Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Party leaders bear responsibility too

A Republic, if we can keep it: Part XXVII

U.S. Constitution

Article I of the Constitution enumerates the power of Congress. Article II, concerning the presidency, is more vague.

Sara Swann/The Fulcrum

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.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a 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.”

As we approach what for many is the most important American election since 1860, let’s take a moment to reflect on a few constitutional characteristics. These principles are offered in the hope that they sharpen our focus about what’s at stake on Nov. 5.


The Constitution was drafted to swaddle America’s periphery. What I mean by that is the Constitution and its amendments were written in good part to protect those who don’t identify with the mainstream and/or choose not to follow convention. The Constitution’s First Amendment, for example, safeguards the free expression of flag burner Gregory Lee Johnson and youthful cross burner, R.A.V. Its Fourth Amendment shields gambler Dolly Mapp and pot smoker Danny Lee Kyllo from warrantless searches. Its Eighth Amendment secures gender affirming medical care for Kaunatica Zayre-Brown. Its Fourteenth Amendment acknowledges — dignifies, really — the same sex marriage of James Obergefell and John Arthur. And that same Fourteenth Amendment? Well, it too shelters little Linda Brown and an entire race of children who just want to be educated in one of our nation’s integrated schools.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Constitution is purposefully vague, and throughout history that has served us well. In describing the Constitution’s imprecision, Chief Justice John Marshall said it best: “only [the Constitution’s] great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.” In other words, the Constitution should not (and cannot) anticipate every possible scenario, situation, issue and crisis. Why is this crucial? Because the text’s vague quality allows government to pivot when needed, to respond creatively and thoughtfully to problems, and to adapt to changing times and changing circumstances.

At roughly 4,500 words, the Constitution is brief. Very brief. Article II, covering executive authority, is particularly concise. It differs dramatically from Article I in that it doesn’t include an enumerated list of formal powers. Sure, Article II “vests power in a President of the United States” and grants that president authority to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, execute the laws and command the armed forces. But the fine details are missing. Nowhere in Article II is the equivalent to Article I’s granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce among the several states, “establish post offices and post roads” and so on. The brevity of Article II makes a difference looking forward. The guardrails that more or less confine congressional action are not present in the executive branch section. In the past, presidents have mostly followed George Washington’s example and preached modest restraint. But we’re now in a new political reality where presidential self-control is not guaranteed.

James Madison understood all of this. So did Abraham Lincoln. Even Ronald Reagan recognized that America’s fundamental law is the country’s mission statement — our plan for forming “a more perfect Union” — and a powerful screen against the potential abuse of a mainstream populace sitting comfortably in the seats of power. Indeed, nothing limits the dominance of the majority more than the “parchment barrier” of our constitutional charter. It was written and ratified precisely to do so.

Today, Democrats and Republicans have either forgotten or ignored these constitutional characteristics. Take the Democratic Party. Its coalition of blue-collar workers, people of color, Catholics and Jews, disproportionally younger and older Americans, immigrants, and the highly educated is cracking. It is cracking because the party elites have taken the coalition for granted and have dismissed the interests of so many. It should come as no surprise that Hispanic and Black people have been leaving the Democratic Party as of late. The party’s promise to listen to, and swaddle, those without a bullhorn is suspect at best.

The Republicans are no better. There is a clear split between the MAGA GOP and the Reagan Republicans, the new guard and the old. MAGA Republicans feel empowered right now. And yet their brand of Republicanism bears no resemblance to the Republican Party that Lincoln founded. Project 2025 represents the MAGA slice of the party and it envisions an America where the progress made on civil rights, freedom for all and equal justice is a misstep. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, whose organization led Project 2025, takes direct aim at the left’s “woke culture warriors” and in the process throws shade on those individuals who don’t subscribe to his image of Christian nationalism. These more strident right-wingers don’t even recognize their own hypocrisy. They claim leftist elites “resent Americans’ audacity in insisting that we don’t need them to tell us how to live.” And then they proceed to tell Americans exactly how to live. As a white, Christian, heterosexual male? Sure. As a nonbinary, queer, Black, non-believer? Not so much.

Under a constitutional system where those on the periphery are supposed to be shielded from the majority’s tendency to disregard and mistreat, neither party is excelling. Under a constitutional system where the text is purposefully vague, both parties have to remain vigilant to the potential for abuse. Under a constitutional system where Article II allows the president wide discretion, all political parties have a responsibility to discipline their candidates and their elected officials.

There is not one Constitution for liberals and a separate one for conservatives. Constitutions serve the downtrodden as much as they do the fortunate, the relegated as much as the relevant. Party leaders would be wise to put down their verbal bayonets and think seriously about a common path forward.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, dcsliminky

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

In response to Trump’s takeover threats, Canadian coffee shops and cafés are rebranding the Americano beverage as the “Canadiano.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

Republican and Democratic representatives discussed the fiscal state of the United State in a House Budget hearing on May 7, 2025

Huiyan Li | Medill News Service

Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

WASHINGTON –– Republicans and Democrats clashed on May 7 at a House Budget Committee hearing over how to address the nation’s mounting federal debt—whether to raise revenue through tax increases or cut spending on federal programs such as Medicaid.

Both parties agreed that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path and that urgent action is needed to prevent a debt crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

Under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, people who earned more than $400,000 a year paid a top tax rate of 92%. Today's top rate is 37%.

Adobe Stock

Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

Reports of the Trump administration considering taxing wealthy Americans to pay for mass deportations and other priorities come on the heels of a new study showing how the move could generate significant revenues without slowing economic growth.

Mary Eschelbach Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University and the report's co-author, said raising tax rates for people who earn more than $609,000 a year to 44% would add 3% to the nation's tax coffers, enough to stave off cuts to popular programs serving low-income Coloradans.

"In current budget proportions, that's about enough to pay for some of the biggest, most important programs like food stamps SNAP, Children's Health Insurance Program, and also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," Eschelbach Hansen outlined.

While 44% may seem high compared to today's top rate of 37%, it is a lot less than the 92% paid by people who earned more than $400,000 a year under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Republicans have long argued tax cuts create economic benefits for all, and leaders in Congress, including Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., the House Speaker, have said they would oppose any tax hikes.

Eschelbach Hansen argued raising the top tax rate would also increase how much of the national income pie most Americans get to keep, compared to how much the wealthiest get, by about 2%. She added years of trickle-down economics have shown only the wealthy benefit from low tax rates.

"If lowering top tax rates was going to trickle down, then you and I would be much richer than we are now," Eschelbach Hansen pointed out. "Because we have had an era of low top tax rates for decades."

Eschelbach Hansen stressed higher personal tax rates have virtually no impact on long-term economic growth, and lower personal tax rates lead to less economic growth, because people tend to take advantage of the lower rate by moving their income.

"Instead of reinvesting it in your business, where it will grow your business and grow the economy, you'll be more likely to just take it as personal income, which is not going to stimulate growth," Eschelbach Hansen explained.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Treasury Secretary Bessent Foreshadows Trade Deals With Major Economic Partners

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talks with Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-NC, after testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee May 6, 2025.

Athan Yanos/MNS.

Treasury Secretary Bessent Foreshadows Trade Deals With Major Economic Partners

WASHINGTON – Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attempted to reassure Americans about the state of the U.S. economy, despite President Donald Trump’s major economic changes and the instability they have brought to the stock market.

“In the first 100 days of the new administration, we have set the table for a robust economy that allows Main Street to grow with Congress and the White House working hand in hand. We expect to see even more positive results over the next few months,” Bessent told the House Appropriations Committee last week.

Keep ReadingShow less