Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Founders Built Safeguards. Our Politics Rendered Them Useless

When every constitutional check stalls, the voters remain the only safeguard the system still relies on

Opinion

The Founders Built Safeguards. Our Politics Rendered Them Useless
selective focus photo of U.S.A. flag
Photo by Andrew Ruiz on Unsplash

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 were students of history, and it taught them a singular lesson: power corrupts, and unchecked power can destroy a republic.

They designed our experiment with overlapping safeguards to ensure that no single faction, branch, or man could hold the nation hostage. What remained unresolved was agency: who, exactly, can determine when to trigger those safeguards? History has since exposed this as the system's deepest vulnerability.


The Constitution assigns Congress the power of impeachment but says nothing about the political will required to use it. It grants the cabinet the authority to remove an incapacitated president but assumes that cabinet members will prioritize constitutional duty over personal loyalty. It tasks Congress with checking executive overreach, yet it cannot compel a partisan legislature to act.

In each case, accountability mechanisms exist. The decision about when to use it was delegated to individuals in a political system. The Founders hoped this system would produce honorable leaders, though they could not guarantee it. Nearly two and a half centuries later, we are forced to confront the consequences when it fails to do so.

Impeachment has become a partisan exercise. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 for genuine incapacity, remains a theoretical option no cabinet has ever invoked, regardless of circumstances.

Congress is the branch the Founders designed to be the most powerful and responsive to the people. Yet it has retreated into near-total dysfunction, unable to check the executive even when majorities of its members privately believe it should.

One need look no further than April 7 for a clarifying illustration of how completely those safeguards have collapsed. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that "a whole civilization (Iran) will die tonight, never to be brought back again," coupled with vows to destroy every bridge and power plant in the country.

Legal experts quickly warned that threatened strikes on civilian infrastructure could be war crimes. Congressional Democrats demanded that Republicans invoke the 25th Amendment or call Congress back for impeachment. Neither happened. Congressional Republicans stayed mostly silent. The cabinet did not meet. Congress remained on vacation. The guardrails, in other words, held as well as they ever did now—not at all.

Article II of the Constitution states the president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is intentionally vague. The Founders knew future abuses might take unexpected forms.

They did not anticipate the Senate trial becoming a foregone conclusion before the first witness was called. Now, acquittal or conviction is predetermined by the party that holds the chamber. When a remedy exists only on paper and cannot be applied, it is not a remedy; it is theater.

The 25th Amendment presents a different, but equally sobering, dilemma. Section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare a president unable to discharge his duties. It has never been used. Not once.

The issue is not that modern presidents have never shown troubling behavior. Instead, cabinet members are political appointees loyal to the person who selected them, not to an abstract constitutional duty.

The question is not if April 7 alone warranted action but whether any situation today would prompt the Cabinet to act.

And then there is Congress, or rather, the hollow shell where Congress used to be. The body the Founders envisioned as the most muscular branch of government was also the branch closest to the people. It has spent decades ceding authority to the executive. At the same time, it has become too partisan to use the powers it keeps.

The Founders feared factionalism above almost everything else. George Washington devoted much of his Farewell Address to warning against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party."

James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, acknowledged the danger of faction. He believed the constitutional structure would contain it. He was right about the danger, and wrong about the cure. The constitutional structure did not contain faction. Faction consumed it.

None of this means the republic is doomed. But we must be honest about the distance between the Founders’ safeguards and today’s political culture. Impeachment is a high bar. The 25th Amendment is even higher. Yet a system that refuses even to ask whether those bars have been reached has forgotten how to protect itself.

One check remains—the voters. Whether that is enough is the defining question of our time.

Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less