Is our Constitution in crisis? Or did it create one? In this episode of Deconstructed from IVN, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino, Ph.D., joins T.J. O'Hara to discuss the structural challenges of the Constitution that have contributed to the growing political stalemate in our Nation's capital. Dr. Sheehan Zaino is a Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Iona College and a regular contributor to Bloomberg Television and Radio.
From left, Marilyn Quayle, former U.S. Vice Presidents Al Gore and Mike Pence, Karen Pence, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former U.S. President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, former U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, Melania Trump, U.S. President Joe Biden, first lady Jill Biden U.S. Vice President...
Like children, former presidents should be seen, but not heard. I say that with deep respect for the men who were privileged enough to serve as presidents of the United States and are alive today. Historically, we have not heard the repeated voices of former presidents during the term of another president, that is, until today. Call it respect for the position, the person, and yes, the American people.
We get one president at a time. It is not like a football game and the commentary shows after it, in which we can play the Monday morning quarterback and coach, constantly second-guessing decisions made by the team. The comments – “he should have done this” or “I would have done X” – are not needed or desired.
But there is much more that former presidents can do. In particular, they can work to strengthen their political party by raising money and sharing their insights and ideas. They could mentor rising talent within their party. But all of these things can be done where “they are seen, but not heard.”
Today, if they truly feel we are on the verge of losing our democracy and becoming a banana republic, they are best positioned to rally a movement to convene a constitutional convention. Article five of our Constitution states that “two-thirds of state legislatures can apply for a national convention to propose amendments.” Former presidents have the name recognition, clout, and ability to raise the money to make this a reality.
Once a convention has been convened to amend the Constitution, to make it better, make it stronger, make it “king proof,” then the former presidents would have truly helped our nation.
But for former presidents to just give “old and tired” speeches and throw rocks on occasion is beneath them and can be counterproductive. They should think “outside the box” instead, and create a new lane.
For example, they could put an end to future federal government shutdowns by pushing to adopt an amendment that would penalize the president, vice president and every member of Congress if they do not pass a budget on time and complete all government funding bills. We could fine them 25% of their adjusted gross income and we will never have another shutdown again.
Granted, it is tough to listen to President Donald Trump speaking and acting like a king. He often shows no respect for our institutions – including Congress and the federal courts as he easily holds the dubious distinction of being the most litigious president in U.S. history. He gives new meaning to the term “bully pulpit.” We have and probably never will see another president as brazen as Trump.
Heck, I remember then-candidate Trump saying, and I paraphrase, that he could “do harm” to someone in the middle of New York’s Fifth Avenue and get away with it. I saw it as hyperbole, but today… well, I do not know.
When a president relishes “just killing people” in reference to more than a dozen strikes on small defenseless boats near the coast of Venezuela and insisting that he can do so without seeking a declaration of war vote from Congress, it is more than disturbing. These boats may be running afoul of the law but instead of killing people, there is a justice system and international laws that we prize as Americans.
So, today it is killing people on small boats in the ocean who are allegedly involved in drug trafficking, and tomorrow it “could” be the random killing of Americans allegedly involved in drug trafficking in our cities, all without due process. That is not the America I know and love.
On the more mundane level, there is no doubt that there are many reasons for even dead presidents to be turning over in their graves. Many, if they could shed tears, would cry many due to any part of the White House being destroyed – like we have witnessed in recent days with Trump’s demolition of the East Wing, all done without any consultation with Congress.
Of grave concern are the following:
1. A president who can turn America’s neighbor to the North, Canada, one of the U.S.’s closest trading partners and prior best friend, into a foe due to his tariff demands, and Trump’s inane rhetoric about wanting to annex the country.
2. A president who travels the world while an impotent Congress is AWOL and while 42 million Americans are on the brink of losing food assistance.
Still, I say to the living former presidents that they should be seen (if they care to), but not heard.
There are numerous reasons for this, but I do not want to disparage any of the men who served honorably in the toughest job in the world. It would simply be a “cheap shot,” and I refused to stoop that low.
Suffice it to say, however, that I will repeat a familiar dictum that should hopefully suffice – “He who lives in glass houses should not throw any stones.”
None of the former presidents were universally loved and many were resented by nearly half, if not the majority, of Americans when they left office. Some of their acts as president only conjure up bad memories. Bad mouthing by former presidents also allows the incumbent to blame all the country’s woes on them, and allows the incumbent to make the case that he is the savior, the one cleaning up messes left by their predecessors. Nearly all former presidents over the decades have understood the aforementioned fact.
Lastly, as a former president you are uniquely qualified to know what would cause a president to change his behavior or direction on policy. My suggestion is a “no confidence” vote of the state legislatures which would cause a wayward president to “slow down” a bit. No president would like to hold this infamous and dubious distinction not given to any of his predecessors that X number of state houses and state senates would express the opinion of the people via a no confidence vote.
Thus, former presidents are not like children. They are far more knowledgeable, and some have admirable talents. On the other hand, children have former presidents beat in other areas. Children are much “cuter” than former presidents and far less likely to irritate half the country, just their parents from time to time.
Gary Franks served three terms as a congressman from Connecticut’s 5th District. He was the first Black conservative elected to Congress and first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years. Host: Podcast "We Speak Frankly" www.garyfranksphilanthropy.org
"Make America Great Again" is a great slogan. The problem is that Trump's MAGA is a deceit. Each and every principle of MAGA—either in concept or in execution— does not make America great again. Instead, it makes America smaller. Let me explain.
The overarching theme of MAGA is "America First." It is to that end that illegal immigrants are being deported; that wokeness is being eliminated from all Federal and Federally-funded programs; that tariffs are being placed on foreign-produced goods; that regulation of business is being rolled back; that the America working man and farmers are being supported; and that we are returning to our founding principles.
That sounds great. But let's look deeper at each aspect.
Before I do that, though, what made America great to begin with? I think that everyone would agree that our system of government—a government elected by and responsible to the people, where all people have basic rights, and where no one has absolute power—were core principles that made America great.
The second thing that made America great was our workforce. America opened its arms for more than a century to massive waves of immigrants to inhabit its vast space and work it. Most of the immigrants—our ancestors—arrived here penniless with no education. But America offered them the opportunity to gain an education, to work, and to own land. They and America prospered together.
The third thing that made America great was the brilliance of America's titans of industry. Whether it was Vanderbilt or Rockefeller or Carnegie or Morgan or Ford—these men not only built financial empires, they built American industry and transportation into a world-leading force that made America great and powerful.
However, they were also ruthless and had no consideration for the well-being of workers. They were known as the Robber Barons because they achieved their power by exploiting and abusing both their workers and the environment. By the turn of the 20th century, America had had enough of their power and abuse of workers; President Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) started the Progressive movement that reigned in the power of big corporations and focused on public welfare.
The fourth thing that made America great was the land itself. Without the bounty that nature provided there would be no greatness in America because there would be no basis for economic might.
So with that understanding, how do the elements of MAGA work out?
1. Illegal Immigration: Both parties agree that illegal immigration must be stopped at the border. They differ on what to do with the 11 million who have been living here for years, mostly working and paying taxes (yes, illegal immigrants pay taxes).
Trump says they are criminals and should all be deported. As I have noted in another article, "Defining the Democrat v Republican Battle," those are not the facts.
And so Democrats should argue that if an illegal is a convicted criminal, yes, deport that person. But otherwise they should be given a path to citizenship. These people are very much in the tradition of earlier immigrants—they are hard-working, they are raising families, and they are contributing to American enterprise, usually in jobs that American workers have no interest in.
2. Eliminate DEI programs (wokeness) from all Federal and Federally-funded programs: The Declaration of Independence states explicitly that "all men are created equal." That means exactly what it seems on its face to mean—see my article, "What Exactly Does 'Equal' Mean in the Declaration of Independence."
Being aware of the discrimination that women, Blacks, people of color generally, LGBTQ people, and others have suffered in their attempt to live their lives and pursue their dreams is "wokeness." Given the centrality to the Declaration of Independence of the right of all people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness and government's role being to "secure that right"—DEI (Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion) programs are as American as apple pie and so should not be deleted from government programs.
Giving more people the ability to make the most of their lives through true equal opportunity is consistent with what made America great. However, two outgrowths of wokeness—preferential treatment and politically incorrect speech—are not consistent with the American way and should be rejected. See my "Defining the Battle" article noted above.
3. Tariffs and Regulatory Rollback: The basic idea is hard to argue with: protect American business from foreign competition and don't restrict their profit-making ability. But there are two problems.
The first is that tariffs applied broadly, as Trump has done, don't work. Historically, they end up harming a country's economy and industry. Open markets help American industry, but they must be implemented in a way so that the American worker is not harmed.
Second, most regulation of business has as its purpose the protection of workers, consumers, or the public good. As such, these are essential to the health of our country and its citizens. Corporations receive the benefits of incorporation because they provide a benefit to society. This social aspect of corporations is critical to making America great. See my post, "Towards a Reformed Capitalism."
4. Support for the American worker and farmer: This is of critical importance to making America great again. The problem is that Trump talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk.
Trump passed enumerable Executive Orders in this first 100 days, but the purpose of most was to aid big business; none were focused on improving the financial situation of the American worker. The dream of tariffs creating more American jobs is just that. What tariffs are doing is raising the cost of living for workers.
And as for farmers, his tariffs are creating huge losses by killing the Chinese market for soybeans, and increasing the price of tractors and fertilizers. Also, many of Trump's cutbacks to Federal programs as well as his immigration policies are having a significant negative impact on rural communities.
5. Returning to our founding principles: There is indeed nothing more important than returning to the principles articulated in our founding documents.
However, liberals and conservatives—let alone MAGA adherents—have major differences in the interpretation of those principles. As I related in my article, "The Far-RIght's Biggest Lie," the far-right has deceitfully spun the meaning of those principles by omitting from their interpretation the impact of the Declaration's central principle of the equality of all men. They thus have no consideration of the impact of their actions on the rights of others. Their interpretation would bring us back to the days of the Robber Barrons.
Trump has also eviscerated the core principle of the balance of power that the Founders created to ensure that no one person would have absolute power.
Make America Great Again is a wonderful slogan. But Trump does not understand what made America great or what is needed to make it great again.
Democrats do. It's when everyone—business owners and workers, the public and politicians— act in synergy towards a common goal, not in conflict. And what is that common goal? It is a country seeking to implement the principles, the promise, of the Declaration of Independence.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
An excavator sits on the rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished on Oct. 28, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The demolition is part of U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to build a ballroom on the eastern side of the White House.
Here’s the problem with fuming over the bricks and mortar that was once the East Wing of the White House: The time and energy should go to understanding and reacting to the damage the administration has already caused to our institutions and ideals.
Here are just a few of them: The chaos the administration is inflicting on higher education, its attacks on court precedents upholding voting rights, disregard for public policy that looks out for farmers and other working people trying to build or maintain a decent middle-class way of life, not to mention the chaos the administration is unleashing around the world.
Here are further examples of Trump-inspired damage (in case you needed more):
– The administration has now killed at least 57 people in the southern hemisphere, blown up in boats that Trump claims (without evidence) were carrying drugs. The fiery murders in open waters were carried out by drones. The deaths have now spread from the coasts of Venezuela and the Caribbean to the Pacific Ocean near Mexico.
– An ad featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking out against tariffs back in 1987 stuck in President Donald Trump’s craw. Reagan’s address undercut Trump’s adoration of tariffs as a bargaining chip, pointing out the limitations of such a strategy, a view also shared by leading economists. The ad so angered Trump that he vowed to hit Canada with new tariffs, a childish reaction untethered from economic principle.
– The administration is itching to send National Guard troops into American cities (or at least those deemed crime-ridden and democratically controlled). This is dangerous for public safety and for civil liberties. It is also a step toward normalizing the idea of using the U.S. military as a force not to protect the nation, but to police its citizens.
– Speaking of U.S. citizens, ProPublica has documented 170 cases of citizens being detained or arrested at immigration raids or protests. The people, a few of whom were pregnant, have been held without access to attorneys or their families.
– The Supreme Court has temporarily granted the government the right to use race as a precursor in Los Angeles for stopping people suspected of immigration violations, all but putting a scarlet letter on anyone darker in skin tone or speaking a language other than English. Given that the administration’s goal is ramping up deportations, rogue or inadequately trained agents are incentivized to act with impunity.
– Thousands of Americans are eyeing their cupboards, unsure of how they’ll feed their families without the help of government assistance. Others will soon decide to forgo health insurance, unable to afford escalating premiums. Both the intricacies of healthcare and food assistance are issues that could be managed by a responsible, less partisan Congress.
– Congressional maps are being redrawn, without the guidance of new census figures. This is a brazen maneuver of gerrymandering. It began with the Republican-led states of Texas and Missouri, which are hopeful to steal congressional seats from Democrats. Democrats are lining up to perform their own version of this subverting of fairness in voting rights.
But go ahead, shed a few tears, spend a few minutes rampaging on social media about the late East Wing. Unfortunately, its demolition is merely the latest bull in the China-shop tantrum of our petulant president.
The East Wing’s destruction does deserve news coverage, just not at the expense of other issues.
A 1,000-person, 90,000 square foot ballroom is planned to replace the wing. This will not be the last time that Trump pursues gaudy glamour, which he’s long misinterpreted as a marker of class. Rest assured, there will be more gold leaf.
Trump’s ardent fans love the temper tantrums that Democrats are throwing over the East Wing. The louder the left’s outcry, the more robust MAGA supporters jeer. For some, recklessness from the White House is proof of Trump’s visionary status.
The more honest assessment is the appeal of a rebel. Trump might as well be James Dean to some voters. They’ll cheer his every move if it appears to anger liberals. The problem is that while everyone is focused on the outrage, Trump will be skirting off elsewhere to cause even greater damage.
Don’t miss far more serious administration blows against the sanctity of voting rights, individual liberties to peacefully protest, sane trade policy, and the morality of the U.S. in how it conducts itself globally.
Rather, Americans need to accept that the Trump administration calls for democracy-watching by triage. We need to choose carefully where to focus, for impact, and the ability to limit the destruction effectively.
Mary Sanchez is a reporter and writer who examines the cultural changes sweeping across America.
U.S. President Donald Trump displays an executive order he signed announcing tariffs on auto imports in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, March 26, 2025.
Julius Caesar still casts a long shadow. We have a 12-month calendar — and leap year — thanks to Julius. July is named after him (though the salad isn’t). The words czar and kaiser, now mostly out of use, simply meant “Caesar.”
We also can thank Caesar for the durability of the term “dictator.” He wasn’t the first Roman dictator, just the most infamous one. In the Roman Republic, the title and authority of “dictator” was occasionally granted by the Senate to an individual to deal with a big problem or emergency. Usually, the term would last no more than six months — shorter if the crisis was dealt with — because the Romans detested anything that smacked of monarchy.
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon (where we get that phrase) his enemies in the Senate fled. So, the remaining senators named him dictator for 11 days to hold fresh elections. His second dictatorship was set for 10 years, and then finally he was named dictator for life.
In the centuries that followed Caesarism, not dictatorship, was the real dirty word, at least for lovers of liberty.
Even in America, dictator held onto some of that “emergency problem-solver” connotation. During the Great Depression, many Americans craved just such a man. Legendary liberal columnist Walter Lippmann wrote at the dawn of the Great Depression, “A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead.”
On FDR’s Inauguration Day 1933, the New York Herald-Tribune ran an approving headline: “For Dictatorship If Necessary.” Many aides and Cabinet secretaries were dubbed “dictators” in much the same way we sometimes call officials “czars” — as in drug czars, border czars, even “green jobs czar,” etc.
Later it was Hitler and Stalin who erased most of the “Mr. Fix-it” connotation of “dictator.”
But the real cautionary tale was there from the beginning. Dictatorship — the granting of unchecked powers during a temporary emergency — is what makes Caesarism possible. By giving one person the “arbitrary power” to declare war, levy taxes or hand out favors to sustain his popularity with the plebes, the temptation to become a Caesar is too great.
Some — like Cincinnatus, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln — can resist, but all you need is one lesser mortal to be granted undue power for the whole experiment in republican government to come crashing down. This was the history of republics until 1789, which is why Ben Franklin described the end result of the Constitutional Convention as “a republic, if you can keep it.”
The founders were steeped in Roman history. The Constitution is designed to prevent such temptation. But the founders also understood that sometimes a president should have extraordinary powers during an emergency. After all, the institution of a dictator had helped preserve the Roman Republic for centuries until Caesar’s Caesarism made it an empire.
In short, emergency powers are necessary only during actual emergencies. There’s a long history of American presidents declaring emergencies not to solve a crisis but to gain the power crises confer. Joe Biden tried to use the COVID-19 pandemic to cancel $430 billion in student loans he had no authority to cancel.
President Trump has declared a trade imbalance a national emergency. He claims the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 — a law that doesn’t mention the word “tariff” — grants him total, unchecked power to levy tariffs to deal with that emergency. He’s used that alleged authority to punish Brazil — with whom we have a trade surplus — because its current government is prosecuting a Trump ally who also tried to steal an election.
And just last week, Trump announced that a pro-free trade ad bought by the government of Ontario using the words of President Reagan is justification for raising tariffs on all of Canada by another 10 percent. Not counting oil, we have a trade surplus with Canada, too. And we buy so much oil from Canada because they sell it to us at a below-market rate.
These are not emergencies. Nor are trade deficits, generally. Is it an emergency that you have a trade deficit with your local grocery store?
Trump’s lawyers have argued that denying the president this permanent and unlimited power would be disastrous, which itself is a Caesarist argument: I must have unchecked power to keep you safe.
IEEPA requires Congress to review the president’s actions every six months. But congressional Republicans have changed the rules to deny themselves the ability to check the authority Trump is abusing.
Trump is not a dictator, but as Benjamin Franklin understood, republics fail not so much because would-be Caesars seize power. They fail because cowards give it to them — under the false pretense of an emergency.
Donald Trump Isn’t a Dictator, but His Goal May Actually Be Worse was originally published the Tribune Content Agency.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
