Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Dormant, Courts Undermined: Why America’s Checks and Balances Are in Crisis

As Congress abdicates its constitutional duties and the Supreme Court erodes lower court rulings, America faces a rule‑of‑law crisis demanding citizen action.

Opinion

A gavel and a scale of justice on a table.
In this new series, "Judges on Democracy," Judge Paul R. Michel shares the critical need for an independent judiciary and the role of judges in preserving liberty.
Getty Images, OsakaWayne Studios

The new Ken Burns documentary, The American Revolution, provides a special opportunity to learn why our nation’s founders chose liberty and built a democracy based on three branches of government that would serve as a system of checks and balances on one another.

Today, that system is being challenged and is at a dangerous tipping point. One branch, Congress, has been dormant, basically ignoring its primary responsibility to enact laws that will govern us and appropriate funds that enable the government to function. In its acquiescence to the executive branch, Congress ignores its own constitutional responsibilities. And in failing to protect its own role and prerogatives, it has failed to protect us.


We elect a President to lead the administrative branch of government. A key aspect of this is to faithfully execute the laws past and present Congresses have enacted, and to use the funds as Congress appropriated and directed, not ignore or subvert the Congressional branch’s role. We also vote for State and local governments that have a sphere of operation that the Executive Branch of the federal government is – or at least was - bound to respect. Yet within the administrative branch, independent voices have been silenced, fired, and doxed for speaking out.

The lower federal courts have served as lone bulwarks against the administration’s assaults on our freedoms and unfair actions. These courts have written meticulously researched and reasoned opinions to restrain violations of the rule of law in fraught, time-sensitive situations and in the face of attacks on their character and threats to their person.

But the lower federal courts are a fragile bulwark. They are being undermined at the Supreme Court. Often, over vigorous minority dissents, the extremists on the Supreme Court have issued a score of largely unexplained orders that tolerate, if not encourage, dangerous behaviors that the lower courts—who carefully examined the actual evidence—had enjoined.

Without briefing or argument, these Justices have allowed unprecedented assertions of power to proceed while the underlying cases wind slowly through the court system. This “temporary” unwillingness to let the lower courts’ opinions stand is far from temporary to a person deported to a distant country, to a National Guard member whisked away to police duty in one of our cities, or to a person denied access to medicine, a job, and a paycheck overnight.

Moreover, our Bill of Rights has long served to protect our freedoms against authoritarian rule. If the “will of the people” argument proves anything, it is that we should expect any President to abide by the constitutional boundaries - and to be held accountable for brazenly doing otherwise.

When the institutions that we rely on to follow the rule of law are prevented from doing so, those in power forfeit our consent under the principles on which our nation was founded. A supine Congress and dogmatically myopic Supreme Court majority require us to take action to protect ourselves.

We must act to reclaim our constitutional form of government.

We can all do something. We can vote, write, and call our Congress people, protest at their offices and in our communities, write articles, and engage in our civic spaces.

We can engage in protests, local protests, and massive national protests like the March on Washington for civil rights.

We can document and oppose the harsh and cruel tactics of ICE.

We can use our dollars to stop buying from or otherwise supporting those who enable unconstitutional and illegal behaviors. If asked to carry out a patently illegal order, refuse and go public, and support those who do so vocally.

Acquiescence is not an option. Without bold and non-violent resistance, millions more will suffer grave harm in short order, in addition to those who already have. We will all pay the price if we do not get our law-abiding government back.


James B. Kobak Jr. is a former president of the New York County Lawyers Association and Chair of its Justice Center, and presently chairs the National Center for Access to Justice and prepared this article as a volunteer member of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.


Read More

Woman struggling to pull blue donkey with rope

Should Democrats redefine their mission? How the Declaration of Independence, equality, and America's founding principles offer a vision for Democratic Party reform.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

Centrist Democrats' New "Promise to America." Ho-Hum.

Centrist Democratic politicians, upset by the wins of Democratic Socialists in the recent primaries, have issued a statement of their convictions. Called "The Promise to America," it sounds good, responding to many of the problems we face. But they are empty promises, even if well-meant.

How can I say that? First, Democrats have been saying similar things for years. Yet despite the rhetoric, the people are hurting. Why? It's not just because of Trump and the Republicans; it's because the government—Democrats as well as Republicans—have lost sight of the meaning and implications of our founding principles. It is to those principles that Democrats must dedicate themselves. See my article, "People are Hurting - The U.S. Must Return to Our Founding Principles."

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less
Thoughts on an Anniversary
A table with many books and candles on it
Photo by Ryan Wallace on Unsplash

Thoughts on an Anniversary

As part of a collaboration between The Fulcrum's NextGen initiative and Made By Us, The Fulcrum is publishing Letters to America, a series created through the Youth250 project that invites Gen Z to reflect on the nation’s past, present, and future as the United States approaches its 250th anniversary.

In small towns across the nation, in accordance with ours of Madison New Jersey, we will gather to recognize an anniversary. Though this milestone has been one of many, I ask that it not be a mere nod to the curiosities of the past, but the spark of an ongoing admiration for all that led us here.

Keep ReadingShow less