instead of policies that supported people who worked hard and just wanted to earn a living.
For working-class voters, including women, class can trump gender as the determining factor behind a vote. Look at the 2016 presidential race: White working-class women voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton by a 27-point margin.
“Working-class women are working-class people, something upper-middle-class women often forget,” Williams said. Their preferred candidate: another working-class person.
If Democrats pay attention, future cycles may have more candidates like Kaela Berg, a flight attendant and single mom who ran for a highly contested seat representing Minnesota’s 2nd congressional district in the U.S. House. Before she lost her primary in August, she was running her campaign between flights, talking about living paycheck to paycheck, going without health insurance during the pandemic and at one point living in a friend’s basement. She never graduated college and has long been active in her union.
“I don’t have to look at a white paper on affordability. I know people are struggling and that this economy is hurting people,” Berg told The 19th.
Polling by Emily’s List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, has found that women are more likely than men to be struggling financially, more likely to say they are looking for candidates who will fight for them and also more likely to blame Washington for their financial struggles.
“It was very clear based on that research that driving wins in this environment, in this economy, was really going to hinge on putting leaders in front of voters who truly get it, truly understand their struggles. And the reason for that is because the depth and breadth of people’s financial struggle is really stark,” said Jessica Mackler, the president of Emily’s List.
The past couple of years have been particularly challenging for working-class women in the economy. They returned to work in high numbers after the pandemic, benefiting from a climate in which businesses were offering better benefits, more flexibility and higher pay, which allowed them to move into good jobs. But those improvements were short-lived.
“We’re seeing a pretty stunning reversal of that that is impacting the real working-class jobs that are sort of manual labor, low-wage, low-education requirement jobs predominantly held by women,” said Kate Bahn, the chief economist and senior vice president of research at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a think tank focused on gender and economic equity.
The evidence is in the gender pay gap: After years of shrinking, the gap actually widened over the past two years for the first time since the 1960s.
Working class women are facing a labor market far more unstable than in the last election cycle, and they’re looking for candidates who understand that, voters told The 19th.
Politicians who come from working class backgrounds, like Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (center) and Minnesota state Sen. Omar Fateh (right), are resonating with voters during a particularly challenging economic period. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)Jenny Cook, a paraprofessional who works with special needs children in Oakdale, Minnesota, has been knocking on doors with her union this summer in support of candidates like Peggy Flanagan, who is running to represent Minnesota in the Senate and often talks about growing up in Section 8 housing with a single mother who relied on food stamps.
When she thinks of the candidates who have stuck out, Cook thinks of people like Omar Fateh, who ran for mayor in Minneapolis last year. The fact that he was a renter stayed with her. “That feels like someone who has a lived experience that mirrors mine and many others in a way that I don’t know that every politician can really wrap their heads around what that’s like,” she said.
For her, it’s not just about someone who understands that rents are high or that groceries are expensive, but about a candidate who understands how destabilizing all those things can be.
Cook often lives paycheck to paycheck and sells plasma or items on Facebook Marketplace to keep up with bills. She offers her own example: Last winter, one of her students had a bed bug situation at home. To try to avoid bringing it home with her after work, she’d toss all her clothes immediately into the dryer so the heat could kill any eggs that may have hitchhiked on her. But, because her dryer was old, the belt broke and she couldn’t afford a new one. So, in the middle of Minnesota winter, she started taking her clothes off in the entryway and throwing them on the front step. On weekends, she’d carry them to the laundromat.
“The amount of sleep I lost, and I just like, I feel like I’m still trying to recover from the financial impact of just that,” Cook said. “I always feel like one crisis away from everything falling apart.”
When she’s out doorknocking, she hears disillusionment. She hears exhaustion. So many people are so stuck in the struggle of day-to-day survival that they can barely plug into politics at all. Few candidates break through the noise.
“It almost feels like, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if I could pay attention to who my candidates are and care on that deep of a level?’” Cook said.
Roxy Hoda, a hospitality worker at Target Field in Minnesota, says affordability is her No. 1 issue. The healthcare costs for her family of four tripled in the past two years. She’s paying $2,100 a month for health insurance with an $8,000 deductible that she already blew through at the start of the year when her 4-year-old son was hospitalized with asthma.
She is also supporting Flanagan, whom she called “a breath of fresh air.”
“As a woman of color that has come from that similar background as me, I know that she understands what it is to be a woman of color in this society,” Hoda said.
It’s the one bright spot that has helped assuage some of her disillusionment with a Democratic Party that she feels has “been too scared to really get emotional.”
For Hoda, it comes down to this: “We just need to know that you understand and you relate, and you’re with us and you’re fighting.”
Everyone Wants To Win Working-Class Voters. But Have They Realized Many Are Women? was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less

A folded American flag with red and white stripes and white stars
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
A Republic, If You Can Keep It — The Test of America’s Democratic Guardrails
Sep 14, 2026
Benjamin Franklin’s warning — “A Republic, if you can keep it” — was never meant to comfort Americans. It was a challenge. Franklin understood that a Republic survives not simply because a Constitution exists, but because each generation chooses to protect the principles that make self-government possible.
250 years later, America faces that challenge again.
The question before the nation is not whether democratic institutions matter. It is whether the guardrails designed to protect them are strong enough to withstand concentrated power, political division, and declining public trust.
The central concern is clear: a constitutional Republic depends on free and fair elections, independent institutions, a free press, and leaders willing to respect limits on power. When any of those foundations are weakened, citizens begin to question whether the system is working as intended.
The 2026 election cycle has intensified those concerns. Actions and statements from the administration involving election procedures, voting access, media relationships, and the role of federal authority have raised questions among democracy scholars, constitutional experts, journalists, and civic organizations about the appropriate boundaries of executive power.
The problem is not a single decision or moment. The problem is the cumulative effect of actions that test whether democratic guardrails will hold.
Elections are the clearest test because they represent the foundation of self-government. A Republic depends on citizens having confidence that their votes will be counted, that election administrators can perform their duties without improper pressure, and that political competition remains open to all eligible voters.
Recent history demonstrates both the vulnerability of elections and the strength of some safeguards.
In 2020, election officials in several states faced extraordinary pressure while carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. Officials in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and other states followed established procedures, certified results, and defended the integrity of their processes. Their actions demonstrated an essential lesson: professional election administration can serve as a powerful democratic guardrail when individuals place constitutional duty above political pressure.
Courts also play an important role in the response. Judicial review determines whether government actions comply with constitutional and statutory limits. Throughout recent years, courts have reviewed disputes involving voting procedures, executive actions, and election-related policies. These cases demonstrate that legal mechanisms remain available when citizens, states, and organizations challenge government actions.
However, solutions journalism requires examining not only what works, but also the limitations.
Court decisions often come after disputes have already developed. Litigation can take months or years. A legal victory may resolve one issue while leaving broader concerns about public trust and institutional stability unresolved.
Congress also has a constitutional role in maintaining accountability through oversight, legislation, and investigation. Yet the effectiveness of congressional oversight depends on lawmakers’ willingness to exercise that authority. When elected officials prioritize political loyalty over constitutional responsibility, a safeguard the Framers designed becomes less effective.
This is where citizens' role becomes central.
Franklin’s warning was not directed only at presidents, judges, or legislators. It was directed at the American people. The Framers understood that a Republic ultimately depends on civic virtue—the willingness of citizens to remain informed, engaged, and committed to the principles of self-government.
Across the country, citizens and organizations continue to use democratic tools.
Civil society groups have filed lawsuits challenging government actions they believe violate constitutional protections. Election organizations monitor voting systems and educate communities. Universities, researchers, and watchdog organizations study threats to democratic institutions. Journalists investigate government actions, provide public information, and hold leaders accountable through reporting.
These responses matter because they demonstrate that democracy is not passive. It is an active process maintained by people who participate.
The evidence shows that these efforts can make a difference. Election systems have continued operating. Courts have provided review. Investigative reporting has uncovered information the public needed to know. Civic organizations have created avenues for legal challenges and public engagement.
But the limitations are equally important.
Citizens cannot replace institutions. Journalists cannot enforce laws. Advocacy organizations cannot assume the responsibilities of elected officials. Courts cannot resolve every dispute immediately. Democracy depends on each part of the system fulfilling its role.
That is why so many Americans feel exhausted and discouraged. They are not only responding to individual political conflicts. They are confronting a deeper concern: whether institutions designed to protect the public are responding quickly and effectively enough when democratic norms are challenged.
The danger of democratic fatigue is real. When citizens believe their voices do not matter, they may withdraw. When people stop participating, the institutions that depend on public involvement become weaker.
The solution is not cynicism. It is sustained civic engagement.
Congress must use its constitutional oversight responsibilities. Courts must continue to review government actions independently. Election officials must protect fair and transparent administration. Journalists must continue informing the public. Civil society organizations must continue providing legal and civic resources. Citizens must participate beyond Election Day by voting, attending public meetings, contacting representatives, supporting credible information sources, and holding leaders accountable.
A Republic does not survive because its guardrails are never tested. It survives because people strengthen those guardrails under pressure.
The greatest lesson of this moment is that democracy cannot be preserved by institutions alone, nor by citizens alone. It requires both: leaders who respect constitutional limits and citizens who insist that those limits matter.
Franklin’s warning remains as relevant today as it was in 1787. He did not ask whether America would have a Constitution. He asked whether Americans would commit to keeping the Republic the Constitution created.
The responsibility remains where Franklin placed it. With the people.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
_________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and technical writer whose work centers on civic responsibility and democratic engagement.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More















