Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

James Madison’s nightmare

A Republican, if we can keep it: Part XXVII

James Madison
www.goodfreephotos.com

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.”

We are all characters in James Madison’s worst nightmare.

The plot of this bad dream is simple: Marginalized Americans are deviously tormented by an effort to reassign power from the federal government to the states. The antagonists are many: the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court, the ineffective and anemic Congress, well-funded interest groups, state officials, even those who espouse the dictates of Project 2025. The theme, like most nightmares, is terrifying: tyranny. Specifically, tyranny of the majority.


Madison’s reputation for brilliance comes partially from his ingenious solution to the curse of majority tyranny. Majorities, he insisted, can abuse just as cruelly as autocrats. Take states, for example. A permanent majority in the state legislature can trample on the rights of the minority without fear of reprisal. “By a faction,” he wrote in Federalist 10, he’s talking about those who are “actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions — interest groups and political parties in the modern vernacular — are wicked. They care mainly about their own welfare; the well-being of the community is a distant second.

Madison’s solution to this form of tyranny is dazzling. Instead of small-scale republics like states, the font of power, he reasoned, should always reside in Washington, where no single faction can gain a permanent majority. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.” The more geographically expansive the nation is, and the more distinctively diverse We the People are, the greater our freedom, the louder our voice and the closer we come to achieving justice.

The plot of our Madisonian nightmare includes several intersecting storylines. Most notably is the affinity of federal officials, especially on the right, to interpret the Constitution and federal statutes as if the United States is some kind of commonwealth, a voluntary association of independent sovereign states. I can assure you that a commonwealth America is not.

The most notorious antagonists in this nightmare are the Supreme Court justices. As Lala Wu recently wrote in Democracy Docket, “an under-the-radar consequence of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority is that it is poised to hand over unprecedented power to state governments.” Lawsuits involving environmental protection, health care, gun control, school curricula, diversity initiatives, even how we describe our collective past, are consistently falling the states’ way.

The Dobbs decision is just the most familiar case illustrating the transfer. Here, the Republican-appointed majority overturned Roe v. Wade and, in the process, empowered state officials to determine the extent to which women can seek legal abortions. Blue states can protect a woman’s access to reproductive health while red states can impose severe restrictions, or outlaw the procedure altogether. Madison would be horrified. Abortion seekers in red states, he would scream, are being tyrannized by the majority.

The Chevron deference case is equally frightening. Removing federal agencies as the executor of often-vague xongressional statutes will not only authorize judges to fill the breach, but also empower state officials. “States,” Rich Maloof, deputy director of the Senate President’s Forum, recently said, “are more than willing to shape policy in the abyss of federal inaction.”

Congress is also to blame. Members from both sides of the aisle seem content not only to write vague laws, but also to engage in more infighting than lawmaking. Productivity in Congress has steadily declined over the last 50 years.

Conservative influencers interest groups like the NRA, leaders of the Republican National Committee and GOP state committees, lobbyists, authors of Project 2025 and so on are expending enormous resources to galvanize support for a 10th Amendment revolution. In their mind, that particular addition to the Constitution no longer states “but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”

Can we turn this dystopian tale around? Of course. But we need to act, individually and collectively. First, Americans should take notice of the slow transfer of power. It’s happening all around us. Second, citizens must vote up and down the federalism ladder. State representatives are just as key to the lives of Americans as is the president or Congress. Third, we should raise our voices. Peaceful protest can bring much needed attention to those marginalized communities that are so often ignored by the majority. Fourth, we should work towards real constitutional and legal reform. Term limits for members of Congress, restructuring the federal courts, pursuing social and environmental justice initiatives, and holding our elected representatives accountable are all tangible actions that will help. Fifth, we should always remind our elected officials that they maintain their power only at the consent of the governed.

One thing is certain: Inaction will prolong this frightening dream. Our Madisonian nightmare will endure for as long as we remain passive to its plotlines. Let’s honor the wise counsel of the father of America’s Constitution and wake up.


Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less