Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Let’s celebrate our unnatural Constitution

Let’s celebrate our unnatural Constitution
Getty Images
Thomas Kelly
By Thomas KellySep 18, 2023
Thomas Kelly
See More Writings by author

Kelly is the Vice President of Civics Initiatives at the Jack Miller Center , a nationwide network of scholars and teachers committed to advancing the core texts and ideas of the American political tradition. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and earned his JD at the University of Notre Dame.

“Our kids don’t know the Constitution.” It’s a complaint I hear a lot as I oversee teacher education programs for my organization the Jack Miller Center (JMC). But what if “knowing” the Constitution requires more than knowledge of what’s in it?

Recently, with partners at Sphere Initiative and Lou Frey Institute, we hosted more than 60 Florida social studies teachers and curriculum supervisors for a Civics Summit at the University of Central Florida. Sessions focused on the Florida Civic Literacy Exam which requires familiarity with foundational principles and texts and a deep understanding of the Constitution.

Together we studied Congress’ enumerated powers, the necessary and proper clause, and the amendment process—but it wasn’t any of these constitutional provisions that seemed to most resonate with teachers. Instead it was the ideas not explicitly stated but essential to our Constitution—akin to what Danielle Allen describes in her book Talking to Strangers as “customary habits of citizenship” and “unspoken norms of interaction” that underlie our Constitution. JMC partner professor Alberto Coll detailed some of these unspoken customs in one session: a belief in the corruptibility of human beings—men are not angels to paraphrase James Madison in Federalist 51; the importance of separation of powers, and particularly judicial independence; a belief in natural rights—rights that we have inherently as human beings that are “endowed by our Creator.”

And yet, despite its foundation in natural rights, Professor Coll reminded the audience that if we look at human history our system of government can hardly be described as natural. The regular course of affairs is that “might makes right,” that as Thucydides observed “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” The natural condition of man is tyranny.

The genius of our Constitution is not that it assumes the opposite—that man is by nature good—but rather that it resists man’s natural corruptibility through a complex arrangement of institutions. The counterbalancing of these institutions make freedom possible. Over the course of the day it became clear that the Constitution does not so much create freedom, as allow it to flourish.

In the eight years that I’ve been involved in middle and high school civics and history, when it comes to constitutional education, this broader view of our nation’s charter is what is most lacking—we’re missing the forest for the trees. JMC partner professor Greg Weiner alluded to this several years ago in a piece he wrote titled “ This Constitution Day, Teach the Whole Document.” His point was that too often constitutional education in K-12 and the undergraduate level focuses on the Bill of Rights, to the exclusion of the seven articles that make up the body of the Constitution. He’s not wrong about this. A recent RAND study showed that teaching rights and responsibilities ranks significantly higher among teacher civic education priorities than teaching the political institutions that make up the body of the Constitution.

But it’s not just that teachers need to address the whole document. Teachers need to help students consider the unwritten ideas, the ideas that the document assumes. After all, ours is the shortest constitution in the world—it assumes a lot.

During our civics summit for Florida teachers I closed out a panel discussion on the Constitution by asking whether the anti-federalist critique of the Constitution—that the expanded republic contemplated by the document would inevitably undermine civic virtue—was correct. We didn’t have time to dig into that question, but several teachers nodded along. It’s a critique that I’ve heard a number of times over the years—our Constitution doesn’t do enough to encourage civic responsibility.

It's perfectly natural to think of the Constitution as a complete, one-stop shop for civic and political life in America, including the expected behavior and conduct of citizens. Efficiency and good government would seem to require a central plan around which our lives can be organized. But ours is an unnatural Constitution. As Yuval Levin has explained, it aims not for efficiency but for unity amid diversity. It is not a totalizing framework, but one that makes space for most of political and social life to be determined outside its specific provisions. Civic responsibility must be derived from other sources.

With Jack Miller Center teacher programming, we try to help teachers look beyond the usual Supreme Court precedents. Before we jump into the Bill of Rights, before the articles, before even the preamble, our programs discuss the vision of government and society not spelled out in the document. This Constitution Day let’s celebrate what’s left out of our Constitution and the freedom it implies—let’s celebrate our unnatural Constitution.


Latest news

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026