Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

U.S. Capitol.

As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns

The way that Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns. Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.

Arbitration could offer us a way out of this mess. In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate. This process would allow the Senate to make appropriations decisions by a majority vote while still protecting the minority’s interests.

Keep ReadingShow less
People sitting behind a giant American flag.

Over five decades, policy and corporate power hollowed out labor, captured democracy, and widened inequality—leaving America’s middle class in decline.

Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images

Our America: A Tragedy in Five Acts

America likes to tell itself stories about freedom, democracy, and shared prosperity. But beneath those stories, a quiet tragedy has unfolded over the last fifty years — enacted not with swords or bombs, but with legislation, court rulings, and corporate strategy. It is a tragedy of labor hollowed out, the middle class squeezed, and democracy captured, and it can be read through five acts, each shaped by a destructive force that charts the shredding of our shared social contract.

In the first act, productivity and pay part ways.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest ​Demonstrators holding up signs.

Demonstrators listen to speeches with other protesters during the "No Kings" protest on Oct. 18, 2025, in Portland, Oregon.

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images/TNS

In Every Banana Republic You Need Enablers

In any so-called banana republic you need enablers. President Donald Trump has Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito leading the charge. Johnson is pulling Congress along with the justices who are the most ferocious defenders of Trump on the Supreme Court. It just takes a handful of enablers to allow a king to assume his crown – or to have a banana republic. And these guys are exceptionally good at what they do.

And as jaywalking is only a crime if enforced, Trump is allowed to continue on doing whatever he wants without guardrails or fear of getting a ticket – just like most Americans feel about jaywalking: It’s against the law, but who really cares?

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

When Steve Bannon says Donald Trump should serve a third term, he’s not joking. He’s not even being coy. He’s laying ideological groundwork for a constitutional stress test that could redefine the limits of executive power in the United States.

Bannon was asked how Trump could legally serve a third term. “There’s many different alternatives,” Bannon told The Economist. "Trump is going to be president in '28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that. At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is."

Keep ReadingShow less