Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens

Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens
MSNBC

Hans Zeiger is president of the Jack Miller Center ( www.jackmillercenter.org), a nationwide network of scholars and teachers who are committed to advancing the core texts and ideas of the American political tradition.

Recently, I was on a cross-country flight when someone was having a medical emergency in the back of the plane. A flight attendant spoke up over the loudspeaker, asking that anyone on board with medical training hit their call button. Well, there happened to be quite a number of nurses on board that flight—they were heading to the national nursing convention in Philadelphia. One after another, chimes rang out in chorus. Call it what you will, a cacophony of professionalism, mixed with a spirit of volunteerism, the sound of men and women who had committed their lives to caring for people like the person who was in need on that airplane. Everyone who pushed their call button that day felt some obligation to do so, and the person in the back of the plane received the care they needed.


We see this spirit in the men and women who commit their lives to service in the uniform of the armed services, to first responders in every community, to teachers, nonprofit board members, city council members and school board members, charitable donors, neighborhood watch organizers, Little League coaches and scout leaders—the list goes on. We see this spirit in countless moms and dads, and grandmas and grandpas, who sacrifice for their families and do everything they can to pass along a legacy to the next generation. These kinds of human connections, borne of obligation, can happen anywhere in the world, but in America they have a particular role to play in our national story.

Yet when it comes to our narrative about ourselves, we tend to emphasize rights far more than obligations.

In the face of declining trust in our public institutions and a waning sense of shared identity as fellow citizens, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass says that Americans need to recover a sense of obligation. This is the central argument of his new book The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens.

It is no surprise that Haass has devoted most of his prolific writing career to foreign policy. It is noteworthy that he has turned his attention to American civic life at a moment when internal disunity threatens America’s standing in the world. The Bill of Obligations is a useful treatment of the subject that makes for a quick and easy read.

Haass calls out Americans’ obsession with rights in our political discourse without a commensurate focus on obligations, which he defines as voluntary commitments “involving not what citizens must do but what they should do.”

Haass is not the first to decry our obsession with rights at the expense of civic commitments—one prominent writer on the subject is Harvard legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon, whose 1993 book, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse exposed the inadequacy of public debate centered on rights. Haass’s contribution to this literature comes at a moment in our political history when we can surely benefit from a reinvigoration of enlightened patriotism.

In laying the groundwork for his list of obligations, Haass describes the nation’s current state of political dysfunction and division. He worries about a loss of “common identity” among Americans. He writes, “It is increasingly hard to speak of a shared American experience, outlook, values, or priorities.”

When it comes to Haass’s list of ten obligations, there is much to admire. He celebrates values like civility, compromise, norms, and a respect for the common good. Haass does well to name “Be Informed” as the first obligation of a citizen and to emphasize the importance of understanding the foundational texts and ideas of republicanism. Being informed is not just about keeping up with the latest headlines; it requires a common body of knowledge about the nation and its institutions. This points to the importance of another obligation on Haass’s list: that of supporting civic education.

Haass’s concept of public good includes a strong dependence on private character. To keep the hope of America alive, he says, “more than anything else” we need “an abundance of character, what in earlier times was known as virtue.” If anything is lacking in Haaas’s book, it is an extended elaboration on why we must devote ourselves to the cultivation of virtue. It is a point that deserves exploration when too few public intellectuals even acknowledge it at all.

Moreover, Haass only scratches the surface when it comes to voluntarism as a component of active citizenship. He recognizes the importance of respecting one another, becoming active in political and government activities, and caring for our neighbors. More could be written on the neighborly activities that are so fundamental to the vitality of American civil society: daily support for individuals and families around us, charitable giving, and active membership in local associations, service organizations, and congregations.

Some readers may take issue with particular policy illustrations that Haass uses to describe his list of obligations—but in doing this, Haass demonstrates an independence of viewpoint that will appeal in turns to readers on the left and the right.

Haass’s book may not be an exhaustive treatment of the subject, but it is a worthy conversation-starter. America needs more public conversation and debate about the proper role of obligations, and we need more emphasis on duties alongside rights in our teaching of American civics. Perhaps most poignantly, The Bill of Obligations should be a reminder to its readers of their own obligations in our beloved republic, and of how, like the nurses on that recent cross-country flight, we might each do our part.


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