Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

Opinion

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

An engraving from a painting of Patrick Henry delivering an address before the Virginia Assembly. From the New York Public Library.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

In Federalist 10, explaining some of the protections of the new Constitution in 1787, James Madison observed that, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….” The Founders defined tyranny as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers all being combined in the hands of a single individual or small group of people. So, they divided these three powers into separate and independent branches of the government that checked and balanced each other, preventing this accumulation of power. If, however, the people elected an authoritarian president and a legislature of toadies, who allowed this president to install a compliant judiciary, this protection could be lost. Hence, when asked shortly after the Constitutional Convention concluded in 1787 what the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Echoing Madison, the Supreme Court in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), wrote, “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln” as they overturned Lambden Milligan’s conviction before a military commission under martial law in Indiana during the Civil War. Milligan was charged with aiding a secret society that gave material support to the rebellion, conspiring to free Confederate prisoners, and conspiring to raid northern arsenals to come to the aid of the South. The Court’s five-member majority ruled that martial law could not be imposed in states where the civilian courts were open and functioning. Four members of the Court disagreed because state courts could be open and functioning but be in the hands of rebels. Martial law may again be tested, but more fundamental questions are how to prevent the rise of a tyrant in the first place and what remedies are available should the voters elect one.


Ignorance and superstition are fertile grounds for the rise of a dictator. The dictator will promise to bring it all under control. He/she will pander to the nation’s less-thinking and vicious actors. With their aid, he/she can become president, the legislature can be populated with toadies, and the courts packed with loyalists or otherwise deprived of their power. Independent media and press are gradually eliminated as only state-approved podcasts and other media are allowed to cover the executive and his subservient Congress and judges. Opposition leaders and parties are prevented from participation in rigged elections that maintain a democratic façade as in Russia. Loyal military leaders are installed. Public and private institutions are forced to toe the line and fire employees who dissent. The dictator may seek new territory for the nation.

A citizenry educated in American history and civics is essential. If citizens do not understand how the American government was designed to work and how they can control it, they will not trust it and will or may seek to overturn it. Citizens and leaders must understand that once the courts have finally adjudicated a matter, such as that an election was not stolen, that is to be the end of the matter.

John A. Ragosta’s recent book, For the People. For the Country: Patrick Henry’s Final Political Battle, describes how the elderly, retired, and frail Patrick Henry, who had initially opposed the new Constitution without amendments, answered George Washington’s call in 1799 to reenter politics to oppose Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky and Madison’s Virginia Resolutions. These Resolutions essentially called on states to nullify federal law, specifically the Alien and Sedition Acts, which outlawed criticizing Congress and President John Adams. Washington saw the Resolutions as threatening to destroy the nation.

In his last speech, Henry declared that overturning the government was justified only when oppression was intolerable and could not be otherwise addressed. He noted that our system allowed for offensive laws to be otherwise addressed in that they could be repealed or changed by the people’s elected representatives. He contrasted it with taxation without representation in Parliament and the ignored petitions to the King that had left the colonials with no means to otherwise address British oppression.

Patrick Henry would observe today that our system still provides a means for perceived oppression to be otherwise addressed. Should people complain that the period between a presidential election and the inauguration is too short for the court’s consideration of an election contest, there are ways to lengthen that period by a constitutional amendment to move the inauguration date or by legislation changing the date for the presidential election. Even where a “wicked man” is elected to the presidency, along with a legislature of toadies, the people can change that legislature in two years, potentially enabling impeachment, change the legislature and president in four years, and exercise First Amendment and other Constitutional protections. People can also seek protection in the courts.

Henry would presumably say today that as long as these remedies are available, they must be used. If a tyrant refused to abide by or effectively or outright terminated these interdependent rights and remedies, Henry would again declare, “give me liberty or give me death.”

Daniel O. Jamison is a retired attorney.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is sworn in as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Department of Homeland Security has faced criticism over it's handling of immigration enforcement leaving the department unfunded.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Kristi Noem deserved to get axed. After ignoring thousands of stories of officers detaining American citizens in violent, indiscriminate, unconstitutional roundups, posing for a gleeful photo-op at a hellacious El Salvadoran prison, labeling American protesters as domestic terrorists, and lying under oath multiple times, Democrats and even many Republicans lauded her exodus. Still, in what was a brief, volatile tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Noem transformed the agency charged with the protection of the American people into a theater for performative cruelty. Now, as the door hits Noem on the way out, it is important to note that her ouster was not a triumph of ethics or the law or even a sudden recollection of what competence looks like. Despite no lack of legitimate grounds for dismissal, most sources say the final straw was a $220 million ad blitz, possibly complicated by an alleged affair with her adviser. But who among Trump’s inner circle doesn’t come with a laundry list of wasteful spending and personal embarrassments? The rest of the Cabinet is chock full of unqualified Trump-loyalists demonstrating incompetence so regularly that in any other era they would have all resigned or been canned long ago. Given the purported reasons Noem was ultimately fired, and where the conversation has lingered since, to the untrained eye, it seems like Noem may have been the first to get the boot, at least in part because she’s not a man.

There’s nothing Noem did that another member of the cabinet or Trump himself couldn’t top. Consider the shameful tenure of our Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who engaged in intimate business deals with Epstein years after Epstein’s first conviction, and even planned family vacations to his private island. While Noem is fired for a $220 million ad buy, Lutnick remains the face of American business, despite once being in business with a convicted sex trafficker and lying about it. And our wannabe-fraternity-pledgemaster Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is, if possible, an even greater liability. Hegseth breached security protocol in his second month on the job and oversaw a record $93 billion of spending in a single month, $9 million going to king crab and lobster tails, and $15 million to ribeye steaks. More gravely, in his zeal to project “lethality," Hegseth gutted civilian harm mitigation programs by 90 percent; shortly thereafter, on his watch, in what is the most devastating single military error in modern history, the U.S. fired a Tomahawk missile into a school full of children, killing at least 168 children and 14 teachers. Noem may have turned federal agents against American civilians (which is not why she was fired), but Hegseth is committing war crimes around the globe.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less