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

Tips for talking to loved ones about democracy

Tips for talking to loved ones about democracy
Getty Images
Reinhold Ernst
By Reinhold ErnstNov 13, 2023
Reinhold Ernst
See More Writings by author

Ernst is a veteran and advocate of democracy related reforms as a member of Veterans for All Voters, recently renamed from Veterans for Political Innovation.

With Thanksgiving sneaking up, most of us look forward to good food and company, but secretly dread the side squabbles about politics and other hot topics. Maybe it starts with a goofy uncle throwing a zinger about the economy, or a know-it-all teenager parroting something they saw online. Before long, people are focused less on gratitude and more on an unwanted political debate where nobody learns anything or changes their mind. Ugh.

If you find yourself in this circumstance, maybe there's an opportunity to steer things towards a constructive moment. This might be the right time to plant the idea that there actually are some reforms aiming to strengthen our republic's democratic processes, and thus the things that frustrate them. But the truth is, the vast majority of our neighbors, friends and relatives are still quite unfamiliar with concepts like open primaries or ranked choice voting, or how they connect to the bigger picture of effective governance. If advocates of measures like RCV and open primaries are to ever see these ideas scaled broadly then there's a lot of small talk that needs to happen over dinner or a drink. One conversation at a time.

But how do you get started? The problem is - well, what's the problem? Here are three likely scenarios that may pop up at Thanksgiving or other gatherings with friends and family.

Scenario 1: Someone doesn't like the state of politics or "the other side" but they think they've got it all figured out already. How do you hear them out, and challenge them? There's a lot to unpack.

Scenario 2: Someone doesn't like the state of politics but doesn't really have their thoughts ironed out yet, they just know it's all terrible. How do you help them and steer them?

Scenario 3: Two people get right at it and their spirited political "debate" is going nowhere good in a hurry. How do you help them both to step back and focus on root causes, not just the symptoms they're angry about?

Two Ways To Help Reframe The Conversation

Each conversation will always be unique, but here are two suggestions to help you break the ice, illuminate root causes, and open the door for constructive conversation about healthy democracy reforms like RCV and open primaries.

The Five Whys: There's a simple exercise to help drill down to root causes while preventing a conversation from going down endless rabbit holes. It's called "The Five Levels of Why," and it's as simple as asking the question "why?" five times. Ask them "Why is it that they're so energized about politician X, policy Y, or hot issue Z?" Let them respond, and then simply ask yet again, "Why is that party or politician able (or not) to do that?" or something along those lines. Let them respond as long as they want. Then ask again, "Why can't our processes enable / stop that?" You get the point. Somewhere around "Why" #3 or #4 you'll start to wrestle with how our elected officials are elected, incentivized, and held accountable. Bingo, this is your chance to hypothetically pose if there's a better way. From there, see where the conversation goes. Even if you don't convince them of any solution outright, you're at least helping to connect the dots for them that our flawed democratic processes are the main culprit in why some political problems seem to only be getting worse.

A Riddle To Find Common Ground

If the conversation is just taking a free-flow or is clearly on the wrong track and you'd like to just cut to the chase, then pose a question to bring a new focus. Here are a few tough questions to intrigue people's investigative curiosity:

1) "Despite enormous disapproval of a probable Trump-Biden rematch, why does it seem unstoppable?"

Key points to bring up:

  • Spoiler effect is rampant. Over 70% of voters want "anyone else," but will they vote for anyone else? Unlikely. That's a spoiler effect in action. Primaries, and especially closed primaries, are another root problem.
  • Nowhere does our Constitution enshrine a two-party system. One way to open up beyond the duopoly is to permit people to vote their conscience on third parties and independents. The question is "how?" - cue Ranked Choice Voting.

2) "Uncle Joe, Thanksgiving sure used to be way less intense. Why is it that our nation is slowly getting more and more divided over the past four or more decades?"

Key points to bring up:

  • We can't blame any one or two administrations... 50+ year trends are systemic. What systems and processes are key?
  • Only 8-10% of voters typically vote in primaries. Why? Closed primaries and too many "safe" gerrymandered districts incentivize rage politics. The angriest candidates generally win. This is "being primaried."
  • Media and social media are key, but they are often only the messenger and neither the message itself nor the originator. How are politicians and the media both incentivized to take and amplify extreme positions?

Regardless of these two suggestions or if you go a different way, if they can walk away thinking the problem isn't "the other side" but instead "both of the sides," or "the whole system," then you've made progress to be proud of. You've at least opened the door for them to think about how the duopoly is so entrenched and the need to get after that without forcing ideas down their throat when they're not quite ready to see how they fit. When you see them again, you'll have a starting point to work from.

It doesn't matter if you're not an expert on all the reforms, or if you're a volunteer in one of the many organizations out there. The important thing is to be willing to engage those around us. If we all do our part to educate those who are unfamiliar and engage opponents who are likely persuadable, then fixing our system becomes a 'when', not 'if'. Good luck, and we at Veterans For All Voters hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving to the fullest.


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