Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Cancer puts everything into perspective- even politics

Cancer puts everything into perspective- even politics
Getty Images

Copenhaver is a Millennial Mentor, Amazon #1 Best Selling Author, Host of “The Changemaker Podcast”, Keynote Speaker, Executive Coach, Former Mayor of Augusta, and Founding Partner of #StartsWithUs.



Throughout my adult life, I have sought to use every platform and opportunity that has come my way to build bridges and inspire people to rally behind causes beyond any one individual. I committed to this journey while serving nine years in office as mayor of the city of Augusta, through writing a bestselling book on servant leadership, leading countless speaking engagements and launching “The Changemaker Podcast.”


Most recently, I’ve also had the blessing of serving as a movement partner with Starts With Us, a nonpartisan movement dedicated to overcoming the cultural and political polarization in our country. I believe the greatest opportunity I’ve been given is to help heal the divides in our families, our communities and our nation. This belief has taken on a new meaning on April 19, when I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer.


After dealing with laryngitis for several weeks, Dr. Glenn Owen sent me in for a CT scan. Dealing with prolonged voice issues, I never once considered cancer could possibly be the cause. After receiving the results of the scan, Glenn asked to meet me at our house to discuss them, which definitely got my attention. He proceeded to tell me that the scan detected a potentially cancerous tumor and an endoscopy to get a biopsy was the next step. The gravity of the situation hit me immediately.


My first thought after hearing the word cancer was, “Am I going to die?” I imagine that feeling is not too unusual for anyone in my shoes. Hearing the news was actually easier than having to share it with my wife Malisa just a few minutes later.


The days Malisa and I spent together leading up to the endoscopy were an emotional rollercoaster filled with uncertainty, doubt, laughter and tears. On the day of the procedure, my emotions somehow began to sort themselves out as I experienced an unusual sense of peace and calm. When I was diagnosed with cancer Dr. Matt Cranford, my gastroenterology consultant, expressed a sense of optimism that I would get through this, giving me my first sense of hope. Two days later, Malisa and I met with Dr. Jeremy Wells, our oncologist, to begin planning treatment. During that week, my thoughts almost seamlessly shifted from, “How will we deal with this?” to “How can we use this to help people?”


Having lost my mother, Jane, and my brother, Andy, to cancer, I’ve always seen the disease as a common ground issue which everyone can relate to in some way, shape or form. Whose life has not been touched by the disease, whether it be personally or through a friend or family member? Simply put, cancer does not discriminate.


The wheels began to turn in my head on ways to leverage my platforms to raise awareness and funds to help others. I called Al Dallas, a dear friend who currently serves as Chief of Staff at the Georgia Cancer Center, to brainstorm ideas. The center’s annual “Unite in the Fight” cancer walk was approaching, and Al suggested that we start a team. For the first time since my journey began, I didn’t feel powerless. I had a goal and purpose in mind.


Seeing the tangible, positive results of a support system rallying together, I am disheartened thinking about the people whose support systems have been severed by extreme politics and social issues entrenching our country. It’s sobering to consider that in a recent New York Times and Siena College poll, nearly one in five voters (19 percent) said that politics hurt their friendships or family relationships.


For me, extreme polarization is a cancer in and of itself. It infects individuals, families, and communities throughout our nation by breaking down the healthy sense of interconnectedness our society so desperately needs. By allowing polarization caused by extreme political rhetoric, social media algorithms, and sensationalist media to overshadow our humanity and connections with friends, families, and our communities we foster conditions ripe for the spread of the insidious disease.


Organizing the walk became a family and friend affair. Malisa and I set $10,000 as a fundraising goal and, always competitive in our nature, began to work our email lists to recruit participants and donors. Our niece, who also works at the cancer center, took the lead recruiting our team of walkers. Several of our friends with Showpony, a local creative firm, produced a limited-edition team tee shirt with all proceeds going to benefit the cancer center.


The spring weather was beautiful on the morning of the walk and a record crowd gathered to support each other’s loved ones was a joyous display of solidarity. The diversity of the crowd and the colors worn to support various types of cancer created a kaleidoscope reflecting the fabric of our community. People shared smiles, hugs and stories as together we walked a mile and a half. In that moment, we were all bound together by the power of community and a collective focus to fight a disease much larger than any one of us, individually.


Our team raised over $53,000, and the event collected a total of more than $116,000. The campaign’s tremendous success struck a chord when I began to reflect on how we got here. While watching everything come together, it became apparent to me: the bridges I spent nine years building as mayor and the sea of goodwill I sought to create by leading through love and compassion, remained virtually intact eight years after I left office. I have always believed that when you are seeking common ground, there are times you must become the common ground you seek. While in office, I focused on being a unifying force for citizens from all walks of life. Through my diagnosis I once again found a unifying force in joining others on the frontlines in the battle against cancer.


In life we all face trials and tribulations as no one is immune to the human condition. We do not have to agree on our political or social stances, nor is that what we should do. A healthy competitive spirit and diversity in thought is what drives our growth. But we should lead with humility and open mindedness to perspectives that we may not have experienced. Life is about choices and placing my faith, friends, family and community above my own personal politics is a very easy, and healthy, choice to make.


Healing isn’t a process that occurs in a vacuum. My healing process didn’t start when I entered my treatment protocol but rather when I was afforded the opportunity to help support, and be supported by, a community of survivors committed to joining together each year to celebrate and honor all those impacted by this disease. For me, it’s a great comfort and an ongoing part of my healing journey to know that this is a community I will always be a part of and that no walls will ever come between us.


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less