Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: Congressional incivility

Your Take: Congressional incivility
Getty Images

Earlier this week we asked the following questions of our Bridge Alliance, Coffee Party and Fulcrum communities regarding recent patterns of incivility displayed by some of our elected officials:

  • As a voter, does civility count as much as political ideology?
  • How can we hold our elected officials responsible for upholding democratic principles?

Since our last email, the controversy surrounding George Santos has become a Jeopardy clue, as Congress awaits the proverbial shoe to drop on the fate of the embattled congressman. And while his resignation or removal seem increasingly inevitable with each passing day, Representative Santos’ potential departure from the House is unlikely to solve Congress’ incivility problem. Our democracy’s hub of lawmaking has become an elementary school sandbox; with some of our elected officials frolicking about in spectacle, lacking regard for the particular needs of their constituents.


As many of you acknowledged in your responses, while this incivility is the most apparent, it is not the most prevalent approach. Fairness and reason are much quieter means of doing business. Hence, we are often baited into centralizing our perspective around the much more eye-catching sensationalism. Therefore, it is just as much our responsibility as our elected officials to engage in democracy responsibly. With few equivocations, “we the people” elect those who represent us. Subsequently, their representation of us is particularly aligned with what we promote as acceptable in our role as the voters who support them.

Here is a sampling of your thoughts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity:

Civility is much more important than political ideology and, at the very least, they need to work together. Right now this is not happening. Only with civility can we trust, resolve, have constructive dialogue, and make better solutions. The question of how we can hold our elected officials responsible is a hard one. First of all, not all of our elected officials are happy with the incivility. And, we the people are their followers, but only a vocal subset of our population has joined in with the arguing, the hate, and distrust. Until we direct the blame where it belongs, we cannot effect change. - Brenda Marinace

It would be nice if the voters held elected officials accountable, but the average voter is just as guilty as the politicians in their incivility to those who hold alternate opinions to their own - Jack Closson

On a school camping trip with my government and history teacher, we had a lengthy conversation about the inability of a loud minority to acknowledge when their perceived opponent has a valid point. This division often devolves into incivility. Therefore, if an individual needs to compromise on the strength of their political ideology to maintain a civil discourse, then that is a tradeoff worth making. Uncivil discourse is not a crime, so impeachment and removal from office should not be used as a political weapon against the elected officials behaving in an uncivilized manner. But what we can do, is to simply not re-elect them. - Bobby Hamblin

Civility always matters. If your ideology includes the concept of pragmatism in pursuit of the U.S.’s best interests, treating others with civility will prove to be a helpful asset. - Bernard Sucher

In order to hold our elected officials accountable, Party leadership needs to stop tolerating this kind of behavior (i.e. censure members, remove them from committees, etc.). This will help stop this behavior from being effective. - Eric Prostko

Elected officials are a mirror of the people who elected them. We need to look within and elect people with higher principles. - Doug Bicknell

Rank choice voting would produce candidates with a broader, reducing the advancement of strident, divisive candidates from taking office. - Isaiah Jefferson

Civility is important, but not just for elected officials. It’s important for all of us. - Art Caya

Civility counts nearly as much as ideology. But what does count as much, if not more, is a sense of fairness and willingness to abide by set rules and laws. It is wrong for elected officials to use the law to suit whatever agenda is of the moment and then turn their back on it when it no longer serves them. - Nancy Smith

As a partisan voter who was convinced that my party's way was the right way for America, I was comfortable with being a “warrior” in the battle of ideologies, thinking if we became a governing, sustainable majority, that the country would see our effectiveness and embrace our view. I no longer hold this view. The collateral damage to the very fabric holding the country together has been so severe that we no longer trust our leaders or institutions - or even our neighbors if they do not share our world view. It seems as a nation that we cannot collectively solve problems, big or small, barely even managing the government at the moment. I now believe we must pivot to civility first before ideology. While I believe my ideology is still the best way for America, I am now content if my ideology does not carry the day. We cannot function properly with so much dysfunction! - Dan Brady

When political ideology takes precedent over the democratic process of honest information, open discussion, negotiation and compromise, our democracy ends - Stephen Herbits

"Ideological rage" is just as bad as road rage. Driving is frustrating and challenging. Yet we recognize that name-calling, aggressive, and unethical behavior on the roads is not helpful. Likewise, politics is frustrating and challenging. But, aggression and incivility will only cause more conflict. As consumers, would we allow the CEOs of car companies to yell at each other, or skirt responsibility when wrong-doing is uncovered? We elect politicians to work with each other to solve problems (including being civil and cooperative), not to incite, inflame, and cause political gridlock. - Marc Wong

To a greater extent, ideology in civil discourse can hash out differences and allow us to come to a mutually beneficial, yet imperfect, agreement. But incivility will not even allow us to come to the table to discuss the real problems. It distracts and takes our eye off the real problems and the real solutions. - Rick Davis

The value of civility depends on how we define it. As a workplace bullying advocate and researcher, incivility is defined as the minor infractions of rude discourse. I would certainly prefer that members of Congress conduct themselves in a polite and civil manner, but once the “rudeness floodgates” are opened, it can become difficult for civil tones of voices to be heard over the noise. There are instances where the ethical course of action is to call out vile behavior in the most civil manner that is available under the circumstances. - Leigh Patricia Schmitt, PhD.

Civility is an example of political ideology. - Mikel Clifford

We have the behavior and the outcomes we have from elected officials because of the way they are elected. They would not engage in those behaviors if our election system did not reward them for doing so. If we want different behaviors and outcomes from elected officials, then we have to change the way they are elected, including ranked choice voting. - Larry R. Bradley


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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