Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It’s our turn to form a more perfect union

Constitutional Convention

It's up to us to improve on what the framers gave us at the Constitutional Convention.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Sturner is the author of “Fairness Matters,” and managing partner of Entourage Effect Capital.

This is the third entry in the “Fairness Matters” series, examining structural problems with the current political systems, critical policies issues that are going unaddressed and the state of the 2024 election.

The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What troubles me deeply about the politics industry today is that it feels like we have lost our grasp on those immortal words.


Back in June 2023, on Fairness Matters, I wrote:

We are getting dangerously close to ending the American experiment. The United States of America was founded — not to unify people around ethnicity, religion or culture — but as a bold experiment designed to create a society governed by ordinary citizens, one that gives full expression to the ideals of liberty, justice and opportunity for all. In its time it was a truly audacious idea. … Sadly, they couldn’t have predicted the modern world we’re living in and never anticipated that their Constitution would still be governing our lives.
Writing from Paris just after the French Revolution broke out, Thomas Jefferson argued to James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, that the Constitution should expire after 19 years and must be renewed if it is not to become “an act of force and not of right.” That sentiment was echoed at the Constitutional Convention by George Washingto who said: "I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years."

The Constitution derives its power from the majority consent of the governed. So, at the end of the day, if our representatives choose to ignore the Constitution or act in defiance of it, our only recourse is to hold them accountable. But what happens when one branch of government acts and there is no accountability?

Constitutional checks and balances

Back in 2015, Kevin Kosar, a conservative writer, published an interesting article titled “Why does Congress diminish itself.” He wrote:

“The Founding Fathers set up Congress as the most powerful of the three branches. Per the U.S. Constitution, Congress possesses “all legislative power.” This includes the most fundamental tools of governance and state-building, such as laying and collecting taxes, coining money and regulating its value and deciding what persons may join the nation as citizens. …
The Founders erected a remarkable system of government. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition, in Madison’s famous dictum, and each branch would defend its powers from encroachment. Unfortunately, Congress has not worked that way for at least a half-century. In the pursuit of other goals, Congress has weakened itself as an institution and representative government as a whole.”

But it’s not just Congress that has weakened itself. In writing about the Constitution in June 2023, I explained the brilliance of our Founding Fathers in how they structured our system of government:

"To prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful, they created three co-equal branches of government (including a bicameral legislature) designed to work independently and in cooperation to prevent abuse of power.
"But if two of those branches, say the executive and judicial, worked in concert with one another they can absolutely work around, and even reinterpret, the Constitution. Elected representatives in the legislative branch would be virtually powerless to stop it.
"This is one of the most interesting (and important) byproducts of the Trump presidency. It has exposed serious flaws in the checks and balances that many of us thought existed as “law” when in fact it was only accepted practice and not actually enforceable."

When I wrote those words, I was concerned about the “unitary executive theory,” an idea advanced by conservative constitutional law experts that holds that the president of the United States possesses the power to control the entire executive branch regardless of legislative action. I could never have fathomed that the judicial branch would conspire to confer on the president such authority.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Sadly, on July 1, 2024, when the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States went even further. The court ruled that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions that were within his constitutional powers as president. It was a landmark decision recognizing for the first time (and without any basis in the Constitution) any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

If you’re asking yourself, "Where’s the conspiracy?" consider what Heather Cox Richardson wrote in the July 1 edition of “Letters from an American.” In it, she exposed the fact that the very justices who conferred presidential immunity on the president had lied during their confirmation hearings:

At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now-Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.”

In his 2006 confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito said: “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.”

And in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate: No one’s above the law in the United States, that’s a foundational principle…. We’re all equal before the law…. The foundation of our Constitution was that…the presidency would not be a monarchy…. [T]he president is not above the law, no one is above the law.”

Sadly, these justices have set the stage to tear down one of the most important principles that has protected our democratic republic for the past 250 years —the idea that no one is above the law.

As I wrote in “It’s never too late to act,” especially after the attempt on former Trump’s life, we need to stop allowing political dogma to divide us. We must come together and work, as our Founding Fathers did, to find a common vision for the future that allows us to work towards a more perfect union.

Read More

Suzette Brooks Masters
Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

‘Democracy is something we have to fight for’: A conversation with Suzette Brooks Masters

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the seventh in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

Is polarization in the United States laying the groundwork for political violence? That is not a simple question to answer.

Affective polarization — the tendency of partisans to hate those who hold opposing political views — does seem to be growing in the United States. But as a recent report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace makes clear, “many European countries show affective polarization at about the same level as that of the United States, but their democracies are not suffering as much, suggesting that something about the US political system, media, campaigns, or social fabric is allowing Americans’ level of emotional polarization to be particularly harmful to US democracy.”

Suzette Brooks Masters is someone whose job it is to think about threats to American democracy. The leader of the Better Futures Project at the Democracy Funders Network, Masters recently spent months studying innovations in resilient democracy from around the world. The resulting report, “Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy,” argues that one way to help protect American democracy from “authoritarian disruption” is to engage in a process of “reimagining our governance model for the future.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol surrounded by digital code

Some members of Congress use social media to disparage the system they’re part of.

traffic_analyzer/Getty Images

Members of Congress undermine the country – and their own legitimacy – with antidemocratic rhetoric

Miller is a visiting assistant professor of political science at the University of Richmond.

Blame was cast far and wide after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Obviously, the shooter was to blame, but depending on your perspective, you also blamed Democrats, Republicans or both for the highly charged partisan rhetoric that has heated up American political life and, for at least some people, made violence seem like an option.

While the event was shocking, the underlying mood has been building for quite a while. The political times Americans are living through are increasingly described as a “crisis of democracy.” Much has been written about growing polarization, reduced public trust in small-d democratic institutions and long-standing principles of behavior often thought of as “democratic norms,” and increasing levels of public support for autocratic ideas and leaders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Joe Biden leaving Marine One
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

Is replacing Biden as his party’s nominee an attack on democracy? Hardly.

Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Alas, the coronation of Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee is complete.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump at a podium

Former PresidentDonald Trump walks on stage at the New Holland Arena during a campaign event in Harrisburg, Pa., on July 31.

Tom Brenner for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Can’t we get back to solving problems?

Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 11th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

We are once again in the thick of a presidential election cycle at risk of being dominated by spectacle and far too light on substance. As in 2016 and 2020, sensationalist developments — most recently an attempted assassination of one candidate and the bowing out of another — have transfixed the media 24/7.

While these recent events were arguably worthy of the attention they received, too often even fairly mundane developments such as Donald Trump’s rants and Joe Biden’s gaffes seem to become a media obsession. Such coverage distracts us from the pressing consequential issues facing our country and indeed the world.

Keep ReadingShow less