Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Supporters of free speech gather in September 2025 to protest the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!', across the street from the theater where the show is produced in Hollywood.
Why free speech rights got left out of the Constitution – and added in later via the First Amendment
Oct 14, 2025
Bipartisan agreement is rare in these politically polarized days.
But that’s just what happened in response to ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The suspension followed the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s threat to punish the network for Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.
It lit up the media. Democrats and civil libertarians denounced the FCC chairman Brendan Carr for violating the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Voices on the right, including Senator Ted Cruz, joined them.
Within a week, Kimmel’s show was back on the air.
While bipartisan agreement may be rare, it’s not surprising that it came in defense of the First Amendment – and a popular TV show. A recent poll found that a whopping 90% of respondents called the First Amendment “vital,” while 64% believed it’s so close to perfection that they wouldn’t change a word.
In just 45 words, it bars Congress from establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion, interfering with the peoples’ right to assemble and petition, or abridging freedom of speech or the press.
I’m a historian and scholar of modern U.S. law and politics. Here’s the story of why this amendment – now considered fundamental to American freedom and identity – wasn’t part of the original Constitution and how it was included later on.
Added three years after the Constitution was ratified, it resulted from political compromise and a change of heart by framer James Madison.

Soured on bills of rights
Building a strong national government was the focus of Madison and the other delegates who met in Philadelphia in May 1787 to draft the Constitution.
They believed the government created by the Articles of Confederation after the colonists declared independence was dysfunctional, and the nation was disintegrating.
The government could not pay its debts, defend the frontier or protect commerce from interference by states and foreign governments.
Although Madison and the other framers aimed to create a stronger national government, they cared about protecting liberty. Many had helped create state constitutions that included pioneering bills of rights.
Madison himself played a critical role in securing passage in 1776 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a monument to civil liberties.
By the time the Constitutional Convention met, however, Madison had soured on such measures. During the 1780s, he had watched with alarm as state legislatures trampled on rights explicitly guaranteed by their constitutions. Bills of rights, he concluded, weren’t sufficient to protect rights.
So Madison and his colleagues put their faith in reinventing government.
No appetite to haggle
The Constitution they wrote created a government powerful enough to promote the national interests while maintaining a check on state legislatures. It also established a system of checks and balances that ensured federal power wasn’t abused.
In the convention’s waning days, delegates briefly discussed adding a bill of rights but unanimously decided against it. They had sweated through almost four months of a sweltering Philadelphia summer and were ready to go home. When Virginia’s John Rutledge noted “the extreme anxiety of many members of the Convention to bring the business to an end,” he was stating the obvious. With the Constitution in final form, few had the appetite to haggle over the provisions of a bill of rights.
That decision nearly proved fatal when the Constitution went to the states for ratification.
The new Constitution’s supporters, known as Federalists, faced fierce opposition from Anti-Federalists who charged that a powerful national government, unrestrained by a bill of rights, would inevitably lead to tyranny.
Ratification conventions in three of the most critical states – Massachusetts, New York and Virginia – were narrowly divided; ratification hung in the balance. Federalists resisted demands to make ratification contingent on amendments suggested by state conventions. But they agreed to add a bill of rights – after the Constitution was ratified and took effect.
That concession did the trick.
Harmless, possibly helpful
The three critical states ratified without condition, and by midsummer 1788, the Constitution had been approved.
However, when the First Congress met in March 1789, the Federalist majority didn’t prioritize a bill of rights. They had won and were ready to move on.
Madison, now a Federalist leader in the House of Representatives, insisted that his party keep its word. He warned that failure to do so would undermine trust in the new government and give Anti-Federalists ammunition to demand a new convention to do what Congress had left undone.
But Madison wasn’t just arguing for his party keeping its word. He had also changed his mind.
The ratification debates and Madison’s correspondence with Thomas Jefferson led him to think differently about a bill of rights. He now thought it harmless and possibly helpful. Its provisions, Madison conceded, might become “fundamental maxims of a free government” and part of “the national sentiment.” Broad popular support for a bill of rights might provide a check on government officials and how they wielded power.
Madison pushed his colleagues relentlessly. Wary of provisions that would weaken the national government, he developed a slate of amendments focused on individual rights. Ultimately, Congress approved 12 amendments – ensuring rights from freedom of speech to protection from cruel and unusual punishment – and sent them to the states for ratification.
First Amendment no cure-all
By the end of 1791, 10 of them – including the First Amendment ≠ had been ratified.
As Madison anticipated, the First Amendment wasn’t a cure for a government bent on suppressing dissent. From the Sedition Act in the 1790s to McCarthyism in the 1950s and the Trump administration’s assault on the First Amendment, government has used its awesome powers to pursue and punish critics.
On occasion, courts have intervened to protect First Amendment rights, a weapon Madison didn’t anticipate. But not always.
Perhaps the ultimate protection for First Amendment rights is “national sentiment,” as Madison suggested. Norm-breaking presidents can disregard the law, and judges may cave. But public sentiment is a powerful force, as Jimmy Kimmel can attest.
Donald Nieman is a Professor of History and Provost Emeritus, Binghamton University, State University of New York
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A new report shows how experiential learning connects civic knowledge and engagement to prepare young Americans for democracy’s future.
Getty Images, Unaihuiziphotography
Experiential Civic Learning Is Key to Reviving American Democracy
Oct 13, 2025
As a Washington state legislator, I always looked forward to stacks of letters from local high school students whose teachers tasked them with writing to a lawmaker expressing their concerns on an issue. I took extra care in replying to these letters, not only because I valued their perspectives on a range of issues but also because I knew this was almost surely the first interaction any of these students would have with an elected official. I wanted them to know that I was paying attention to their concerns—and that the democratic process could work for them.
I knew the value of demonstrating this lesson to young people because it had been so convincingly demonstrated to me in my own youth. One of the civic experiences that formed my confidence for later public service was participation in the American Legion Department of Washington’s Evergreen Boys State program. I got to spend a week with 300 fellow rising high school seniors who came together on the Central Washington University campus to simulate a state government and hear from elected officials. My peers elected me as chair of the “Federalist” Party and then as Speaker of the House. It was one of the most memorable and inspiring weeks of my life. Later, when I served in the real state legislature, I got to go back to speak at Boys State every year.
Now, a new report from scholars and civic education leaders examines the role of experiential learning in the teaching of civics. A project of an informal network called the Council on Civic Strength, the 11-member task force co-chaired by Danielle Allen of Harvard University and Elizabeth Clay Roy of Generation Citizen produced a helpful “Portrait of the Field,” as they call it, clearly and carefully explaining the benefits of learning about America’s governing institutions and practices through hands-on and interactive experiences. These would include the experience I had in the Boys State program and the correspondence I had with high school students, as well as issue debates, summer and after-school programs like the YMCA’s Youth in Government or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Civics Bee, and structured meetings using parliamentary procedure, both in and out of school.
Why should we pay attention to this report? Perhaps most notably, it brings together the best thinking from leaders who at first glance seem to represent differing agendas within the civics field. They include representatives of youth engagement groups, an organization that provides classroom resources to K-12 civics and history teachers, and academic scholars from new “civic thought” programs in public universities. If there has sometimes been tension between proponents of education for civic engagement and education for civic knowledge, the Task Force on the Value of Experiential Civic Learning shows that civic engagement and civic knowledge need not be at odds; rather, they are mutually reinforcing.
The task force does an impressive job of arguing concurrently for the “knowledge, skills, dispositions, and virtues” that make up a comprehensive civic education while emphasizing the role that experiential learning can play in conveying each of these components. Rather than siloing civic experiences from the teaching of civic knowledge and foundational principles, the report makes the case for linking knowledge and experience. After all, the task force declares, the reason we pursue civic knowledge is “to support lives as responsible and effective citizens and civic participants.”
The task force presents the report as a “companion” to the Educating for American Democracy Roadmap, a framework to guide civic education throughout the states while focusing on deliberating on questions rather than prescribing specific standards or curricula. The task force also claims that the report is the first of its kind—that is, the first to offer a definition of the role experiential learning can play in civic education. The definition is this: “Education that delivers civic knowledge, civic skills, and civic dispositions and virtues that support participation in our constitutional democracy AND that is carried out by actively practicing democracy (for instance, by choice-making, decision-making, community problem-solving, negotiation, and dispute resolution), whether through real or simulated civic action.”
The task force rightly argues that student learning, not issue advocacy, is the proper purpose of this kind of education. When students are writing letters to elected officials, engaging in public forums, taking part in government simulations, or participating in debates, they begin to learn habits and skills of civic processes, allowing them to better “understand their roles and responsibilities as citizens.”
According to the report, students gain knowledge including “foundational democratic principles, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, America’s constitutional structure, and America’s role in the world.” Students also learn skills like effective communication, civil disagreement, structuring agendas, running meetings, and negotiation. This promotes virtues like respect for people across differences, “reflective patriotism,” “civic self-confidence,” civility, and courage.
The task force’s work draws inspiration from a survey of 31 school, community-based, and online civics programs. Their report acknowledges the importance of Junior ROTC, speech and debate programs, and student government programs in shaping student understanding of civic life. But the report is also clear that civic experiences, and the lessons that go with them, are not confined to course requirements or extracurricular activities associated with school. They can also take place in the community, through Scouting, Model UN, or the Boys State and Girls State programs.
If “Experiential Civic Learning for American Democracy” is, as it claims, the first paper to offer a definition for experiential civic learning, it is hardly the first to emphasize the importance of civic involvement for teaching the principles, norms, and habits of constitutional democracy. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the ways that Americans learned to govern, such as by building things together and deliberating together in their communities—engaging in policy discussions about an array of local and national matters, building schoolhouses, or forming associations to address problems like poverty. In these ways, civic learning through civic activity has long been a form of education for people of all ages.
The 250th anniversary of American independence in 2026 should be an occasion for major new investments in civic education—both in the teaching of constitutional principles and historical context for civic life, as well as in the exposure to the practice of civic life. Young Americans need to understand the political community of which they are part—and for which they will be responsible for throughout their lifetimes. We all need civic literacy in order to think about the country, its ideals, and its future. We need civic capabilities like listening, negotiation, argumentation, and facilitation to engage effectively with our fellow citizens. And we need civic virtues like service, civility, and civic friendship to build and maintain trust with one another.
Coupled with well-formed courses of civic instruction rooted in constitutional principles and foundational American documents, experiential learning for America’s rising generations can help us to secure the future of our republic. Educators, civil society leaders, philanthropists, parents, and others who care about the preparation of citizens ought to read the fine work of the Task Force on the Value of Experiential Civic Learning and consider how they might do their part to encourage thoughtfulness, civility, and civic ambition in their respective corners of the country.
Hans Zeiger is president of the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America’s Founding Principles and History (www.jackmillercenter.org).Keep ReadingShow less
Dr. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman explores the moral roots of political polarization—and how understanding each side’s values can rebuild democratic trust.
Getty Image, MirageC
Understanding the Psychology Behind Our Political Divide
Oct 13, 2025
Why do people on the other side of the political spectrum often seem not just misinformed—but morally wrong? Why do even good-faith attempts at cross-partisan conversation so often stall or turn hostile?
These questions are not new—but in an era of social media outrage, partisan media bubbles, and eroding trust in institutions, they feel more urgent than ever. Fortunately, there is a growing body of research that helps us move beyond frustration and toward a deeper understanding of what drives our political differences—and how we might begin to bridge them.
One of the most compelling contributions to this conversation comes from Dr. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, Professor Emerita at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a leading scholar in the field of moral psychology. In her latest book, “The Two Moralities: Conservatives, Liberals, and the Roots of Our Political Divide,” she outlines a powerful new framework that helps explain why liberals and conservatives so often talk past each other—and why each side believes it holds the moral high ground.
On Tuesday, Oct. 21, at 1:00 p.m. ET, Dr. Janoff-Bulman will join me for a live webinar episode of The Unity Forum, a cross-partisan discussion series powered by Alumni for Freedom & Democracy. Our 45-minute conversation will explore the psychological roots of political polarization, the growing threat of authoritarianism, and how mutual moral misunderstanding continues to deepen America’s civic divide.
You can register to attend the free webinar here: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_YudVkYCET9aLQEmZqBYsIg]
The Psychology of Political Morality
Dr. Janoff-Bulman's theory centers on two distinct moral frameworks: proscriptive morality, which emphasizes avoiding harm and maintaining social order (more often associated with conservatism), and prescriptive morality, which focuses on promoting well-being and social justice (more often associated with liberalism). Both moralities are deeply human—and deeply moral—but they are often in tension with each other.
This tension becomes toxic when one side views the other not as “wrong,” but as immoral—a perception that shuts down empathy, blocks dialogue, and fuels dehumanization. In this light, the deepening political divide in the U.S. is not just about policy disagreements but about fundamentally different moral lenses.
As we explore in the webinar, Dr. Janoff-Bulman argues that both sides offer vital moral contributions—and that a sustainable democracy may, in fact, depend on maintaining a balance between these two orientations. Without mutual recognition of moral legitimacy, compromise becomes weakness, and democratic systems break down.
A Path Toward Unity?
Our conversation will also touch on how media, technology, and political strategy have amplified and distorted these moral narratives. We’ll explore how many voters—especially working-class conservatives—may prioritize moral identity over economic self-interest. And we’ll ask what liberals and conservatives can do to better understand each other’s motivations without sacrificing their own principles.
Finally, we’ll close with some practical advice: how can families and communities have more productive conversations across political divides—especially during the upcoming holidays, when many of us will gather with loved ones whose views differ from our own?
Join the Conversation
The Unity Forum exists to elevate thoughtful dialogue and civil engagement across ideological lines. We believe that understanding—even without agreement—is a necessary foundation for a healthier democracy.
If you're curious about the moral roots of our political divide—or if you’re simply looking for a more constructive way to engage with difficult conversations—we invite you to join us for this important and timely discussion.
Register for the webinar at: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_YudVkYCET9aLQEmZqBYsIg
Date: Tuesday, October 21st
Time: 1:00 pm ET
Location: Zoom (link provided upon registration)
Chris Malone is the host of The Unity Forum. Malone is Founder of Fidelum Group and co-author of the award-winning book, “The HUMAN Brand: How We Relate to People, Products & Companies.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight
Oct 13, 2025
Checks and balances can only work if government officials are willing to use their authority to check abuses of power by others. Without that, our Constitution is an empty promise.
And without the will to stand up to such abuses, freedom and democracy also become empty promises. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, the Constitution was designed to ensure that “the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”
In this design, he argued, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place….you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
That is why it matters whether Congress is willing to do its job of controlling the Executive. This has never been truer than it is today.
Let’s face it, the presidency is now much more powerful than Congress. Powerful and, as a result, a danger to liberty.
That was true before Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office. It has only become more apparent since then. In response, congressional Republicans have been unwilling to use their authority to rein him in.
No news there. Still, it was shocking to see Attorney General Pam Bondi’s open contempt for Congress displayed in her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, October 7.
It was also shocking to watch Republican Senators cheer her on as she denigrated their Democratic committee colleagues. Both were unprecedented.
Both suggest that our constitutional system is broken and that while Republicans may give lip service to that system, they are guilty of aiding and abetting in its overthrow. In criminal law, someone aids and abets the commission of a crime by another when they intend to assist or participate in that offense.
They can do so by encouraging or facilitating it.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are guilty of a crime in the ordinary sense.
They are, however, guilty of aiding and abetting Pam Bondi’s and Donald Trump’s crimes against the Constitution. Fidelity to that document requires that we call out their behavior in the strongest terms.
Let’s start with contempt of Congress. The law defines it as willfully refusing “ to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry".
During her appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Bondi refused to answer a long list of questions pertinent to its oversight inquiry. Among them, as California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff pointed out were questions about possible bribery involving Trump border czar Tom Homan, criminal investigations into the president’s political opponents initiated at the behest of the president himself, and the firing of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.
Those are just a few of the questions the Attorney General batted aside. Committee Chair, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, sat quietly as she stonewalled his colleagues. And when he was not silent, he tried to derail the inquiry by shifting the focus to the behavior of the Biden Justice Department.
Grassley’s opening remarks foretold what was to come. He went on at length about "weaponization" of the Justice Department under the Biden Administration. He characterized investigations of then-former President Trump as “indefensible acts.”This was a political fishing expedition to get Trump at all costs."
Grassley was joined, as Politico reports, by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who “falsely claimed…that newly disclosed records revealed that the FBI ‘tapped’ the phones of eight sitting U.S. senators during special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.”
Not surprisingly, “Attorney General Pam Bondi, during her Tuesday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not correct Hawley’s characterization of the records.”
But Bondi’s performance was not limited to her refusal to answer questions or to correct erroneous information. She used her appearance to attack Democratic Senators directly, offering up accusations or allegations of misconduct that had nothing to do with the hearing.
She called out Illinois Senator Richard Durbin. “You are sitting here as law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to protect you. I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”
In response to a question from California Senator Adan Schiff, Bondi replied, “If you worked for me, you would’ve been fired because you were censured by Congress for lying.”
She accused Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal of misrepresenting his military record. She claimed that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had ties to “dark money” groups and backed legislation that would “subsidize [his] wife’s company.”
Such personal attacks would not have been allowed under Senate rules if they had been made on the Senate floor during a debate. But Chairman Grassley did nothing, and neither did any of his Republican colleagues.
James Madison would be rolling over in his grave to know that Senators of either party would condone such behavior by a member of the Executive Branch. He would have seen it as a crime against the constitutional order he worked so assiduously to construct.
But welcome to America’s new world. It is defined by a cabal that has set out to undermine checks and balances.
Pam Bondi and Republican Senators showed what that looks like. Americans should not shut their eyes and imagine that the constitutional system will survive their assault on it without a large and sustained public response.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
An Independent Voter's Perspective on Current Political Divides