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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

What one artist has learned while trying to teach about the Electoral College

Opinion

performance artist Pegi Christiansen

Pegi Christiansen often performs in her purple suffragist outfit.

Courtesy Pegi Christiansen
Pegi Christiansen
By Pegi ChristiansenOct 13, 2020
Pegi Christiansen
See More Writings by author
Christiansen is a performance artist and freelance writer in Milwaukee.
"Without the Electoral College, California and New York will decide who's president."

Though this assertion is incorrect, it is the objection I have heard the most since last September. That's when I started presenting a five-minute "Is This Fair?" performance art piece, urging people in my state to press lawmakers in Madison to enact what's called "the national popular vote" legislation.

The bill has not gone beyond a hearing in the GOP-majority Legislature so far. But if passed, Wisconsin could become the first presidential battleground to pledge its electoral votes (10 of them) to the winner of the nationwide popular vote instead of the statewide popular vote — just as soon as states with an additional 260 electoral votes have done likewise.

Then, their collective commitments would guarantee the national popular vote winner and Electoral College winner are the same, which of course did not happen in either 2016 or 2000. (So far, 16 states and Washington, D.C., with a combined 196 electoral votes, have joined this National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.)

I have made 150 presentations to 500 people in more than 30 places. Since the coronavirus outbreak, I have been performing mainly outdoors, with a purple face mask part of my purple suffragist outfit.

This isn't my first nonpartisan voting project. I co-produced 11 performances across Milwaukee on Election Day 2008 that used music, dance, video, recorded sound, puppetry, interactive sculpture and poetry to celebrate and encouraged conversations about citizenship and voting.

"True democracy is a project that's much bigger than any one of us," Barack Obama said in his final speech as president, in January of 2017. "It's bigger than any one person, any one president, and any one government. It's a job for all of us."

That's when I realized I must do another nonpartisan voting project in 2020. But now I am 66 and don't have my former stamina, so the project needed to be flexible and fit between times with my two young grandsons. But it also needed to be in the flesh, not online, as Timothy Snyder encouraged when he wrote: "Practice corporeal politics. Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people."

The first performance to a large group was last October, on the same day as the funeral for the venerable Baltimore congressman Elijah Cummings. "When we're dancing with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?" he said a few months before he died. "Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing?"

When my nerves won't settle down, I think of that. But the presentations have not gotten easier, even though the average audience is only two people.

What have I experienced? Let's start with the worst.

On a gorgeous January day, I was at a carnival in a sculpture garden and park. Since most were there to look at the art, I expected many would dismiss me. Then I approached a couple on a bench by a fire pit. People often interrupt with questions or comments, which is great. It means people are engaged.

"You don't know anything about the Electoral College," the husband said. "Democrats are allowing immigrants into the country to get their votes." I tried to answer but he only wanted to bully me and I soon gave up. "Why don't you do something positive and do some volunteer work?" he yelled as I walked off.

For the rest of my life I will remember an obdurate woman at a farmers market in suburban Milwaukee. She was one of the many who claimed, "Without the Electoral College, New York and California will choose the president." I countered, "There are 4 million Republicans in California whose votes aren't worth anything." She laughed and insisted, "There aren't any Republicans in California." Instead of noting that a Republican had just won a special House election in suburban Los Angeles, I offered that "there are an equal number of urban and rural voters in the country." In a hushed voice she responded, "Those urban voters are all Black."

In June, I started driving to conservative areas in the southeastern part of the state. I worried people might rip off my mask or call the police. Nope. It has been gratifying that no matter where I go, half the people I approach will listen and take my card explaining the campaign. This fits my view of Wisconsinites. We believe in being fair.

Every person who watches has learned something new, except one political science professor. He instructed me to become an elector. In one case, a young woman didn't know what the Electoral College was. In another, a young man supposed the Electoral College went into effect recently.

This spring I read an article advising young journalists how to talk to different types of people. With "aggressive" adults, it recommended asking questions. Now I always ask questions instead of countering arguments. Rather than challenging people who say, "What was good enough for the Founding Fathers should be good enough for us," I ask, "Did you know that as political parties emerged Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton all feared the direction the Electoral College was heading and suggested changes?" This at least raises people's eyebrows and sometimes leads to further discussion.

And I believe I had heavenly help on July 16. That was my mother's birthday. She died in early 2017 but might have stayed on earth a few months longer — except Hillary Clinton's Electoral College loss to Donald Trump crushed her. Arriving at the same farmers market where the woman had whispered about Black voters, I asked for mom's aid. He delivered. Every person I approached was positive. Three sets of people thanked me for what I am doing.

Maybe, just maybe, with my mom's support, Wisconsin will pass the national popular vote bill.


Latest news

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

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

“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

Read More

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

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

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

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
© Copyright 2026