Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democracy on the Edge: Take Action Now To Maintain the Constitution

Opinion

​The U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution.
Getty Images, Bill Oxford

Democracy is in danger. Voter suppression efforts are once again on the rise, most recently embodied in the reintroduction of the “SAVE Act.” Initially passed by the House in 2024 and revived again in April 2025, the bill proposes new identification standards for voting.

It calls to eliminate the use of driver’s licenses and state IDs and require birth certificates instead. While billed as an election integrity measure, this legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly the elderly, minorities, and low-income Americans who may lack access to original documentation.


To be sure, this is not about protecting elections. It’s about controlling who gets to vote. It's about power.

Equally alarming are President Donald Trump’s recent comments suggesting he is seriously considering a third term as president, despite the explicit limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment. He even hinted at “methods” that could allow him to bypass constitutional constraints.

This is not harmless bravado or hypocritical hyperbole. These statements have prompted real political maneuvers. Representative Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has proposed an amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, allowing Trump to run again.

Others have floated legal theories and hypothetical scenarios in which Vice President J.D. Vance could be elected president and somehow cede power back to Trump. While such tactics may be legally dubious, the mere fact that they're being discussed at the highest levels of government signals a chilling disregard for constitutional norms.

What the country is witnessing is an attempt to centralize power in defiance of democratic principles. It is an attempt to reshape the Constitution and the electoral system to serve a singular political and ideological interest. This movement does not seek to represent America; it seeks to dominate it. It trims the Constitution not for clarity but for control. It rewrites laws not for justice but for power. It appeals not to the collective good but to a narrow base of fervent loyalists.

Fealty is very real. This is not democracy. It is autocracy wearing a red, white, and blue mask.

The 50501 Movement —standing for 50 Protests, 50 States,1 Movement—organized 700 protests against Trump in cities across the country on Saturday, with hundreds of thousands turning out, some with signs, saying, “No Kings.”

This follows the April 5 protest in 1400 events where more than five million protesters attended the peaceful “Hands Off” protests against Trump and his administration.

These are signs that Americans know they cannot afford to be complacent. The defense of democracy requires more than voting every four years. It demands constant vigilance, civic engagement, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

It is urgent to challenge legislation like the SAVE Act that disenfranchises voters under the guise of “integrity.” People must reject efforts to bend or break the Constitution to accommodate any leader’s ego. And it is critical to hold accountable those who seek to exploit our democratic institutions for personal gain.

But it was possible to see this all coming. In December 2022, Trump, then a former president preparing to reclaim power, posted a startling message on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Referring to the unfounded allegations of election fraud in 2020, he wrote that “a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” His statement was a direct challenge to the rule of law and the very foundation of American democracy.

This was not just an impulsive remark. It was a declaration of intent. It was a glimpse into a worldview where the Constitution is conditional, elections are suspect, and power is the ultimate end. From that point onward, the president’s actions and rhetoric have increasingly demonstrated a systematic effort to undermine the democratic process in the United States.

Even before that, this erosion began with relentless attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election with the attacks that culminated in a deadly insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

But the assault on democracy didn’t end there. President Trump and his allies have worked to impose restrictive voting requirements, weaken institutional safeguards, and sow doubt about the electoral system itself. These aren’t isolated incidents; they are coordinated maneuvers to make electoral outcomes more reflective of one man’s ambitions than of the will of the people.

Looking ahead to another presidential election cycle in less than four years, this dangerous trend is intensifying.

The strength of a democracy lies not in the power of its leaders but in the voice of its people. When that voice is silenced, whether through misinformation, voter suppression, or constitutional manipulation, democracy suffers.

The country is at a crossroads. One path leads toward authoritarianism dressed up in patriotic rhetoric. The other leads to a renewed commitment to liberty, justice, and representative government. The choice is ours, but only if we have the courage to make it.

To preserve democracy, the response must be as strategic and forceful as the threats it faces. One response is legislative actions. Congress must pass voting rights legislation that establishes national standards for voter access, including protections for early voting, mail-in ballots, and automatic voter registration.

The proposed John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 and the Freedom to Vote Act of 2021 have not been passed into law but remain vital blueprints.

Another safeguard is the judicial system. Courts must remain a firewall against unconstitutional overreach. Lawsuits challenging voter suppression tactics and unconstitutional power grabs must be vigorously and continuously pursued. All judges must be held accountable to the law and not allowed to practice partisan ideology.

States and counties need to be resilient and should modernize voting systems to be secure, accessible, and verifiable. Paper ballots, audits, and strong cybersecurity protections must be a staple in a functioning democracy.

Protecting democracy requires more than just opposing bad policies; it requires building better systems, demanding accountability, and ensuring that the institutions meant to serve the people remain in the people’s hands.

It is unwise to wait for another constitutional crisis before taking action. Americans must be proactive not just reactive. Everyone must meet the threat head up and head on with clarity, unity, and resolve.

Our democracy is not a given but it is a choice. Choose America. Choose.

Read More

USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less