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 Constitutionin 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.

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

Hands protecting a child. A child being protected.

Just three months into his second term, the Trump Administration terminated 373 grants worth about $500 million from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs.

Getty Images, Mary Long

Youth Injustice: Trump Administration Cuts Violence Prevention Programs

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Just three months into his second term, the Trump Administration abruptly terminated 373 grants worth about $500 million from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The grants were ended without any prior notice and affected programs across the country that provide support for the complete range of department activities, including juvenile and youth justice, violence prevention, child protection, policing and prosecution, and victims’ services.

Keep ReadingShow less
An Open Letter to the Department of Education
Committee of Seventy Engages Over 23,000 Students in Civic Education Statewide
Getty Images, Maskot

An Open Letter to the Department of Education

Children—Black, white, brown, immigrant, and native-born—crowded around plastic tables, legs dangling, swapping stories, and trading pieces of their lunches. I believe that the dream of the Department of Education was to build a country where a child's start in life doesn't determine their finish, where public education flings open the doors, not just for a few, but for all.

Our story didn't begin in isolation. The Department of Education was born in 1979, forged by decades of struggle and hope; by the echoes of Brown v. Board, the promises of the Civil Rights Act, and the relentless voices of parents and educators who refused to accept that opportunity could not be representative and equitable. The mission was bold and straightforward: make real the promise that public education is a right and a shared responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest against gerrymandering
Demonstrators protest against gerrymandering at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while the justices debated Rucho v. Common Cause.
Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

When the Map Becomes the Battlefield: Gerrymandering and the Challenge of Democratic Reform

Founded as an independent national news outlet, The Fulcrum explores and advances solutions to the challenges facing our democratic republic—by amplifying diverse, civic-minded voices. We've long championed a new political paradigm rooted in civil discourse, civic integrity, and personal accountability while warning that hyper-partisan rhetoric and entrenched party lines threaten the very foundation of reasoned governance.

But in 2025, the threat has evolved. The content arriving in our newsroom, as well as the voices from the field, reflect not just frustration with gridlock, but growing alarm over the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. From reform leaders to civic organizations to everyday citizens, we’re hearing the same refrain: The machinery of democracy is not merely stalled, but systematically being dismantled.

Keep ReadingShow less
elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less