Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

An untapped constitutional clause could rein in big tech

U.S. Constitution
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

Our Constitution contains an empty promise.

Article IV, Section 4 (known as the guarantee clause) imposes a duty on the federal government: Congress, the courts and the president “shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” This promise is admittedly a difficult one to fulfill. Unclear language, though, cannot justify this status quo.


The Founders had a clear understanding that republican liberty must receive federal protection. In short, per Seattle University law professor Kip Hustace, the clause "obligates the federal government to redress domination where it arises.” Realization of this promise cannot wait. Massive corporations increasingly dominate the social and economic lives of Americans, in part due to the failure of state governments to curb the power of those companies.

Much of the Constitution places constraints on the federal government — clearly specifying what it may not do. The guarantee clause, however, places an affirmative responsibility on each branch to step in when states diverge from republican values and systems. Yet, like a coach who tells you to simply “do better,” the clause falls to provide specific instructions.

Scholars, judges and all those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution have long debated various aspects of the clause. Does it really place a duty on each branch of government? What qualifies as a republican form of government? How should the federal government intervene if a state does fall off the republican path? The difficulty of these questions and the ramifications of some answers to those questions have led the clause to become the equivalent of a dormant volcano — no one doubts it contains tremendous power, but few expect that power to ever be unleashed. Courts have generally avoided interpreting the clause. Congress has very rarely invoked the promise. And, presidents have only addressed it on a few occasions.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Those under oath to uphold the Constitution do not get to avoid its more complex and uncertain provisions. It would have been nice if the Founding Fathers had added a detailed footnote on their expectations for the clause. That omission is not an excuse for constitutional neglect. A more robust engagement with the meaning of the clause reveals some fundamental principles of republican governance that the Founders sought to protect.

The capacity to self govern is at the core of a republican form of governance. The founding generation had a very specific understanding of whether an individual had that capacity. They specified that only “free agents” could actively participate in governance. Others — those controlled by or dependent upon a private or public actor — lacked the independence to make neutral decisions for the good of the community.

Today, corporations such as Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta dominate the lives of millions of Americans. A few facts shared by former Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) reveals the constellation of corporate control that confines republican liberty: Amazon captures 70 percent of all online marketplace sales; more than 100 million Americans use an iPhone and, by extension, rely on Apple's selection of apps, financial services and media; Google is responsible for 90 percent of searches online and, consequently, directs much of our online activity; and Meta operates the most popular social media platforms and shapes America’s information ecosystem.

Corporations of this size and scale did not exist at the founding. Madison, Washington and others had no reason to include a specific “watch out for multinational corporations” clause. They nevertheless had the wisdom to place an affirmative duty on the federal government to watch out for all threats to republican governance in the states. That duty continues today.

States, as the political authorities that incorporate companies like the Big Four, have the power and responsibility to make sure that corporations do not infringe on our capacity to self-govern. Yet, Americans today find it harder and harder to pursue their entrepreneurial ideas, to seek out information that has not been delivered to them via an algorithm, to live their daily lives without concern about their data being collected, aggregated and sold.

The cumulative control over our daily lives exercised by just a few large companies is very much a threat to republican governance. How best to respond to that threat is a difficult question. The first step, though, is acknowledging that the status quo is not only problematic, but unconstitutional.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

Read More

The American Schism in 2025: The New Cultural Revolution

A street vendor selling public domain Donald Trump paraphernalia and souvenirs. The souvenirs are located right across the street from the White House and taken on the afternoon of July 21, 2019 near Pennslyvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, P_Wei

The American Schism in 2025: The New Cultural Revolution

A common point of bewilderment today among many of Trump’s “establishment” critics is the all too tepid response to Trump’s increasingly brazen shattering of democratic norms. True, he started this during his first term, but in his second, Trump seems to relish the weaponization of his presidency to go after his enemies and to brandish his corrupt dealings, all under the Trump banner (e.g. cyber currency, Mideast business dealings, the Boeing 747 gift from Qatar). Not only does Trump conduct himself with impunity but Fox News and other mainstream media outlets barely cover them at all. (And when left-leaning media do, the interest seems to wane quickly.)

Here may be the source of the puzzlement: the left intelligentsia continues to view and characterize MAGA as a political movement, without grasping its transcendence into a new dominant cultural order. MAGA rose as a counter-establishment partisan drive during Trump’s 2016 campaign and subsequent first administration; however, by the 2024 election, it became evident that MAGA was but the eye of a full-fledged cultural shift, in some ways akin to Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Should States Regulate AI?

Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-CA, speaks at an AI conference on Capitol Hill with experts

Provided

Should States Regulate AI?

WASHINGTON —- As House Republicans voted Thursday to pass a 10-year moratorium on AI regulation by states, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-CA, and AI experts said the measure would be necessary to ensure US dominance in the industry.

“We want to make sure that AI continues to be led by the United States of America, and we want to make sure that our economy and our society realizes the potential benefits of AI deployment,” Obernolte said.

Keep ReadingShow less
The AI Race We Need: For a Better Future, Not Against Another Nation

The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Getty Images, J Studios

The AI Race We Need: For a Better Future, Not Against Another Nation

The AI race that warrants the lion’s share of our attention and resources is not the one with China. Both superpowers should stop hurriedly pursuing AI advances for the sake of “beating” the other. We’ve seen such a race before. Both participants lose. The real race is against an unacceptable status quo: declining lifespans, increasing income inequality, intensifying climate chaos, and destabilizing politics. That status quo will drag on, absent the sorts of drastic improvements AI can bring about. AI may not solve those problems but it may accelerate our ability to improve collective well-being. That’s a race worth winning.

Geopolitical races have long sapped the U.S. of realizing a better future sooner. The U.S. squandered scarce resources and diverted talented staff to close the alleged missile gap with the USSR. President Dwight D. Eisenhower rightfully noted, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He realized that every race comes at an immense cost. In this case, the country was “spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Closeup of Software engineering team engaged in problem-solving and code analysis

Closeup of Software engineering team engaged in problem-solving and code analysis.

Getty Images, MTStock Studio

AI Is Here. Our Laws Are Stuck in the Past.

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises a future once confined to science fiction: personalized medicine accounting for your specific condition, accelerated scientific discovery addressing the most difficult challenges, and reimagined public education designed around AI tutors suited to each student's learning style. We see glimpses of this potential on a daily basis. Yet, as AI capabilities surge forward at exponential speed, the laws and regulations meant to guide them remain anchored in the twentieth century (if not the nineteenth or eighteenth!). This isn't just inefficient; it's dangerously reckless.

For too long, our approach to governing new technologies, including AI, has been one of cautious incrementalism—trying to fit revolutionary tools into outdated frameworks. We debate how century-old privacy torts apply to vast AI training datasets, how liability rules designed for factory machines might cover autonomous systems, or how copyright law conceived for human authors handles AI-generated creations. We tinker around the edges, applying digital patches to analog laws.

Keep ReadingShow less