Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

There’s no emergency response plan for this government crisis

A crack in the Capitol Dome

We need a plan to fix what's wrong with Congress, writes Frazier.

zimmytws/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

Has it ever struck you as odd that cavemen didn’t have fire departments? After all, they discovered fire, right? The absence of this emergency service, though, makes a whole lot of sense given that cave folks weren’t in danger of burning anything down.

The upshot is that we’re only capable of designing emergency plans for the scenarios we’ve encountered or, at least, can imagine happening with some likelihood. So we don’t have much of an excuse for failing to plan for worst-case scenarios once we’ve experienced that storm, disaster, calamity, etc.

Just as cavemen had no reason to organize fire departments; the Founders had no reason to plan for Congress failing to operate. In fact, the Founders were scared more of legislative tyranny than legislative lethargy.


Pardon the brief lesson in constitutional design, but I promise it’s worth it.

In response to King George III’s manifold abuses, the Founding Fathers (understandably) became extremely opposed to excessive or unchecked power being held by the executive branch. That’s why states limited the powers available to their respective governors and why the Articles of Confederation (the predecessor to the Constitution) did not establish an executive branch. Welp. The Founders soon realized that their attempts to prevent one worst-case scenario (tyranny by a king) led to another (tyranny by legislatures).

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Rather than sit on their hands, the Founders responded to yet another governance debacle by picking up a quill and drafting the Constitution. This time around they distributed power across three different branches –the legislative, the judicial and, yes, the executive. Based on their experiences with ambitious officials attempting to exercise their powers to the fullest extent possible, Hamilton, Madison and the rest of the crew created a system of checks and balances. Under this system, each branch received specific powers as well as specific ways to rein in any egregious acts by the others. What the Founders did not anticipate was a branch coming to an absolute standstill, especially the legislative branch – the one they had come to fear most.

Fast forward 200-plus years and the cave is now on fire – Congress has come to a halt. Consider that the 118th Congress barely managed to pass 27 bills last year, which makes it one of the least productive in quite some time. And the future doesn’t seem to promise any legislative giddyup for at least two reasons: In the short run, election years rarely lead to major legislative initiatives given a turn in congressional focus to securing votes at home rather than on the House floor; in the long run, the House seems destined to become more legislatively lethargic due to entrenched partisanship. According to political scientist Larry Sabato, “One growing trend in American politics is that fewer and fewer members of the U.S. House hold districts that the other party won for president.” In other words, red districts will stay red and blue will stay blue.

Something's got to give. In this era of a politically paralyzed Congress, the other branches have exceeded their intended roles in order to fill a legislative lacuna – or at least that’s the common perception. Concerns about activist judges and a jump in executive orders have spread on both sides of the aisle. The cumulative result is a system that’s operating in a mode the Founders didn’t anticipate; there’s no escape route for this scenario.

Rather than accept this fate, we need to exercise the same agency as our forefathers. Let’s restart conversations about term limits; let’s revive discussions about campaign finance reform; let’s explore means to increase the public’s ability to hold their respective members accountable for inaction. I’m not endorsing any of these approaches but I’m vehemently opposing the status quo.

We’ve been stuck in this emergency situation for too long. Thankfully, we’ve proven capable of planning for and putting out fires before. We can do it again.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less