Americans put a lot of faith in the Constitution, and for good reason. But Hamilton understood something we sometimes forget: the Constitution does not climb off the page and stop power by itself. It only works when institutions defend their own role, and citizens believe they can still make government answer when it pushes beyond its proper limits.

Federalist No. 28 starts with that harder truth. A republic needs a government strong enough to enforce the law and defend itself when things get ugly. But that same strength creates the problem Hamilton could not ignore. The power that protects the republic can also threaten it when citizens lose the ability to limit it.

That is where No. 28 picks up from Federalist No. 27. In No. 27, Hamilton argued that government works best when people believe it is legitimate and answerable to them. No. 28 moves into rougher territory by asking what happens when legitimacy no longer carries the argument and force enters the picture.

Hamilton made a practical argument, not an authoritarian one. A government that cannot enforce the law cannot preserve order, and a republic that cannot preserve order cannot protect liberty. Americans rightly distrust concentrated power, but liberty needs more than limits on government. It also needs lawful authority strong enough to defend the conditions that make freedom possible.

That balance drives the whole essay. Hamilton wanted government strong enough to act, but still answerable enough to be restrained. Consent starts to weaken when the people’s judgment no longer changes the course of power. That is the question that Federalist No. 28 leaves us with: what happens when citizens remain free in theory but lose the practical power to make government answer?

Subscribe now

Hamilton’s Uncomfortable Answer

Hamilton defended national authority in Federalist No. 28 because he had seen what weakness produced under the Articles of Confederation. He did not want a national government that could only ask in the face of disorder. A government that cannot respond to rebellion or open defiance will not remain a government for long.

That part of Hamilton’s argument still matters. People can criticize government force in the abstract, especially when they live in a society where someone else usually preserves order. But liberty does not survive when lawful authority collapses. People cannot enjoy constitutional rights in a place where factions arbitrarily decide which laws count.

Hamilton did not ask anyone to trust power blindly, and this is where the Anti-Federalists had a point. Writers like Brutus feared that national power, once armed with enforcement authority, would not stay modest for long. They had fought a revolution against a distant power backed by troops, taxes, and executive command, so they understood how force used in the name of order could become force used against liberty.

Hamilton answered that fear with divided authority. If federal power became oppressive, the states and the people could resist. If state power became oppressive, federal authority could intervene. Hamilton believed federal abuse would meet more than scattered anger because the people would have states as organized centers of opposition. Resistance would have a political form rather than private rage.

That assumption makes No. 28 useful now. Hamilton’s argument depends on checks that are actually used. Once the institutions meant to restrain power lose the will to do it, the Constitution can remain intact on paper while its habits collapse in practice.

The Congressional Vacuum

Executive power often grows into the space Congress leaves behind. The legislature should be the first line of resistance when presidents exceed their authority, but too often it avoids the hard calls and waits to complain until power has already shifted. That pattern shows up most clearly in war powers, where Congress is supposed to decide when the country goes to war but often leaves presidents enough room to act first and explain later.

That arrangement lets members criticize military decisions after the fact without taking responsibility. The same habit appears in domestic policy, where Congress writes laws that leave agencies and presidents to make the choices voters actually feel. Executive power does not grow only because presidents take it. Congress hands power over first, then objects when the executive uses it, without doing the work required to restrain it.

Share

Federalism by Permission

Federalism usually weakens quietly. It does not always look like Washington marching in and taking power by force. More often, it looks like funding, rules, and dependency. The federal government offers money, imposes conditions, and, over time, turns state discretion into state compliance.

The Tenth Amendment is supposed to remind us that Washington has limits and that powers not given to the federal government remain with the states or the people. That principle should not become a partisan slogan, useful only when the other party controls the White House. Its job is simple: keep power from collecting in one place.

Not every federal action is wrong. The federal government has real authority, and a modern country needs that. The trouble begins when nearly every issue becomes federal by default. States may complain about Washington’s reach, but too often they accept the money that makes resistance harder.

Federalism matters because it gives citizens another place to turn when Washington overreaches. But that only works if states are willing to act like states. When they become managers of federal priorities, citizens lose a real channel of self-government.

The Permanent Emergency

Emergency power brings Federalist No. 28 closest to our own politics because Hamilton understood that government may need force when ordinary law cannot preserve order. That was more realistic than reckless. But emergency power is supposed to answer a real crisis, not become a shortcut around normal government.

The danger begins when presidents learn that crisis gives them room to move around Congress. Once that lesson takes hold, the temptation does not fade when the crisis does. What begins as a temporary response can become a habit of governing whenever ordinary politics becomes too difficult.

Executive power changes when presidents stop treating legal limits as real limits. Hamilton wanted energy in the executive, but energy was never supposed to mean self-permission. The president enforces the law. When he begins bending the law around his own sense of necessity, the office changes from executor to author.

Emergency power does not stay loyal to the president who first uses it. It becomes part of the office. The next president inherits it, expands it, and points to the last president as permission. If citizens only object when the other side holds power, they are not defending constitutional limits. They are aiding and abetting their erasure.

Constitutional limits rarely fall all at once. They weaken when citizens excuse their own leaders for what they condemn in the other side’s. That is how emergency power becomes normal: not because restraint loses the argument, but because partisans stop making it.

Citizenship without Control

The harder problem is not simply that leaders accumulate power. It is that citizens can slowly lose the tools to restrain political actors and the government itself. They may still do everything a healthy republic asks of them and yet find that power has learned how to absorb public frustration without changing course. A republic weakens when citizenship becomes mostly reactive, when people spend more time responding to power than directing it.

That is the slow death of consent. It begins when citizens come to believe their consent no longer changes anything. Hamilton assumed the people would remain active enough to resist abuse, but that assumption breaks down when public action becomes more like release than correction.

Hamilton accepted that the government sometimes needs force to preserve order. But he never treated citizens as passengers. His argument depends on a people strong enough to resist abuse when power crosses the line. Once citizens lose the tools to restrain power, consent becomes a claim made by the powerful instead of an authority held by the people.

The Final Check

The answer cannot be lawlessness. Federalist No. 28 uses the language of resistance, but in a republic, resistance begins with accountability rather than collapse. The purpose is not to tear down constitutional order. It is to make power answer to that order again.

That kind of accountability cannot depend on partisanship. If constitutional limits matter only when they restrain the other side, then they do not really matter at all. They become tools of convenience rather than rules of self-government.

That is the civic test Hamilton leaves behind. Power does not stay loyal to the people who defend it today. The authority excused in one administration will be available in the next, and each exception makes the next one easier to defend. Citizens cannot help weaken limits when those limits are inconvenient and then expect those same limits to protect them later.

Hamilton did not ask Americans to choose between order and liberty. He knew the republic needed both. Government had to be strong enough to preserve the Union, but restrained enough to remain answerable to the people. That balance only works if citizens refuse to become passive when power crosses the line.

The question is whether we still deserve Hamilton’s confidence. The people were supposed to be the final check, not the final audience. A republic cannot run indefinitely on procedure, force, and exhaustion.

Consent has to mean more than being counted. It has to mean being heard, being heeded, and having the power to pull government back inside its limits before government forgets those limits exist.

Leave a comment

There is a line in Federalist 27 that ought to make every elected official in America sit up a little straighter. Hamilton writes, “I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration.” Strip away the 18th-century phrasing, and the point is direct: people obey government not simply because it has power, but because they believe it is legitimate enough to use that power. Citizens can fight their government and still believe the system belongs to them. Once that belief breaks, opposition becomes alienation.

That is the burden of Federalist 27. Hamilton is answering the fear that the proposed Constitution would require military force to enforce federal laws. His critics worried that a stronger national government would become distant and dangerous, especially when it acted directly on the people. Hamilton did not answer by pretending power was harmless. He argued that power is less dangerous when it flows through regular order, wise administration, and public confidence. When government earns legitimacy, it has “less occasion to recur to force.”

The warning for our time is that public trust does not collapse all at once. It erodes when citizens come to believe the rules are written to protect those in power rather than hold them accountable. Once that belief takes hold, every decision begins to lose moral force. They may be legal, but they no longer represent the people.

Subscribe now

From the Sword to the Law

Hamilton has spent the previous essays walking through the hard problem of power. In Federalist 23, he argued that a government responsible for national defense must have the authority to defend the nation. In Federalist 24 and Federalist 25, he pushed back against the idea that liberty could be preserved by pretending danger would politely wait outside the gates until Americans reached consensus. Then, in Federalist 26, he turned to civilian control and the question that sits near the heart of every republic: if the sword must exist, who controls it?

Federalist 27 moves from the sword to the law. Hamilton is no longer only asking if the Union will have enough power to act. He is asking whether national authority will be accepted as lawful rather than foreign. His answer is that federal power should operate through ordinary legal channels, so that obedience becomes part of civic life rather than a recurring confrontation. The laws of the Union, he writes, would become “the SUPREME LAW of the land,” and state officers would be bound by oath to support them. If these powers were administered with “a common share of prudence,” he believed there was “good ground to calculate upon a regular and peaceable execution of the laws of the Union.”

That phrase, “a common share of prudence,” is the hinge. Hamilton was not promising wise government. He was warning that lawful power still depends on restraint. Citizens can accept defeat when they believe the rules are fair and the next contest is real. But when the political class rewrites those rules to protect itself, it creates two systems: one in which politicians change the rules to get the results they want and another in which citizens must live with those results.

When the Rules Serve Power

Redistricting belongs here because it tests whether representation still runs from the people to the government, or from those in power down to the people. Hamilton was not writing about congressional maps, voter files, or consultants using software to carve communities into partisan shapes. But he was writing about public confidence, and that confidence breaks when politicians draw the rules of representation to protect themselves.

A district should begin with the people who live there: their towns, neighborhoods, shared problems, and common interests. Too often, mapmaking now begins with the desired outcome and the voters needed to secure it, then rearranges communities until they serve the result. Elections still happen, but representation shifts away from the people and toward the mapmakers. A small group of people gets to dig a moat around the castle of power, hollowing out representative government in the process.

The danger grows when politicians meet gerrymandering with more gerrymandering. One side redraws for advantage, the other retaliates where it can, and both insist they are only correcting the other’s abuse. That may work as a talking point, but it is a lousy form of self-government. In that cycle, voters stop being citizens and become pieces to move.

Mid-decade redistricting makes the motive impossible to hide. Redistricting is supposed to follow the census, when population changes require states to adjust district lines. When politicians redraw maps between censuses, they are trying to win through process what they fear they cannot win in November.

When politicians can redraw maps whenever they want a better deal, constituents become movable assets, kept as long as they're useful and discarded when inconvenient. That breaks the basic bargain of representative government: elections should be won by persuading voters, not rearranging them. If politicians can keep changing the electorate, they never really have to answer to it.

Share

Why Competitive Districts Matter

A close district keeps a politician from getting too comfortable. They cannot spend all their time preaching to people who already agree and calling that representation. They have to explain themselves to voters who still need to be persuaded. Competitive districts do not make politics noble, but they make it harder for representatives to confuse their supporters with the public.

Safe districts pull politics in the opposite direction. When the general election is effectively decided before it starts, the primary becomes the real threat, and the representative’s world gets smaller. Winning trust across the district matters less than avoiding punishment from the most intense voters in one party. Over time, that changes who runs for office, how they talk, and what they do once they get there.

The people back home are still there, but they no longer carry the same weight. The job starts to bend toward a national political world that rewards performance over accountability. Talking to constituents becomes part of the show, while the real relationships form far outside the district.

In a republic this large, the collapse of competitive districts should worry us. When most races are decided before November, the voters’ voice is silenced before the ballot is even cast. That is not self-government. It is a system learning how to protect itself from the people it is supposed to represent.

The Guardrails Are Weakening

The Supreme Court has made the redistricting fight more volatile. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court rejected Louisiana’s congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district, and found that the state had relied too heavily on race. The case puts two principles in tension: the Voting Rights Act protects voters from minority-vote dilution, while the Constitution limits how far states may go in using race to draw districts.

Some argue that race-based districts should disappear altogether. That debate deserves serious treatment. But if states replace race-conscious districting with openly partisan districting, they have not made the process more representative. They have only changed who benefits from the manipulation. A map built to protect political control does not serve the people simply because officials stop naming race as the rationale.

The Court did not repeal the Voting Rights Act, and we should not describe the ruling that way. But the decision narrows one of the remaining guardrails in redistricting fights. It gives states less room to answer vote-dilution claims with race-conscious districts, and it gives partisan mapmakers more room to test the boundaries. That is where a legal ruling becomes a political accelerant. It changes what states may do, and it invites political actors to push harder.

Weakened guardrails change behavior. Once parties sense more room to draw aggressive maps, restraint starts to look like surrender. Each side treats the other’s escalation as justification for its own excess. The result dilutes representative government under the false promise that everyone will return to the norms later. Each new map becomes the baseline for the next fight, and legal permission hardens into political insulation.

The Two Systems

The system creates the temptation. The same politicians who benefit from the rules often have the power to shape the conditions under which they keep office. Without restraint, the rules stop checking ambition and start serving it. Rules meant to protect the people start protecting the people already in charge.

Every faction can convince itself that its cause is too important to lose. Once that belief takes hold, politicians stop treating defeat as part of republican life. They turn it into a danger to be engineered away. They defend the tactic as necessary and dismiss restraint as surrender because they cannot trust the other side. That is how the political class builds two systems of rules: one in which citizens must accept the result, and another in which politicians keep adjusting the contest.

A republic cannot hold that bargain forever. Its legitimacy depends on the belief that the office is temporary and that a losing side can return by persuading enough people next time. The system does not require parties to like each other, but it does require both sides to accept competition as real. Redistricting attacks that belief by telling voters the map may matter more than persuasion.

A safe district turns the general election into a ceremony. It teaches candidates to please the right people rather than earn public trust, while voters learn that a legal map can still fail the basic test of representation. Too many politicians understand that problem clearly until the new lines protect them.

Who Are They Serving?

That is the question at the center of this essay. When politicians draw a district to secure a preferred outcome, they do not build it around the voter. They build it around the result they already want. When politicians redraw maps mid-decade and rearrange communities to chase another seat, the answer becomes hard to avoid: too often, the system serves those trying to keep control of it.

Hamilton’s point in Federalist 27 was that authority depends on confidence. People are more likely to accept government when they believe it is acting lawfully, prudently, and fairly. Redistricting abuse runs counter to that because it weakens accountability, strengthens party control, and helps politicians avoid defeat.

A map that delivers more seats may help win a speakership or protect a majority, but it also teaches citizens a dangerous lesson: politicians can treat representation as another tool of control. The same tactic celebrated in office becomes the abuse denounced in opposition. The public sees the pattern, and every new map becomes permission for the next one.

Federalist 27 still matters because law can give government authority, but only public trust can make it last in a free society. That trust weakens when citizens believe their representatives are sorting and managing them instead of answering to them.

A district drawn to protect a party does not give citizens a voice; it gives the party control. And a republic cannot remain free for long when those in office become more committed to protecting their position than answering to the people.

The Man at the Front of the Room

It was September 1986 when I walked into James Lohr’s chemistry class for the first time. He was younger then than I am now, though that is the kind of thing you only think about years later. Back then, he seemed ancient, which is probably how most teachers looked to a sixteen-year-old. What stayed with me was not really his age so much as the way he carried himself. He was serious, steady, and plainly there to teach, and even as a kid, I could tell he was not going through the motions.

What I remember most is that chemistry never stayed neatly inside chemistry. The class had structure, and the material mattered, but he was never afraid to stop and take a student’s question seriously, even when it seemed to lead away from the day’s lesson. At the time, that could feel like a digression. Looking back, it feels more like part of the class itself. He taught chemistry, but he also taught in a way that made the subject feel connected to the rest of life.

Subscribe now

The Line That Stayed

He is still vivid to me all these years later. I can picture his face, his Pennsylvania Dutch beard, and the dry way he answered questions. One memory has stayed with me for nearly forty years because it captured so much of him in a single moment. Whenever we were assigned a paper, somebody would eventually ask how long it had to be. Mr. Lohr would pause, stroke his beard, look slightly upward, and say, “Long enough to cover the subject.”

That was the whole answer, and it was very much his style: dry, precise, and delivered in a way that made further discussion feel unnecessary. He was not trying to be clever for the sake of it. That was simply his way of cutting straight to the point and leaving it there.

And then there were the chemistry jokes. One of his lines was, “Little Willy was a chemist, Little Willy is no more. What he thought was H2O was H2SO4.” It was exactly the sort of joke a chemistry teacher would treasure, and a teenager would pretend not to enjoy, which may be why it stayed with me. So did “long enough to cover the subject,” and forty years later, I can still hear both lines in his voice. People who have worked for me have heard that story and that line for several reasons, hopefully with some sense of the impact it had on me.

Share

The Life Behind the Teacher

When I read his obituary, parts of the man I had seen as a student came into clearer focus. He was born in Indian Head, Pennsylvania, to a coal miner father and a mother who taught piano. After his father was paralyzed by a mining injury, he left home young and came to Maryland’s Eastern Shore with a suitcase and five dollars in his pocket. That is not the beginning of an easy life, and it helps explain how he carried himself. He learned early that life was serious business.

He found work, found opportunity, earned a degree in chemistry, later completed a master’s degree in science education, and spent thirty-seven years teaching chemistry at Easton High School. His family wrote that he never forgot how much his own life had depended on the intervention of others at key moments, and that this memory shaped the way he taught. His classroom stayed open after hours for students who needed help, and he tutored nursing students because he knew a life can change when somebody decides you are worth the effort.

That helps explain why he never seemed like a man who was merely covering material. He believed what happened in a classroom mattered. His family wrote that he believed in the lasting value of public education and understood that with knowledge comes power, and with power comes responsibility. That’s not included in an obituary because it sounds nice, but because it’s the settled view of a man who had thought hard about what teaching was for.

What Students Carry

One detail in the obituary stopped me. His family wrote that former students had been a frequent topic of conversation around their kitchen table for years, that he talked about where they had gone, how they were doing, and what had become of them. That tells you a great deal, because plenty of teachers care in the moment, while fewer keep caring for decades. That detail reached back across the years and confirmed something many of his students probably felt without ever being able to prove: the concern was real.

By the time I knew him, he had already lived enough life to know that teaching was not a performance and that a classroom was not a holding pen for bored teenagers. He was not trying to be your friend. He was trying to teach you something, and within that effort lay a larger challenge: pay attention, think clearly, and take the world seriously. Those lessons wear better than most.

What He Was Really Teaching

I often write on this site about the Constitution, the Founders, ambition, power, and the institutions meant to keep a free society from flying apart. But a republic is not held together by documents alone. It also depends on habits of mind and character formed long before anyone reads The Federalist Papers or runs for office.

That work happens first in families, then in churches, communities, and all the ordinary places where people are shaped. It happens in classrooms too, when a teacher refuses to treat learning as busywork or students as a problem to be managed. Men like James Lohr were part of that quieter work, helping form citizens without ever needing to say so.

That may be why teachers like him stay with people so long. They were not simply delivering information. They were showing, by example, what seriousness, judgment, and self-command looked like, and when enough adults like that disappear from a culture, the loss eventually shows up everywhere else.

What Stayed With Me

I did not walk into his classroom in 1986 expecting any of that. I thought I was taking chemistry, but what I got was a picture of what a serious adult looked like, even though I was too young at the time to fully understand it. Mr. Lohr was the kind of teacher whose life gave weight to his words and who expected students to rise to the level of the material rather than dragging the material down to meet them. What stayed with me was not only what he taught, but the sense that teaching itself was serious work and that students were worth the effort. There is a line in his obituary from a visitor near the end of his life who told him, “You have made a difference.” In his case, that feels both true and earned.

I am sure I was not one of his more memorable students, but that made him no less present in my life. He stayed with me in the way good teachers do, not always at the front of your mind, but never very far from it. Long after I forgot most of the chemistry, I remembered the man.

Leave a comment

A Man Returns Home

In August 1895, Wong Kim Ark returned to San Francisco after a temporary trip to China and found that the federal government would not let him reenter the country where he had been born. Officials argued that birth on American soil did not make him a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that claim eventually reached the Supreme Court. In 1898, the Court rejected the government’s position and held that a man born in the United States to non-citizen parents who were permanently domiciled here was a citizen at birth.

That story still carries weight because it reminds us that the argument over birthright citizenship did not suddenly appear in the age of cable panels and executive orders. It is an old constitutional dispute, and from the beginning it has involved more than theory. It has forced the government to answer a basic question about law and belonging: when a person stands before the state, born here, does he belong here or not? More than a century later, the Supreme Court must again confront the scope of birthright citizenship. But the part of the case that keeps drawing me back is not only the debate over text. It is the question of whether an administration that rejects the current legal understanding may try to force a new one into place through executive action when Congress has already spoken through statute, and the courts have already spoken through precedent. Once that becomes the issue, the case no longer concerns immigration policy alone, or constitutional interpretation in the abstract. It becomes a case about how the law changes and whether the country still expects major legal change to move through the institutions that test it and legitimize it.

Subscribe now

The Question Beneath the Case

There is nothing improper about arguing that the law has taken a wrong turn. Congress can write a bad statute. Courts can misread a constitutional provision. Even a longstanding legal settlement can deserve another look if the case for rethinking it is serious enough. That is part of republican life. It is how a constitutional system stays alive rather than turning itself into a shrine to old conclusions. So the point here is not that birthright citizenship must remain forever beyond debate. The point is that the Constitution does not treat every possible route to change as equally legitimate. Some routes force scrutiny, consent, and institutional testing. Others try to achieve by executive speed what the constitutional order ordinarily requires people to earn through argument and persuasion.

That distinction matters because of the posture of the present dispute. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” directing the federal government not to recognize citizenship for certain children born in the United States to mothers who were unlawfully present or temporarily present, unless the father met certain citizenship or permanent-resident conditions. Lower courts blocked the order, and the Supreme Court heard arguments on April 1, 2026. What makes that sequence important is that the administration is not merely floating a constitutional theory in an academic journal or, in the ordinary course, asking the judiciary to reconsider precedent. It is asserting executive authority in an area where the governing legal order already includes constitutional text, a federal statute, and long-settled Supreme Court case law. Title 8 of the United States Code states that a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen at birth. The administration, then, is not simply offering an interpretation. It is trying to push around an existing legal structure rather than work through it.

Why Method Is Part of the Substance

That is why method matters here, and why it should matter even to people who are open to revisiting the current understanding of birthright citizenship. The Constitution does not leave the country helpless when citizens or officeholders believe that a major legal question has been wrongly settled. Congress may revise statutes. Litigants may ask the judiciary to narrow, distinguish, or overturn precedent. And if the country genuinely comes to believe that constitutional text itself should change, Article V remains available. None of those paths is quick, and none is easy, but that does not show constitutional failure. It shows that the American system requires more than executive impatience before the legal ground shifts beneath the public.

In other words, the process here does not distract from the real question. In constitutional government, process helps answer it, because it shapes how officials exercise power, how institutions build legitimacy, and what future officeholders think they can claim for themselves. When a president uses an executive order to unsettle a structure that Congress and the courts have already reinforced through statute and precedent, the lesson reaches well beyond the policy dispute at hand. He teaches the country that certainty and impatience can make the ordinary channels of legal change look optional. That habit has consequences. It encourages the public to treat the constitutional order not as a framework within which power must operate, but as a set of obstacles that the boldest branch can manage if it moves first and forces everyone else to react later.

Share

What the Federalists Still Have to Say

This is where the Federalist frame helps, not because the eighteenth century offers easy answers to every modern question, but because it still offers clarity about structure. Hamilton argued for energy in the executive because he understood that government without vigor can become incoherent, evasive, and weak. But he did not defend executive energy in order to blur the line between enforcing the law and remaking it. He defended decisiveness in administration, accountability in office, and the capacity to act where the Constitution and the law had already entrusted action to the executive. He did not argue that a president should push aside the ordinary work of lawmaking and adjudication whenever Congress moves too slowly and the courts seem likely to resist.

Madison’s framework points in the same direction. The Constitution assumes ambition, rivalry, and institutional friction, which is precisely why it divides power rather than concentrating it. The Framers did not expect one branch to take the lead on every urgent question while the others scrambled to catch up. They wanted difficult matters to pass through more than one center of authority so that law, especially on questions of enduring importance, would carry more legitimacy than the will of a single officeholder. Viewed through that lens, the birthright citizenship case is not simply another policy clash. It reflects a broader trend in modern governance, in which presidents of both parties increasingly cite congressional paralysis, legal complexity, and political urgency as reasons to expand executive initiative. The script now sounds so familiar that people mistake it for common sense: Congress will not act, the issue is too important to wait, and the courts can sort it out later. But that is not really a theory of constitutional government. It is a habit of executive impatience that has grown easier to defend only because the rest of the system has grown too accustomed to it.

This Is Not an Argument for Freezing the Law

None of this requires anyone to pretend that the present legal understanding of birthright citizenship lies beyond challenge. It does not. People who believe that Wong Kim Ark should be read narrowly, or that modern assumptions about citizenship have drifted away from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, have every right to make those arguments. They can bring them to court. They can make them in scholarship, in Congress, and in public debate. There is nothing un-American about pressing for legal change. On the contrary, a healthy republic depends on the ability to argue for legal change within the constitutional order itself.

What does not follow, though, is that executive action may stand in for that larger constitutional labor. An administration may challenge precedent, but it should not act as though an executive order can perform the work that belongs to Congress, the judiciary, or the amendment process. To my mind, that is the stronger argument in this case because it avoids the lazy mistake of treating precedent as sacred and change as illegitimate. The issue is not whether change may happen. The issue is whether a president may announce a narrower constitutional view, instruct the bureaucracy to enforce it, and leave the rest of the system to absorb the shock. On a question as consequential as citizenship, that is very hard to defend. The Court may yet choose to narrow or revisit existing doctrine, but that is a different thing altogether from allowing the executive branch to behave as though that work has already been done.

The Better Standard

A better standard would begin with a simple but demanding premise. If Americans want to revisit birthright citizenship, they should do so openly and lawfully, through the institutions that give lasting change its legitimacy. They should make their argument in court and ask the judges to reconsider the doctrine. They should make the argument in Congress wherever Congress has room to act. And if they truly believe the constitutional text has been wrongly understood at the deepest level, they should make the harder case for amendment. That path is slower, less dramatic, and much less satisfying for leaders who want immediate victories. But constitutional government was never designed to guarantee quick wins for the side most persuaded of its own righteousness. It was designed to ensure that lasting change would be tested by institutions broad enough to legitimize it and sturdy enough to slow it down.

That is also why executive shortcuts do so much damage over time. Their effect does not stop with a single policy or administration. They teach the public to think that constitutional order is optional whenever the issue is urgent enough and the president is determined enough. Once that mindset takes hold, it does not stay boxed inside immigration law. It reappears wherever a future administration decides that legislation is too slow, the courts too uncertain, or public persuasion too burdensome. And every time it reappears, the same claim returns with it: the matter is too important to wait, so the executive must act. A republic can survive episodes of that reasoning. What it cannot do, at least not without cost, is turn that reasoning into a governing style.

Closing Thought

The story of Wong Kim Ark still matters because it reminds us how much is at stake when the government treats citizenship as something it can narrow first and justify later. But the larger issue in the present case is whether the country still believes that constitutional ends must be pursued through constitutional means. That concern is not abstract, and it is not merely procedural. It goes to the heart of how modern presidents understand power and how Congress has too often allowed itself to become a spectator, condemning executive overreach in theory while tolerating it whenever the overreach comes from the right political team. The result is a political culture that rewards motion, mocks restraint, and slowly teaches the public to treat the ordinary constitutional route as unusual simply because it is slower and more demanding.

That is a bad bargain for everyone. A republic cannot preserve its balance if each branch defends the Constitution only when it is losing. On a question as weighty as citizenship, that should be clear enough. If birthright citizenship is important enough to revisit, then it is important enough to revisit honestly through the courts, through Congress, and, if the country is prepared for it, through the amendment process. What should concern us is not only the answer the Court eventually gives, but whether we have become so accustomed to executive shortcuts that the ordinary constitutional route now feels exceptional. If that happens, the deeper loss will not be confined to this case. It will be felt across the whole structure of self-government.

Leave a comment

Spending Like Drunken Sailors

Last week, the federal debt crossed $39 trillion, and Congress is not even close to slowing down. U.S. Department of the Treasury data put total public debt just above that mark on March 19, 2026. The jump from $38 trillion to $39 trillion took about five months, after the move from $37 trillion to $38 trillion took about two months. This should force a serious national debate. Instead, it barely got noticed in the noise of Washington.

Congress will happily burn days on nominations, investigations, and whatever new outrage can fill an afternoon of cable news. But when the conversation turns to the cost of its own decisions, you can hear crickets in the swamps of the Capitol. Most members of Congress couldn’t tell you what the government should stop doing, which promises they cannot keep, or what taxpayers and future generations can actually bear. Reinforcing the old saying that Washington is 68 square miles surrounded by reality.

Each new trillion shows up faster than the last, while members of Congress play their role in the professional wrestling drama. In Washington, a freeze is a cut, and a real cut is an act of war. Then members go home and brag about spending that shows up in the district or state. The theater is so old that hardly anyone in town seems to notice it anymore.

Reagan saw this years ago. In “A Time for Choosing,” he said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size,” then added the line that still lands because it is still true: “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” That quote from 1964 rings even truer more than six decades later. Temporary solutions become permanent expenses without debate.

That is also why gimmicks thrive. Caps, triggers, delayed savings, rosy ten-year projections, and promises that the pain starts later. None of that is cosplay discipline. By the time the trick is exposed, the debt is even higher.

How does fiscal discipline work in Washington? Something like this:

A man comes home from work, out of breath, and drops into a chair at the kitchen table.

His wife asks, “What happened to you?”

He grins and says, “I skipped the bus and ran behind it all the way home. Saved myself $2.50.”

She looks at him and says, “That’s nothing. Tomorrow run behind a taxi and save $15.”

You, too, are now a Washington budget expert.

Subscribe now

Fiscal Pride Before the Fall

The United States does not need a dramatic collapse to get itself into trouble. It just needs to get comfortable with habits that slowly box it in. A government promises more than it is willing to pay for. Borrowing is the easiest route, because it feels like a victimless crime. No one pays more today, no one loses a pet program, and they’ll be out of office before the bill comes due.

Interest is where this stops sounding abstract. Debt service is money already committed before Congress makes a single new decision, and that is the deeper problem. Debt does not just crowd out other priorities. It narrows self-government itself because a republic is supposed to debate real choices in real time. But a government buried in debt enters every debate with fewer real options and too much of the future already spoken for.

Sooner or later, debt becomes more than a number. It begins to limit what the government can do, especially when a crisis hits, and real choices have to be made. Great powers can carry debt for a long time. But it’s time for Congress to admit it has an addiction and begin the road to recovery.

Hamilton Understood Credit and the Danger

Hamilton was not hostile to public credit. He understood that a serious country needs the ability to raise money and respond to danger. In Federalist 15, he asked, “Is public credit an indispensable resource in time of public danger?” In Federalist 30, he wrote that “Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic.” And in Federalist 34, he argued that government must have the “CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen.” He understood a simple point Congress often prefers to forget: a republic cannot defend itself on good intentions alone.

But that was never his whole argument. Hamilton did not praise credit, so politicians could treat borrowing like a permanent escape hatch. He also insisted that the government needed “a regular and adequate supply” of revenue, and warned that without it, the government would “sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish.” He warned too of “the destruction of public credit at the very moment that it was becoming essential to the public safety.” In plain English, credit only works when it rests on something real: revenue, trust, and a government willing to level with the public about what it can actually afford. Congress prefers the half of Hamilton that justifies borrowing and skips the half that demands discipline.

And Hamilton was writing with a warning already in view. The Federalist Papers appeared in 1787 and 1788 as France was sinking deeper into the fiscal crisis that helped trigger the Revolution. That matters because debt becomes more than just a financial problem when a government can no longer make its promises, taxes, and political order align. At that point, the budget is no longer just a ledger. It becomes a test of whether the government can still level with the public.

Share

What $39 Trillion Tells Us

That is the real problem in Washington. The issue is not simply that Congress spends too much, though it does. It is that the system itself is built to protect spending, postpone consequences, and make serious restraint look politically absurd. Growth is treated as the baseline, while any real effort to slow it is framed as cruelty or retreat. Gimmicks are packaged as reform, temporary measures become permanent fixtures, and both parties keep finding ways to postpone the reckoning. Republicans campaign as budget hawks and then govern as if the bill will come due on somebody else’s watch. Democrats defend spending growth as though arithmetic were a partisan attack. The language changes, but the dodge stays the same. In both parties, the next election still seems to matter more than the next generation.

That is why $39 trillion matters. Not because round numbers have some mystical significance, but because this one puts the habit in plain view. Congress still wants applause for the promises, credit for the spending, and distance from the cost. It will fight over almost anything except the spending patterns that created the mess in the first place. And it keeps relying on the same evasions, calling a freeze a cut, dressing up gimmicks as reform, and treating delay as though it were a governing strategy.

Debt is not the whole problem, but it is the clearest sign of it. It shows what happens when a political system chooses avoidance over restraint and delay over honesty. That is the warning inside the number.

Where No. 26 Sits in the Argument

By the time Alexander Hamilton reaches Federalist No. 26, he is no longer trying to prove that the country needs the power to defend itself. He has already made that case. The Articles of Confederation had left the nation weak, divided, and unable to respond with much consistency or force. Here, Hamilton turns to the harder question: if the federal government must have the power to raise and support armies, what keeps that power from becoming a danger to liberty itself?

That is what gives it its place in the larger argument of the Federalist Papers. It is not a stand-alone essay about military policy. It sits in the middle of Hamilton’s case for national defense, where he insists that the Union must have real power to provide for the common defense, but that such power must still operate within a constitutional system of restraint. Federalist 23 lays out the case for national defense powers. Federalist 24 and Federalist 25 confront the fear of standing armies and the comforting fiction that the states could manage major threats on their own. Then Hamilton reaches the next obvious concern: if the federal government may maintain an army in peacetime, what prevents that power from becoming an instrument of tyranny?

That makes this essay the hinge in the argument. Hamilton shifts from necessity to restraint. He is no longer asking readers to accept that the country needs military capacity. He is showing them how the Constitution is supposed to keep that capacity under civilian control. That is the real subject here: whether a republic can possess military power without surrendering liberty to it.

Subscribe now

The Fear of Standing Armies

The fear Hamilton is addressing was not invented for effect. Americans had inherited a deep suspicion of standing armies from English history, where military force tied too closely to executive power had long been seen as a threat to freedom. That suspicion only deepened in the colonies, where British troops were not a theory but a lived reality. To many Americans in 1787, the phrase standing army did not sound like safety. It sounded like what Hamilton called an “hereditary impression of danger to liberty.”

He does not dismiss that fear. He takes it seriously and then tries to contain it. The Anti-Federalists were raising a real concern. If the Constitution had simply handed military authority to a permanent executive with no meaningful restraint, the criticism would have landed. But Hamilton argues that the Constitution answers that danger by placing military support in the legislature and forcing that support to be renewed at regular intervals. The power to raise and support armies belongs to Congress, and appropriations for that purpose may not last longer than two years. That is not some dusty procedural footnote. It is the check.

Hamilton also believed that some of the opposition had drifted into what he called an “injudicious excess.” The old fear of standing armies was understandable. But in his view, some critics had carried that fear so far that they no longer distinguished between a monarchy and a republic, between an unchecked ruler and a legislature accountable to the people. His answer was not that power was harmless. It was that a republic with elected lawmakers and recurring votes had to be judged differently from a monarchy. The real question was whether military power remained chained to institutions the public could still see, contest, and control.

Hamilton’s Constitutional Answer

And it is a smart one. The army cannot simply roll on by habit. It must be funded again, debated again, and justified again. For Hamilton, legislative control was the “ultimate point of precaution” consistent with the safety of a free people. His point is not that elected officials are magically virtuous. His point is structural. Military power is safer when it remains dependent on representative institutions, regular elections, and public scrutiny. In his view, liberty is preserved by forcing power to come back, again and again, to the people’s representatives for approval.

That argument only makes sense if you remember the failure that came before it. The Constitution did not emerge from a season of national confidence. It emerged from drift, weakness, and frustration under the Articles of Confederation. The central government struggled to raise money and coordinate defense, and repeatedly depended on the states to act together when they were busy guarding their own prerogatives and pulling in different directions. The framers were not solving an imaginary problem. They were trying to build a government that could survive contact with reality.

Hamilton is responding to two dangers at once. Americans had seen the threat of concentrated military power, but they had also seen the weakness of a government unable to defend the nation. A government too feeble to defend itself is not a guardian of liberty. It is an invitation to disorder, foreign pressure, and national humiliation. That is why this essay is more than a defense of peacetime armies. It is a lesson in constitutional design. Hamilton is asking whether a free people can create enough national capacity to govern and defend themselves without building the machinery of oppression. His answer is yes, but only if power remains tied to institutions that force accountability.

Share

When the Guardrails Go Soft

This is where the essay starts sounding familiar. Hamilton’s argument depends on one core assumption: military power in a republic must remain tied to recurring public consent. The Constitution allows for an army, but it does not treat that army as a permanent force floating above politics. It requires Congress to revisit the question, fund the force, and take responsibility for doing so in public.

Congress still funds the military. It still passes appropriations. But on the deeper question of ownership, the branch Hamilton expected to carry the burden has often seemed more interested in commentary than responsibility. Presidents act. Congress complains, applauds, hedges, and issues statements that vanish by the next news cycle. The money keeps flowing, the machinery keeps moving, and responsibility gets smeared so widely that no one really owns the decision.

His point was not simply that legislators should sign checks every two years. It was that recurring control over military support would force recurring political accountability. Congress was supposed to face that question “once at least in every two years,” not let military power settle into a permanent habit. Members would have to defend the policy, justify the expense, and answer to the public. The appropriations limit was supposed to prevent military power from becoming routine, unquestioned, and separated from real civilian control. But routine is exactly what modern government does best. Give Washington enough years, enough acronyms, and enough press releases, and almost anything can become background noise.

That is the sharper warning inside the essay. The danger is not only executive overreach. It is legislative drift. It is Congress growing comfortable with reacting instead of deciding. A modern superpower cannot function as though it were still a fragile Atlantic republic in 1787. Hamilton would have understood that. He was not arguing for helplessness then, and he would not argue for it now. But he would have recognized the danger of normalized military power that continues with less real debate, less real ownership, and less real accountability.

Federalist 26 is Hamilton’s warning that military power in a republic must never become routine. The country may need an army, readiness, and force. But in a free government, those things must remain tied to public consent and legislative control. Hamilton’s answer was structure. Put military power under the “ultimate point of precaution,” review it often, fund it openly, and make elected officials own it. Do not let the sword drift free of the Constitution.

That is where the essay still stings. The danger is not only an overreaching president. It is a Congress that gets lazy, loud, or comfortable enough to let military power become background noise. Once that happens, oversight becomes theater, funding becomes a habit, and accountability starts to look like somebody else’s job.

That is the enduring challenge of Federalist 26. Not whether America should be defended. It should. The question is whether the people’s branch still has the discipline to control the means of that defense, or whether it has settled for clapping, complaining, and cashing the bill.

A republic does not lose its liberty because an army exists. It loses it when elected leaders stop doing the work of controlling it. That was Hamilton’s warning, and it still lands.

Leave a comment

Congress did not simply lose its war powers to executive ambition. In many cases, it yielded them, then settled into the more comfortable role of complaining about what followed. That version is less flattering than the one Washington usually tells, but it is closer to the truth. For years, presidents have pushed at the boundaries of their authority while Congress has retreated, often acting as though public disapproval can substitute for the harder work of governing, even though it plainly cannot.

Executive overreach is real, but so is legislative surrender. Congress funds military action it will not clearly authorize, objects to operations it will not seriously stop, and treats constitutional responsibility like a burden best shifted to the White House and revisited later through hearings, statements, and ritual complaint. When the moment comes to decide who has the authority to use force, the legislative branch too often chooses political safety over constitutional duty.

Federalist 25 addresses the first half of the problem by arguing that a free government cannot keep the country safe if it makes itself too weak to prepare for danger. But the second half follows close behind: if the national government must have real defensive capacity, who controls its use? Hamilton’s answer elsewhere in the Federalist was never that the president should inherit the war powers of a king. It was that energy in the executive that had to operate within a constitutional order built on divided authority, accountability, and restraint.

That distinction matters because a republic cannot preserve self-government by letting one branch carry the burden of action while the other keeps the luxury of disapproval. The Constitution did not grant Congress war powers, so members could watch military action unfold and object to it after the fact. It gave them those powers because decisions of force were meant to remain tied to representation, deliberation, and political ownership. When lawmakers refuse that burden, they do not protect liberty. They weaken self-government itself.

This is the modern problem. It is not simply executive overreach, though that is real enough. The deeper problem is legislative evasion. Congress has not just lost ground. In many cases, it has surrendered it, sometimes through broad and durable authorizations, sometimes through silence dressed up as prudence, and sometimes through outrage that never hardens into action. A government cannot defend itself without readiness. But a free government cannot remain free if the people’s branch treats war as something to finance, denounce, or lament rather than something it must actually own.

Subscribe now

From War Powers to Permission Slips

The Constitution did not create a tidy system, and that was by design. Congress was given the power to declare war, raise and support armies, and control funding, while the president was made commander in chief. The structure assumes tension, argument, and decisions serious enough to require both energy and restraint, both action and accountability. What it does not assume is a standing arrangement in which presidents act first, and the legislature later decides how offended it wants to sound.

Hamilton made that distinction explicit in Federalist 69, where he argued that the president’s role as commander in chief was far more limited than the war-making authority of the British crown. Command was not the same thing as unilateral discretion to carry the nation into prolonged conflict. The office was meant to direct forces once authorized and respond when necessary, not absorb Congress’s responsibility through legislative drift.

Modern practice has drifted far from that design. Sometimes lawmakers give away too much and never come back to reclaim it. Sometimes they refuse to decide at all and then complain that the executive filled the gap. The pattern changes form, but the result stays the same: constitutional responsibility gives way to open-ended discretion, broad enough for presidents to keep using and vague enough for elected officials to deny they ever meant it to go that far.

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is the clearest example of the first problem. Passed in the immediate aftermath of a real and devastating attack, it reflected a country under pressure and a government that needed to respond. The original moment was not the mistake. What followed was. Over time, that authorization became the legal foundation for military action across years, administrations, and theaters far removed from the public understanding that surrounded its passage. Congress did not merely authorize force in an emergency. It allowed that emergency authorization to harden into a standing instrument of executive discretion, then abandoned the harder work of revisiting, narrowing, or reclaiming what it had set loose.

Libya in 2011 exposed the second problem. There, the issue was not an overbroad authorization lingering too long, but executive action moving forward without clear congressional ownership and then defending itself through a narrow reading of what counted as hostilities. Capitol Hill objected, but mostly in the language of criticism rather than control. It did not seriously force the constitutional question, nor did it compel a clear reckoning over whether sustained military action required affirmative legislative approval. In practice, complaint stood in for governance.

The two episodes look different on the surface, but they reveal the same habit. After 9/11, Congress acted and then disappeared; in Libya, it protested and then disappeared. In one case, it granted broad discretion and never reclaimed it. In the other, it watched that discretion expand and never stopped it. This was not simply power stolen outright. It was a responsibility abandoned.

The pattern persists for a reason. It survives not because no one sees it, but because too many people in Washington find it useful.

Why Congress Prefers Ambiguity

Ambiguity is not just a constitutional accident. It is often a political preference, because clear ownership carries risk. A vote to authorize force can follow a member for years, while a vote to limit or end an operation can be turned into an ad, a primary challenge, or a charge of weakness. It is much safer to speak in generalities, criticize from the perimeter, and let the executive absorb the immediate burden of action.

That arrangement suits more people in Washington than anyone likes to admit. Presidents get flexibility. Congress gets plausible deniability. Members can praise military strength, criticize strategic drift, fund ongoing operations, and still insist they were sidelined. It is a fine system for avoiding blame and a terrible one for constitutional government.

The deeper problem is that ambiguity flatters everyone’s instincts. Legislators can posture as guardians of the Constitution without having to exercise its hardest powers. The executive can stretch legal language in the name of necessity. The public can enjoy the moral clarity of strong rhetoric without demanding the discipline of actual oversight. What disappears in the process is ownership, and once ownership disappears, accountability usually follows.

That is why the war powers debate so often feels stale. Everyone knows the script. Presidents cite urgency. Congress objects in uneven bursts. Lawyers argue over the outer edge of statutory language. Then appropriations continue, operations continue, and the underlying question goes unresolved, not because it is too difficult to understand, but because resolution would force people to own what they would rather keep at arm’s length.

A serious republic cannot work that way forever. The legislature cannot treat war as something to observe, influence, and comment on while refusing responsibility for authorizing, limiting, and revisiting its use. If Congress prefers ambiguity because ambiguity is politically convenient, then convenience itself has become part of the constitutional problem.

Share

Preparedness Is Not a Blank Check

None of this means a free government should be slow to defend itself or helpless in the face of real danger. The president cannot wait for a full congressional seminar every time an immediate threat appears. A constitutional system has to preserve the capacity to act when events move faster than legislation.

But emergency action is not the same thing as a standing license. The constitutional question is not whether the executive needs room to respond in moments of real urgency. It is whether temporary necessity has become a permanent governing habit. A republic can recognize the need for speed in limited circumstances without allowing speed to replace deliberation altogether.

That is where the modern debate usually loses its footing. One side talks as if any attempt to reassert congressional authority would cripple national defense. The other talks as if any executive initiative is the first step toward monarchy. Both positions dodge the real issue. A serious government needs readiness. A free government also needs the people’s representatives to decide when readiness becomes sustained force, how long that force may continue, and under what limits it will be judged.

This is the point the legislative branch keeps trying to avoid. Preparedness gives the nation the capacity to act. It does not relieve elected officials of the duty to say what the mission is, what the objective is, how success is measured, and when continued action requires renewed approval. If they will not do that work, they are not defending the Constitution against executive excess. They are helping convert emergency discretion into normal practice.

That is why war powers cannot be reduced to a fight between decisiveness and delay. The real choice is between constitutional ownership and institutional drift. A president may need authority to respond when danger is sudden and immediate. But sustained military action cannot rest forever on old authorizations, elastic definitions, and congressional shrugging. Preparedness is necessary. Blank checks are not.

The Cost of Evasion

The cost of this arrangement is not just legal confusion. It is political decay. When Congress refuses to own decisions of war and force, public debate gets thinner, accountability gets weaker, and self-government loses one of its hardest but most necessary habits.

The first loss is clarity. A country asked to support military action deserves more than slogans, funding votes, and criticism after the fact. It deserves a real argument about aims, limits, risks, and duration. When lawmakers avoid that work, the public is left with fragments: executive claims of necessity, legislative statements of concern, and legal rationales narrow enough to defend almost anything while clarifying almost nothing. That is not deliberation. It is drift.

The second loss is accountability. If an operation goes badly, who owns it? The president can point to inherited authorities, urgent conditions, or congressional funding. Congress can point to executive initiative and insist it was sidelined. Both branches remain involved, but neither accepts full responsibility. The result is a system that keeps wars going while making responsibility harder to pin down.

The third loss is institutional. Congress does not just avoid responsibility in these moments. It forgets how to exercise it. The habits of serious oversight weaken when they are rarely used. Debate turns performative, hearings substitute for decisions, and members get better at denouncing outcomes than at shaping them.

Over time, Congress begins to treat one of its gravest powers as if it were mostly ceremonial. That is how constitutional authority erodes, not always through seizure, but through disuse.

That is the real danger. A legislature that will not own the use of force does not merely inconvenience the constitutional system. It trains the country to expect decisions of war without the discipline of shared responsibility. And once that expectation hardens, executive habit begins to look like constitutional order.

Self-Government Means Owning the Decision

A republic cannot preserve self-government by letting one branch fight while the other comments. The president may need room to act when danger is sudden and real. But sustained uses of force require more than appropriations, press releases, and retrospective complaints. They require Congress to do the work the Constitution assigned to it: debate, authorize, limit, revisit, and, when necessary, say no.

Owning that duty means time-limited authorizations, clear mission definitions, mandatory review, and members willing to vote yes or no in public.

That is the burden Congress keeps trying to escape. It wants the posture of vigilance without the cost of ownership. But the Constitution does not give Congress war powers, so members can admire them from a safe distance. It gives them those powers because decisions of force are too serious to be left to habit, ambiguity, and executive momentum alone.

The framers did not design a system in which Congress would watch executive war-making from the gallery and then issue objections after the vote. They designed a system of shared powers and rival institutions, one in which ambition was supposed to counteract ambition, not surrender to it.

Congress cannot outsource the Constitution and then act surprised by what fills the vacuum.

There’s a certain kind of peace Americans have grown used to, and it isn’t really peace in any deep sense. It is closer to distance, the feeling that the hardest realities of power are happening somewhere else, handled by specialists, while the rest of us argue about them later. Over time, that distance starts to feel like a restraint. We mistake ignoring conflict for avoiding it. And we start calling distance from danger “peace.”

Hamilton does not let the reader stay in that comfort zone for long. In Federalist 25, he addresses the fear of standing armies, but also the habit behind it. It is the belief that liberty can survive if you refuse to look directly at what survival requires. His point is simple. A free people do not protect liberty by making national defense too weak to work. A government that cannot meet predictable dangers will either fail when the test comes or reach for harsher measures once the danger can no longer be ignored.

That is the real argument of the essay. Hamilton is not giving a patriotic speech about martial vigor. He is not trying to smuggle despotism into the Constitution under the name of security. He is arguing against a comforting fiction: that a republic stays free by staying unprepared. A country facing real threats does not make them disappear by distrusting the means of defense. It only makes sure that when danger comes, it arrives on worse terms.

The Anti-Federalists had real reasons to fear armed power. History gives plenty of reasons to distrust governments that grow too comfortable with force. Hamilton knows that. What he refuses to accept is the idea that the world will indulge your anxieties, that rival nations will pause politely while a republic reassures itself that preparedness is optional. A constitution has to be fitted not just to hopes, but to conditions. Federalist 25 insists that a free government must be built for the world people actually live in, not the one they would prefer to imagine.

Readiness Before Panic

Hamilton begins with a point so obvious that Americans keep talking themselves out of it. Danger does not arrive on a schedule that flatters legislative hesitation. A government responsible for the common defense has to be able to prepare before threats become disasters. A republic cannot assume that war will always be rare, distant, or slow enough for every security question to wait until the danger is plain to everyone. By then, the choices are worse.

That is what makes Federalist 25 more than a generic argument for strength. Hamilton is defending the kind of steady national capacity that keeps a republic from governing by panic. If a people reject ordinary readiness in the name of liberty, they often end up accepting extraordinary measures in the name of survival. Weakness does not stay innocent just because it started as a principle. It often invites the overreaction it claimed to prevent.

Read that way, the essay is not really about armies in the narrow sense. It is about whether a government can do its job before fear does it badly. Hamilton wants a government that can act in time, under law, through regular channels, before panic starts calling itself necessity. That is not a rejection of constitutional restraint. It is an argument that restraint works better when it is attached to a government capable of doing its basic job.

Subscribe now

The World Hamilton Actually Lived In

Independence on paper was not the same thing as security in practice. Hamilton wrote only a few years after the Revolution, in a world where the United States was not a settled power but an experiment surrounded by older, stronger empires. Britain still kept troops on the continent. Spain controlled key access along the Mississippi system. The young republic carried debt, faced internal unrest, and lacked any credible national capacity to respond quickly to danger. Hamilton did not ask Americans to admire force. He asked them to stop pretending they could build a constitution on time, which they did not control.

The Articles of Confederation left the country in an awkward position, responsible for its own survival but not built to act like a nation. Congress could not reliably raise troops or fund them. It could not compel the states to treat defense as a shared obligation rather than a local preference. Even after independence had been won, the practical means of securing it remained weak, scattered, and uncertain.

Shays’ Rebellion also lingered in memory. It reminded Americans that instability could come from within as well as without. European powers watched closely, not because they admired the American experiment, but because they expected it to fail. Hamilton writes from inside that vulnerability, and it explains his impatience with theories that treated national weakness as a safeguard for liberty.

The Anti-Federalists Saw the Danger, Too

The Anti-Federalists were not wrong to worry. They feared that a national government with broad defense powers would become dependent on military instruments, pull authority away from the states, and teach citizens to accept necessity as a standing excuse for expanded power. That was not hand-wringing then, and it is not hand-wringing now. States build powers for one purpose and keep them for others.

Hamilton’s answer is not that the danger is imaginary. His answer is that weakness does not solve it. A republic does not become safer simply because it makes common defense harder to sustain. It becomes more exposed, and exposure has a politics of its own. When threats are ignored for too long, governments do not usually respond with calm moderation. They respond with haste, confusion, and broad claims of necessity. The machinery you refuse to build in deliberation tends to get built later in panic, and panic is not where constitutional restraint does its best work.

That tension is what still makes Federalist 25 worth reading. Publius does not solve the problem of military power once and for all. He tries to place it inside a constitutional order where it can be supervised, funded, debated, and limited through politics rather than wished away in theory. The Constitution does not make defense power harmless. It tries to make it answerable. That is a narrower claim, but also a more believable one.

The Habit of Pretending

Federalist 25 is really an argument against pretending that danger can be postponed indefinitely. Hamilton rejects the idea that a republic preserves its character by treating danger as occasional and preparation as suspect. A people may dislike military establishments, and they often have good reasons to dislike them. But dislike is not a governing principle. Institutions still have to answer to the world as it is.

That point travels beyond military affairs. Free societies regularly try to solve hard problems by acting as though they can be postponed forever. They underprepare because preparedness looks provocative. They keep ordinary tools weak because strong ordinary tools look too much like power. Then the neglected problem turns urgent, and they discover that weak institutions do not prevent coercion. They only guarantee that coercion shows up later, cruder, and under worse conditions.

You can see the pattern now without much effort. The dull work gets deferred as stockpiles shrink, production weakens, and capacity is treated as waste right up until the moment it is needed. Politicians would rather posture than maintain, and voters prefer the language of restraint to the actual cost of readiness. Then a crisis hits, and the same people who mocked preparation start demanding instant results from institutions they spent years hollowing out. That is the cycle Hamilton saw clearly. Neglect does not spare a republic from hard power. It only guarantees that hard choices arrive later, faster, and under worse conditions.

Neglect First, Panic Later

The most useful modern parallel is not a generic slogan about the need for a strong military. That hides the mechanism Hamilton is describing. The better parallel is the cycle of neglect and panic that runs through modern public life. Institutions are distrusted when they ask for maintenance, investment, or oversight. Then they are expected to perform flawlessly in crisis. When they fail, emergency measures rush in to cover the gap.

That pattern is not limited to war. It shows up in border security, cybersecurity, and other areas where slow preparation is politically thankless until failure becomes impossible to ignore. Legislators prefer symbolic suspicion to close supervision. Citizens like the language of restraint more than the burden of governing. Officials put off ordinary preparation because prevention is dull politics. The result is a republic that demands competence on command after spending years hollowing out the conditions that make competence possible.

Federalist 25 speaks directly to that habit. Hamilton’s point is not that necessity should always win. It is that necessity becomes more dangerous when a government has been denied the lawful means to prepare. A constitutional order that cannot do basic protective work in ordinary times will almost certainly do worse work in extraordinary ones.

Share

Capacity and Restraint Rise or Fall Together

The strength of Federalist 25 is that it refuses two easy answers. One is the claim that liberty is safe whenever government is too weak to defend the country. The other claim is that danger licenses whatever the state wants to do. Hamilton’s actual position is harder than either slogan. A republic needs enough capacity to meet real threats, and enough restraint to keep that capacity from becoming a standing excuse.

That is why the Anti-Federalist concern remains inside the essay rather than outside it. Publius is persuasive because he understands that free government cannot be built on innocence. Constitutional trust depends on the necessary power remaining answerable to law, representation, and public judgment. Preparedness is not self-justifying. It has to remain under republican control, and visibly so.

The stakes reach beyond defense policy. Federalist 25 asks whether a free people can face danger honestly and still preserve the habits of liberty. That means preparing in time, acting under the law, and refusing to let fear govern once events turn hard.

Hamilton’s better lesson is plainer than either extreme: stop pretending that weakness is the same thing as restraint. The real question is the one he leaves staring the reader in the face: will we govern ourselves in advance, or will we let crisis govern us later?

Presidents’ Day shouldn’t really be a celebration of presidents, at least not in the sentimental sense. It works better as a reminder about how much weight the Constitution places on one office. More importantly, a warning of just how quickly a republic can lose its balance when it begins to treat the presidency as the center of national life.

The presidency is where the country concentrates its hopes, its anger, its expectations, and its disappointments. It is also the office most likely to expand when other institutions retreat. When Congress fails to govern, when responsibility becomes politically toxic, the executive fills the vacuum. Over time, the presidency becomes less an office within a system and more the place where national emotion collects.

Hamilton understood the need for a strong executive early, shaped by the failures of the Confederation and the reality that a republic cannot function when its government cannot act. But he would recognize the imbalance we live with now: a Congress that too often evades responsibility, and presidents who have exceeded the authority the Constitution was meant to allow. Hamilton’s argument was never for presidential dominance. Energy in the executive was always meant to come with accountability, not immunity, an executive strong enough to govern, but still held in place by a legislature willing to do its job. His defense of executive energy was written for a republic trying to avoid paralysis, not for a presidency trying to escape constraint.

Subscribe now

Hamilton’s Case for Energy

In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton writes that “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.” The line is now famous, but it was never meant as a cheer for strongmen. Hamilton was making a practical argument about what governing requires in a world of foreign pressure and domestic uncertainty, where events move faster than legislatures and delay can become its own kind of vulnerability.

He had seen what executive weakness looked like under the Articles of Confederation, a government that could deliberate endlessly but struggled to act decisively when action was needed. Energy, for Hamilton, was not about spectacle. It was about capacity, the ability to execute the laws, respond to crisis, and represent the nation with coherence rather than fragmentation.

He is also blunt about the alternative. “A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government,” he warns, because weakness at the center does not preserve liberty so much as invite disorder. What he wanted was not an unlimited executive, but a responsible one, an office strong enough to govern but still constrained by constitutional accountability. Modern presidents test this very balance, and Congress too often fails to defend it.

Unity and Accountability

Hamilton’s case for unity was really a case for accountability. “Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch,” he argued, tend to characterize the proceedings of one man, and that concentration of authority makes it harder to hide when things go wrong. Committees blur accountability. Fragmented power invites delay and diffusion, leaving the public unsure where accountability actually rests.

He puts it bluntly in the same essay: “The executive power is more easily confined when it is one,” because unity makes judgment possible. The point was never drama or grandeur. It was clarity, an executive energetic enough to act, but visible enough to be held to account.

Not a King, Not a Symbol

That executive, though, was never meant to become a symbol beyond the Constitution itself. Federalist No. 69 is Hamilton’s effort to reassure Americans that the presidency is not a disguised monarchy, not a crown with better marketing.

The president is “an officer elected by the people for four years,” temporary and replaceable by design, and Hamilton goes out of his way to strip away any sacred aura. The president would have “no particle of spiritual jurisdiction,” no divine right, no royal permanence, no presidency as national priesthood. The office was designed to be powerful, but not holy, and Hamilton reminds his readers that the president is “liable to be impeached, tried, and… removed from office,” a republican officer rather than a crowned figure. In other words, the presidency was built to be strong, but never untouchable.

The country has never been entirely comfortable with executive power. Monarchy is rejected in theory, yet the temptation to invest a single figure with national meaning has always lingered. Hamilton is trying to hold a line between energy and reverence, between strength and restraint, and that tension has only grown more acute.

Share

Washington’s Refusal

The first and most important Presidents’ Day story is not about charisma or greatness so much as restraint. George Washington could have become something else, and few would have questioned it at the time. There were moments when Americans spoke of him in terms that sounded uncomfortably royal, as though the republic had simply traded one kind of crown for another. Despite that, he stepped away.

Washington’s retirement was not a footnote but a constitutional act. It established the presidency’s first great precedent: the executive is not a throne, and the office does not belong to the man. Washington’s greatest act of authority was surrendering it. Hamilton’s executive requires that kind of civic maturity, not only from presidents, but from a public willing to accept that power must remain temporary in a republic. That precedent still defines the presidency in theory, even if modern politics has made it harder to sustain in practice.

The Presidency We Have Built

Over time, the presidency has assumed a role the Constitution was never meant to sustain. The office is expected to carry the nation’s conflicts, anxieties, and unfinished business in a way no single institution safely can. Presidents become legislators, commanders, moral leaders, and symbols, and elections come to feel existential because the weight of the system is placed on a single office.

This drift is not only institutional but also civic, as voters have come to expect presidents to step in where Congress will not and to decide questions the system was meant to debate. Presidents are no longer only executing the laws. They are shaping them through directives, emergency authorities, and administrative power that begins to look like legislation by another name. The presidency expands not only because power is seized, but because Congress and the voters tolerate it.

Presidential power has expanded through precedent as much as through personality. Truman’s decision to enter the Korean War without a formal declaration did not simply shape one conflict. It helped normalize the modern pattern of presidential war-making, with Congress watching from the sidelines as executive authority widened in practice. What begins as an exception becomes routine, and routine becomes difficult to reverse.

Congress has weakened its own role, and presidents have filled the space. Legislators avoid hard choices through agencies, courts, and executive orders, while executive power presses forward with fewer effective constraints. The result is an imbalance the Framers did not intend: executives who push beyond constitutional limits, and a legislature that too often refuses to enforce them. Hamilton wanted energy, but he did not want an executive untethered from the accountability that makes republican government possible.

The Madisonian Reminder

Madison’s deeper warning sits underneath all of this. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote in Federalist No. 51, because the Constitution was never built on trust in virtuous leaders. It was built to keep power in tension, checked by competing institutions.

The presidency cannot bear the whole republic, and Congress cannot remain legitimate while refusing to govern. Madison’s system assumes conflict between branches because that tension is what prevents power from settling permanently in one place. When the legislature withdraws, the executive not only dominates by default, but conditions Congress and the public to accept it.

What makes the modern drift so dangerous is not only that presidents overreach, but also that the rest of the system begins to accept it as normal. When Congress declines to enforce limits, and voters come to expect executive shortcuts, the separation of powers becomes less a structure than a fiction.

Hamilton defended executive energy, and Madison insisted on institutional balance. Together, they assumed a republic serious enough to sustain both an executive capable of action and a legislature willing to restrain it. What we have now is energy without equilibrium, and a presidency that expands because too few are willing to stop it.

Presidents’ Day, Properly Understood

Presidents’ Day works best not as a celebration of presidents, but as a reminder of what the presidency is and what it is not. The office carries real authority, and in moments when the country cannot afford paralysis, it must be capable of action. Hamilton was right to insist on that energy, even as he assumed it would remain bounded by constitutional restraint.

The presidency was never intended to become the whole system, serving as the nation’s legislature, commander, and moral center. That expansion has warped the office, concentrating power in ways that weaken the liberties the Constitution exists to protect. Washington understood that restraint was not the absence of power, but its highest form, and modern presidents rarely speak that language.

Strong presidents show their strength not by exceeding limits, but by respecting them. Washington treated the office as a trust rather than a possession, and he understood restraint as a form of strength, not weakness. Modern presidents in both parties have treated constitutional boundaries as negotiable. Voters come to expect, even applaud, the breach so long as it comes from their side. Power never stays with one party, and the presidency only grows larger when it changes hands.

Presidents’ Day should not train us to celebrate power. It should remind us that the presidency is an office, not a crown, and that the Constitution cannot survive if one branch continues to absorb what the others surrender. Washington modeled restraint, Hamilton demanded accountability, and Madison built safeguards that only work when Congress and the public insist on limits. Executive overreach does not strengthen the republic. It is the destructive path back to the king the Founders rejected 250 years ago.

In the winter of 1783, the American Revolution was officially ending and quietly beginning to unravel. The British were still withdrawing from New York, the peace treaty had not yet been finalized, and Congress was broke, powerless to tax, and increasingly unable to keep even its most basic promises. The Continental Army, still in the field, had not been paid in months, and many of its senior officers had gone years without reliable compensation. Promised pensions drifted further into doubt as enlistments expired and the end of the war brought not relief but anxiety. The men who had carried the war to victory were about to be sent home not as honored veterans, but as creditors holding paper that might never be redeemed.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress could only ask the states for money and wait, and often it waited in vain. Resentment did not erupt all at once. It accumulated, quietly and steadily, until a series of anonymous letters began circulating among the officer corps, measured in tone and radical in implication, arguing that patience had failed, that Congress would never act unless forced, and that the army, unified and disciplined, might need to remind civilian leaders who had actually won the war. This was not yet mutiny, but everyone who read those letters understood how such stories usually ended, because republics that allowed unpaid armies to linger near weak legislatures rarely remained republics for long.

Washington grasped the danger immediately. He called a meeting of his senior officers in Newburgh, New York, and spoke to them not as a commander issuing orders, but as a man appealing to shared honor and long service. He urged restraint and reminded them that the army’s greatest achievement would not be its victories in battle but its obedience to civilian authority when the fighting was done.

When he reached into his pocket to read a letter from Congress and found that he could not see it clearly, he paused, took out a pair of spectacles the officers had never seen him wear, and said quietly, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind.”

Contemporary accounts describe the room dissolving, men weeping, the agitation collapsing, and the army turning away from a course that might have ended the republic before it had properly begun. A few months later, Washington resigned his commission and returned to private life.

Subscribe now

The Lesson the Founders Could Not Forget

That moment stayed with the Founders, not because Washington himself had been dangerous, but because the situation had revealed how fragile a republic could become under strain. They had seen how close the country came to losing itself, not through ideology or ambition, but through debt, delay, and wounded pride. And they understood that standing armies were not dangerous because soldiers were wicked, but because even honorable men, under enough pressure, could be tempted to resort to force in politics.

For them, the danger was never abstract, because weak civilian authority and resentful armies had undone republics before in ways so familiar they hardly needed rehearsal. Rome had crossed that line, and Cromwell after it. History offered no shortage of warnings about what happened when military necessity began to substitute for political consent, and emergency hardened into habit.

By 1787, then, the question was no longer whether armies were risky. Everyone in the debate already conceded that they were. The harder question was whether a republic could design institutions strong enough to defend itself without surrendering control of that defense, and restrained enough to keep force under law even when fear, urgency, and grievance pressed in the opposite direction.

What Hamilton Is Actually Arguing in Federalist 24

When Alexander Hamilton turns to standing armies in Federalist No. 24, he does not deny the fear or attempt to talk past it. He concedes the point directly, writing that “a standing army in time of peace has always been considered as a dangerous, at times an unnecessary, engine,” and grounding the concern in long and bitter experience rather than imagination. But he refuses to treat absence as a solution, because danger does not wait for legislatures to convene or borders to defend themselves.

“A government,” he writes, “ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care,” and survival is one of those objects, whether citizens prefer to think about it or not. What he rejects is the idea that liberty is preserved by dismantling capacity, because the Anti-Federalist hope for safety through absence merely postpones danger until panic takes over and improvisation replaces law.

The real danger, as Hamilton frames it, is not the existence of force, but the way it appears when institutions have refused to prepare for it. When force arrives suddenly, it does so without discipline, structure, or clear political ownership. The question is not power versus liberty, but whether power is governed in advance or improvised in crisis.

At bottom, Federalist 24 is an argument about institutional design. If force is inevitable, the only question that finally matters is how it is governed before a crisis arrives, not how it is explained after it has already begun.

The Assumption Hamilton Makes About Congress

Here, Hamilton reveals an assumption that now feels almost fragile. He expects Congress to remain engaged, to debate and renew authorizations, and to let the existence of a standing army sharpen civilian oversight rather than dull it, so that the powers to raise and support armies are exercised regularly, deliberately, and publicly rather than quietly and by inertia.

The system he designs depends less on virtue than on process, on debate, appropriations, reauthorization, and shared responsibility, because without those habits, even a well-designed constitution begins to hollow out. Hamilton did not imagine a military that simply ran in the background, funded by habit and governed by momentum, largely untouched by the political scrutiny that was supposed to define civilian control.

Share

Why This Still Matters

We still operate under authorizations passed more than two decades ago. Conflicts migrate, and missions expand, and what began as an emergency hardens into routine, so that war becomes ambient. It is rarely forced back into the political process where it belongs. Responsibility diffuses across time, committees, and administrations, and the habits of authorization that were supposed to discipline force slowly weaken through neglect.

The danger today is not a general marching on Congress, but a permanent condition of low-level war. It is sustained without clear political ownership or institutional pressure strong enough to force a return to first principles. This condition persists largely due to procedural drift. Power, once established, demands continuous governance to prevent it from slipping beyond the boundaries Hamilton conceived.

The system he imagined depended on renewal, debate, and visible responsibility as the mechanisms by which force remained subordinate to law. We have built the army he defended. The harder question is whether we have preserved the habits required to govern it.

Leave a comment

A companion to “Who’s in Charge When It Matters.”

Editor’s note: The recent Senate debate over war powers regarding Venezuela underscores the constitutional tensions examined in this essay.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but it never assumed danger would wait politely for a vote. From the beginning, the American government lived with a tension it could not eliminate: the need to act quickly and the need to decide carefully. Both mattered, and either one, left unchecked, distorted the system.

The War Powers Resolution grew out of a sense that this balance had given way. After Vietnam, Congress concluded it had surrendered too much authority, too quietly and for too long. Conflicts expanded without sustained consent, responsibility thinned, and lawmakers looked for a way back into the decision at the moment force was used, not years later when momentum was already set.

The intent was restraint through accountability. If force was necessary, Congress would say so. If it was not, the president would have to stop. The goal was never to micromanage military operations, but to ensure that someone clearly owned the decision to begin them.

What followed, however, was something else. The War Powers Resolution did not restore clarity so much as it normalized ambiguity. Presidents learned how to comply with its procedures without conceding authority, while Congress learned how to receive notice without accepting responsibility. Flexibility was preserved, confrontation avoided, and the constitutional question left unanswered.

This did not happen because anyone forgot the Constitution. It happened because ambiguity is useful.

Subscribe now

The Problem Hamilton Didn’t Live to See

Hamilton assumed that authority and responsibility would move together. If the government acted, someone would be held accountable for the action. If force was used, the decision would be traceable and contestable. Capacity mattered, but accountability mattered just as much.

Modern war powers show what happens when that assumption breaks down. Decisions are made under claims of necessity, justifications follow later, and debate unfolds without resolution. Action moves forward while ownership disperses, and the constitutional question is deferred rather than answered.

War is the hardest test of constitutional design because it compresses time and raises stakes simultaneously. When force is on the table, delay has consequences, but so does evasion. A system that cannot clearly assign responsibility in that moment is not merely inefficient; it is fundamentally flawed.

Why Congress Passed the War Powers Resolution

The War Powers Resolution was not born of cowardice, but of shock. Vietnam exposed how easily a conflict could expand without sustained congressional consent and how difficult it was to reclaim authority once momentum took hold. Congress was not seeking to command troops or dictate strategy, but to recover its place at the moment of decision itself, when authorization still carried real constitutional weight.

The Resolution was designed to force that reckoning. Either Congress would authorize the use of force, or military action would end. The point was not paralysis, but responsibility: a system in which someone would have to say yes or no and live with the consequences.

That intent matters because it explains how the system later went wrong. The failure was not moral or ideological, but structural, rooted in an arrangement that preserved participation without requiring decision and allowed influence to persist without ownership.

What the War Powers Resolution Actually Requires

On paper, the War Powers Resolution appears straightforward, requiring presidents to notify Congress within forty-eight hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and to withdraw those forces within sixty to ninety days absent authorization. What it does not do is compel a decision. The statute contains no enforcement mechanism, offers no clear definition of “hostilities,” and relies on political will rather than institutional force.

Those omissions were not accidental. Congress sought restraint without constant confrontation and, in doing so, created a framework in which responsibility could persist procedurally while dissolving substantively over time.

Share

How Ambiguity Became the Feature

The War Powers Resolution did not fail because it was ignored. It failed because it was absorbed into practice. Over time, its procedures became familiar enough to follow without ever confronting its premise.

Presidents learned how to comply formally while preserving discretion. Notifications were filed, reports submitted, deadlines acknowledged and then reinterpreted. Military actions were framed as limited or short of “hostilities,” a term vague enough to accommodate almost any use of force. Consultation continued, but the location of the decision did not meaningfully shift.

Congress adjusted in parallel. Receiving notice proved easier than granting authorization and far less costly. Hearings and statements replaced votes, allowing members to influence debate without accepting ownership of outcomes. Participation remained visible, but decision quietly receded.

As this pattern repeated, it hardened into expectation. Presidents acted first, confident that procedural compliance would blunt resistance, while Congress responded later, satisfied that notification preserved institutional relevance without binding it to consequences. Each branch could point to the Resolution as evidence that norms were intact, even as authority itself grew increasingly difficult to locate.

The lingering force of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force reflects the same dynamic from a different direction. Congress did authorize the use of force, but it did so once and then largely declined to revisit that decision as circumstances changed. What began as a context-specific grant of authority became a standing justification, cited long after its original rationale had faded. Authorization remained on the books, but responsibility did not renew itself. Action continued, while the decision that enabled it receded further into the past.

This ambiguity was not accidental. It was functional. For the executive, it preserved speed without the vulnerability of explicit authorization. For Congress, it preserved influence without the burden of repeated ownership. For both, it reduced the risk of open confrontation, even as the constitutional question at the center of war powers remained unresolved.

The result was a system that appeared restrained on paper but operated permissively in practice. Force could be used quickly, accountability deferred, and the distinction between action and authorization steadily blurred. The Resolution came to function less as a guardrail than as a ritual, signaling concern without compelling decision.

The Incentives Nobody Likes to Admit

That this arrangement persists is not mysterious. It endures because it aligns neatly with incentives on both sides of the constitutional divide, rewarding avoidance while preserving the appearance of engagement.

For presidents, ambiguity is attractive precisely because clarity brings constraint. Formal authorization fixes responsibility and narrows room to maneuver if conditions change, while action taken beneath the War Powers framework allows speed without concentrated political risk. Success accrues to leadership. Failure disperses.

Congress operates under parallel pressures. Voting to authorize force requires members to take positions that will be remembered, judged, and potentially punished, while declining to vote preserves flexibility. Oversight and consultation fill the space where consent once stood, allowing influence to persist without full ownership of the consequences.

Electoral reality reinforces the equilibrium. Wars rarely command sustained public attention unless costs rise sharply, and ambiguity allows both branches to operate in the space between urgency and indifference. Safeguards appear intact, process appears functional, and responsibility remains indistinct.

Over time, these habits harden into expectation. Presidential initiative comes to feel normal, congressional hesitation routine, and what was designed to constrain the use of force quietly reshapes itself around convenience.

War Powers as the Ultimate Stress Test

No constitutional question tests the alignment between authority and responsibility more severely than the use of force. War exposes every weakness in institutional design, and a system that cannot assign responsibility clearly under those conditions cannot plausibly claim to be functioning as intended.

This is the failure Hamilton warned against. A government charged with national defense must be able to act, but that capacity was never meant to operate untethered from responsibility. When the link between the two breaks, restraint does not disappear outright. It remains visible on paper, but it loses its force in practice.

In the modern arrangement, presidents act under claims of necessity while Congress responds with consultation and criticism, carefully avoiding authorization or refusal. Capacity exists. Restraint exists. What is missing is the moment when responsibility clearly attaches, leaving a system that can move decisively but struggles to account for its own decisions.

What Constitutional Seriousness Requires

The War Powers Resolution was an attempt to restore balance after failure. Its weakness was not that it demanded too much, but that it demanded too little. By allowing participation without decision, restraint without enforcement, and flexibility without clarity, it created an arrangement that gradually became normal, not because it worked particularly well, but because it was comfortable.

Constitutional seriousness requires something more demanding. Responsibility cannot be shared indefinitely without thinning into obscurity. If presidents believe the use of force is necessary, they must be willing to seek authorization and accept the limits that follow. If Congress believes force is unjustified or misused, it must be willing to refuse consent and accept the consequences of restraint. Process can facilitate judgment, but it cannot replace it indefinitely.

The central failure, then, is not that the War Powers Resolution proved unable to restrain action. It is that it allowed restraint itself to become optional. And once restraint becomes optional in matters of war, it rarely remains mandatory anywhere else for long.

Leave a comment

That experience feels modern, but it is not. It sits at the very beginning of the American constitutional story.

After independence, the United States learned quickly that winning a revolution and governing a nation required very different skills. The Articles of Confederation were designed to prevent the concentration of power, and in that narrow sense, they succeeded. What they could not do was answer a more basic and unavoidable question. When danger appears, who is in charge?

Congress could see threats coming and still be unable to respond in time. It could ask states for money, request troops, and urge cooperation, but it could not compel action or raise revenue on its own. Decisions depended on voluntary compliance, which meant delays were routine and coordination was uncertain. Even when agreement existed, execution lagged. Foreign governments noticed. Allies hesitated. Rivals tested limits. The young republic possessed sovereignty in name but was fragile in practice.

It was this gap between responsibility and authority that Alexander Hamilton could no longer accept. When he wrote Federalist No. 23, he was not offering an abstract theory of power. He was confronting a practical failure. If the federal government was expected to defend the nation, it needed more than good intentions. It needed the ability to act.

Subscribe now

Federalist 23 and the Case for Capacity

Hamilton’s argument in Federalist 23 is intentionally direct. If the federal government is responsible for national defense, it must possess the authority required to fulfill that responsibility in real conditions, not ideal ones. Assigning the task without granting the means is not a restraint. It is avoidance.

Hamilton states the problem plainly:

The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.

This line unsettles readers because it challenges a comforting assumption. Hamilton is not arguing that power should float free of law. He argues that the future cannot be safely predicted and that constitutional design based on tidy expectations is more reckless than careful. A system that assumes emergencies will be manageable is not prudent. It is naive.

He reinforces the point even more forcefully:

Every power requisite for the defense of the community ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies.

This is not a blank check. It is a diagnosis grounded in experience. Hamilton had already watched a government fail because responsibility and capacity had been separated. When that happens, decision yields to delay, planning gives way to improvisation, and failure disguises itself as principle.

What Hamilton Was Actually Trying to Remove

To understand Federalist 23 correctly, it helps to be precise about what Hamilton was attacking. He was not rejecting restraint itself. He rejected the specific restraints embedded in the Articles of Confederation.

Those restraints operated on outcomes rather than on process. National action required state consent after the fact. Funding was voluntary. Military coordination was fragmented. Urgent decisions dissolved into negotiations that rarely kept pace with events. The system prevented abuse by preventing action.

The result was not liberty preserved through balance. It was a responsibility drained of meaning.

Hamilton believed this was the wrong kind of restraint, not because restraint was dangerous, but because this version disabled the very functions a government exists to perform. A system that must ask permission to defend itself is not constitutionally restrained. It is structurally impaired. Federalist 23 is his effort to remove that impairment so the Constitution could function as a governing framework rather than a statement of intentions.

Hamilton also understood exactly what this argument would provoke. If the restraints of the Articles were lifted, what would stop the executive from becoming too powerful? His answer was not reassurance; it was design.

Executive Power, Compared and Deliberately Limited

That design comes into focus in Federalist No. 69, one of the most methodical essays in the Federalist Papers. Here, Hamilton does not ask readers to trust his motives. He asks them to compare institutions.

He places the American president alongside the British monarch and begins subtracting powers:

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the King of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince.

Then he draws the contrast that matters most:

The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable.

This is constitutional accounting, not rhetoric. Hamilton shows that the executive is energetic but not sovereign, powerful within the law but never above it. Federalist 69 exists because Hamilton knew Federalist 23 would alarm readers, and because he believed those alarms deserved a serious answer grounded in structure rather than tone.

Energy, Accountability, and a Single Executive

Hamilton carries this argument forward in Federalist No. 70, an essay often reduced to a slogan about executive strength. That reduction misses the point.

Hamilton’s concern is accountability. Power dispersed among councils and committees diffuses responsibility. Failure becomes collective and therefore evasive. That is why he writes:

Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.

And why he immediately adds:

A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution.

This is not a celebration of force. It is a warning about systems where no one can be clearly held responsible. A single executive concentrates accountability. You know who acted and who failed. You know who must answer. For Hamilton, that clarity was not a threat to liberty. It was one of its safeguards.

Share

Where Restraint Actually Lives

Madison completes the constitutional logic in Federalist No. 51, which explains where restraint truly belongs. Not in the hope that leaders will behave, but in a system designed to expect ambition and counter it.

Madison’s premise is blunt:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

And his mechanism follows:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

This is the form of restraint Hamilton trusted. Not the fragility of a government designed to hesitate, but the friction of institutions designed to check one another while still allowing action. Legislatures control funding and oversight. Executives are empowered to act and required to explain their actions. Courts review decisions and enforce limits. Elections provide renewal and correction. Federalist 23 assumes this structure rather than overriding it, placing capacity inside a system meant to restrain abuse without preventing response.

The Civil Liberties Question

Up to this point, Hamilton’s argument may sound bracing but incomplete. Capacity matters. Structure matters. Accountability matters. Yet history has taught Americans to be wary of any claim that greater power is safe simply because it is necessary. That concern is not cynical. It is earned. And Hamilton did not wave it away.

Strong defense powers can threaten civil liberties, particularly in moments of crisis when fear sharpens judgment and emergency measures linger longer than promised. History offers no shortage of warnings on this front, and Hamilton would not have dismissed them as paranoia or bad faith. He understood that power exercised under pressure is always tempted to outrun its limits.

Where he parted ways with many critics was in the assumption that weakness is the safer alternative. Governments that lack the capacity to respond decisively do not avoid emergencies. They stretch them out. They respond late, improvise under pressure, and rely on extraordinary measures because ordinary mechanisms no longer function. Over time, governing by exception becomes routine, not because leaders seek it out, but because the system cannot otherwise act. Liberty erodes all the same.

Here, it is necessary to acknowledge a harder truth about the present moment. A growing strain of modern political thought treats constitutional restraint as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a discipline to be preserved. In the name of speed or necessity, limits are recast as inconveniences, and “action” becomes the overriding justification. Once a people grows accustomed to authority exercised without clear constitutional bounds in extraordinary circumstances, it becomes easier to accept the same logic elsewhere. What begins as an exception justified by urgency hardens into precedent, and precedent quietly reshapes expectations. Constitutional standards do not collapse all at once. They relax, then drift.

Hamilton’s argument does not excuse that drift. It warns against it. His insistence on capacity was never an invitation to abandon limits, but a demand that power be exercised within a structure that preserved accountability, renewal, and correction. Authority was to be constrained by law, funding cycles, divided institutions, judicial review, and elections. When those guardrails are relaxed in the name of effectiveness, the problem is not that government is acting too decisively. It is that the constitutional standards meant to govern that action are being allowed to slip.

Why This Still Matters

Seen this way, Hamilton’s argument becomes harder to dismiss and harder to misuse. He was not offering comfort to those eager to act without restraint, nor reassurance to those who believed restraint alone could preserve liberty. He was describing a system that could move under pressure without surrendering its standards, and warning what happens when either side of that balance is ignored.

That warning has not lost its relevance. If anything, it has become easier to miss.

Once the pattern Hamilton identified becomes visible, it is difficult to ignore. We assign institutions responsibility for cybersecurity, disaster response, border enforcement, or public safety, then fragment their authority and hedge their tools. When outcomes disappoint, we express surprise and convene hearings as if the failure were mysterious.

Hamilton would not be puzzled. He would recognize the design flaw immediately.

He rejected the false choice between liberty and strength. He believed a constitutional system could hold both, if authority matched responsibility and restraint was enforced through accountability. The Articles of Confederation constrained outcomes and led to weakness. The Constitution restrains power through structure and produces accountability.

When Restraint Becomes Optional

Hamilton was not trying to escape restraint. He was trying to correct a system that confused incapacity with virtue. The Articles of Confederation limited power by preventing action, and in doing so they left the nation exposed and increasingly tempted to operate outside its own rules. The Constitution was meant to solve that problem, not by loosening limits, but by enforcing them through structure, accountability, and law.

Federalist 23 argues that a government charged with survival must be able to act. Federalists 69 and 70 insist that the executive who acts must remain bounded and answerable. Federalist 51 explains how those limits are enforced, not through trust, but through institutional rivalry. Taken together, the argument is not a defense of power, but a warning about what happens when authority and responsibility separate.

That warning has not expired. We continue to demand action while relaxing the standards that govern it, and we continue to fear power while tolerating systems that fail under pressure. Constitutional restraint does not survive by accident. It survives only when it is treated as binding, especially when acting is hardest, and restraint is least convenient.

Leave a comment

Who Gains Power When a System Cannot Decide

A system where one person can stop everything does not reward wisdom. It rewards refusal, and Alexander Hamilton understood that this was not merely an inconvenience but a structural threat to self-government. When a political system cannot reliably decide, power does not disappear; it does not remain neutral. It relocates, and it tends to flow toward those most willing to exploit delay rather than those most capable of governing.

Federalist No. 22 is Hamilton’s argument about the migration of power. Where Federalist 21 explored how weakness dissolves loyalty and shared identity, Federalist 22 turns colder and more mechanical. It asks who actually benefits when a system cannot act, and how that inability reshapes behavior over time. Hamilton’s answer is unsparing. Systems that cannot move do not empower the thoughtful or the principled. They empower the obstructive, because obstruction is where leverage accumulates when motion is rare.

Subscribe now

Unanimity Is Not Neutral

Under the Articles of Confederation, major national decisions required near unanimity among the states, a design choice often defended as cautious and liberty-preserving. Hamilton does not dispute the intention, but he insists on confronting the consequence. Unanimity is not neutral. It radically redistributes power by shifting leverage away from those willing to act and toward those most willing to refuse. Once consent is required from everyone, the marginal actor, the state with the narrowest interest or strongest grievance, gains influence far beyond its responsibility to the whole.

Hamilton is blunt about where this leads, warning that unanimity “embarrasses the administration” and “substitutes the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto” for the decisions of a majority. In that environment, refusal becomes asymmetrically powerful. A single holdout can stall legislation, block treaties, delay funding, or undermine enforcement simply by standing still, while the costs of delay are borne by everyone else.

Over time, this predictably reshapes political behavior. Actors stop asking what outcome best serves the union and start calculating how long they can hold out and what concessions delay might extract. Bargaining replaces deliberation, not because participants are corrupt, but because the structure rewards endurance over judgment. Hamilton’s point is not moralistic. It is behavioral. Systems do not merely constrain choices; they also teach strategies.

Why Hamilton Was Not Afraid of Disagreement

Hamilton is often portrayed as hostile to dissent, but Federalist 22 reveals a more precise concern. He assumes disagreement. What alarms him is disagreement without consequence, because it severs power from responsibility.

Under the Articles, states could refuse national obligations without bearing proportional costs. Congress could request funds, urge treaty compliance, or appeal to collective interest, but it lacked the authority to compel action. Those who complied paid the price. Those who refused still enjoyed the benefits of union. For Hamilton, this was incoherent governance. As he put it, “a government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care,” and the Confederation plainly did not.

In such an environment, strategic noncompliance becomes rational. Responsibility becomes something to avoid rather than share. This is where Federalist 22 moves beyond apathy into something more corrosive. The problem is no longer disengagement. It is weaponized participation, where actors remain fully engaged but use the system’s inability to act as a source of power.

Majority Rule as Power Containment

Hamilton’s defense of majority rule in Federalist 22 is frequently misunderstood as optimism about outcomes. It is nothing of the sort. He does not claim that majorities are wiser, fairer, or more virtuous. His argument is narrower and more realistic. Majority rule limits how much damage any single actor can inflict on the system.

Hamilton makes this explicit when he warns that giving a minority “a negative upon the majority” simply subjects the will of the many to the few. Minority veto power does not restrain authority. It inverts it. By allowing decisions to proceed despite dissent, majority rule forces political actors to internalize loss and live with outcomes they oppose. It reconnects disagreement to consequence and prevents refusal from hardening into a permanent veto.

Hamilton understood that no political system can guarantee good decisions, but it can prevent permanent paralysis, which is far more destructive. In this sense, majority rule is not a moral ideal. It is a stabilizing mechanism designed to keep the system governable even when disagreement is sharp.

How the Holdout Returns

Federalist 22 feels modern because the behavior Hamilton describes never vanished. It adapted. We did not formally reintroduce unanimity, but we recreated its effects through procedures, norms, and expectations. Consensus was treated as a moral requirement even when the rules did not demand it.

The result is structurally familiar. One determined actor can still stall progress, not by persuading others, but by exploiting time, process, and exhaustion. The Constitution remains intact, but the incentive structure quietly drifts back toward obstruction. Hamilton would have recognized this immediately, because the problem was never the specific rule. It was the power dynamic the rule created.

This drift carries real consequences. Hamilton warned that treaties themselves become meaningless when refusal carries no cost, insisting they must be treated “as part of the law of the land,” not as optional commitments subject to local convenience. When enforcement is uncertain, credibility erodes, and the costs of obstruction spill outward beyond domestic politics.

The Professional Refuser

Every political system eventually produces specialists, not because it intends to, but because incentives select for specific skills over time. In systems that reward decision-making, those specialists tend to be builders and negotiators. In systems that reward delay and veto power, a different figure rises. Federalist 22 is Hamilton recognizing the early emergence of the professional refuser, the actor who understands that governing carries visible risk while blocking action rarely does.

Governing means owning outcomes, absorbing blame, and accepting tradeoffs that will inevitably disappoint someone. Refusal avoids accountability while still generating leverage, especially in systems where delay itself becomes a bargaining chip. Over time, this reshapes the political selection process. Those most comfortable saying no are elevated. Those willing to decide are punished, often by their own allies, for creating outcomes that can be attacked. This is not a failure of character. It is rational adaptation to incentive design. Hamilton’s concern is not that people will argue too much, but that a system which rewards obstruction will increasingly be dominated by actors with the least interest in resolution, because resolution carries cost and refusal does not.

Share

Festivus Is Funny Because It Ends

The Festivus metaphor works because it captures the absurdity of grievance divorced from resolution. Everyone gets a turn to complain, strength is theatrically displayed, and nothing actually changes, which is precisely why it works as comedy rather than catastrophe. The ritual ends, the pole goes back in the garage, and life resumes because no one mistakes the performance for governance.

Hamilton’s warning in Federalist 22 is that a republic cannot survive if it begins to operate this way as a governing model. Grievance is inevitable in a free society, but it must be connected to decision, and strength must ultimately be measured by outcomes rather than obstruction. When stalemate itself becomes victory, and refusal is treated as virtue, politics collapses into performance. Festivus works because it is temporary. Government has no such luxury.

When Dysfunction Becomes an Equilibrium

The Articles of Confederation failed because their defects were visible and immediate. They broke quickly enough that no one could pretend the system was working. Modern dysfunction persists for the opposite reason. It stabilizes. The system functions just enough to get by. Laws pass intermittently, budgets are funded eventually, and crises are addressed at the last possible moment, creating the illusion of viability even as the underlying capacity to govern steadily erodes.

In that environment, behavior adapts. Government benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations. Obstruction stops being shocking and becomes routine, a regular feature of the landscape rather than a sign of institutional distress. Over time, the standard for success quietly shifts. The question is no longer whether government governs effectively, but whether it collapses outright. Survival replaces performance as the benchmark, and we mistake endurance for legitimacy.

Hamilton understood that this kind of equilibrium is more dangerous than open failure. A system that collapses forces reform. A system that limps along trains its participants to live with dysfunction and, worse, to profit from it. When obstruction is normalized and delay is rewarded, the incentives favor those least invested in governing and most skilled at exploiting the stalemate. Reform becomes harder precisely because no single moment feels catastrophic enough to demand it, even as the damage accumulates year after year.

The Lesson of Federalist 22

Federalist 22 is not a plea for unity, nor is it a call for better intentions or higher-minded civic virtue. Hamilton is making a colder and more durable argument about incentives and power. When refusal is cheaper than responsibility, refusal will dominate political behavior. When delay creates leverage without consequence, delay will multiply. And when obstruction carries no real cost, the system will reliably elevate those who practice it most effectively, regardless of their interest in governing.

Hamilton’s defense of majority rule follows directly from this logic. He does not claim that majority decisions are inherently wise or just. He claims something more modest and more necessary. Majority rule keeps the system moving. It prevents disagreement from hardening into permanent paralysis and denies any single actor the ability to hold the republic hostage indefinitely. In Hamilton’s view, this was not an aspirational ideal but a preventative measure, designed to keep self-government from collapsing under the weight of its own incentives.

When a political system makes refusal cheaper than responsibility, it does not reward wisdom. It rewards obstruction, handing power to those least willing to govern and calling the result self-government.

A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. — Alexander Hamilton, Tully No. III

The Illusion of Cost-Free Belonging

One of the quieter assumptions shaping modern American life is the belief that belonging should be inexpensive. Many assume the union ought to provide stability, protection, and opportunity while asking little in return. We speak easily about rights and expectations, but flinch at the ideas of obligation, restraint, and sacrifice. The result is a civic culture comfortable with demanding benefits, yet uneasy when confronted with costs or constraints.

This understanding would have surprised the Founders, not because they imagined harmony, but because they understood the terms of union with greater clarity. From the beginning, the American union was a bargain: security and common purpose in exchange for patience, restraint, and acceptance of imperfect outcomes. Conflict was not treated as evidence of failure. It was understood as the ordinary price of living together in freedom, something to be managed rather than denied.

What feels new today is not disagreement, but the expectation that it should be painless. That expectation quietly reshapes how citizenship is understood and weakens the habits of responsibility on which the republic depends.

Subscribe now

What Union Actually Requires

A durable union does not ask its citizens for constant enthusiasm or ideological agreement, nor does it depend on unanimity of belief. Instead, it asks for something harder and less visible. It requires citizens to accept limits on their freedom, compromise without applause, and endure imperfect outcomes. These demands are rarely dramatic, and they seldom feel affirming in the moment, yet they are the substance of self-government.

Union also requires paying for public goods one may never personally use and obeying laws one may have opposed vigorously. In doing so, citizens trust the system, not every outcome. This trust is not blind. It is practiced, tested, and renewed through participation and restraint.

These obligations are not defects in the design of the republic. They are its foundation. A union that required only consent or passion would dissolve the moment either faded, and history offers no shortage of examples. The American republic has endured through a shared willingness to bear the burdens of citizenship alongside its privileges. When that willingness weakens, the union does not fail all at once. It begins to fray.

Hamilton’s Bet on Obligation

Alexander Hamilton grasped this reality with unusual clarity. His arguments in Federalist No. 21 were not animated by romantic visions of unity, but by sober assessments of human behavior and political fragility. He believed a national government could command respect only if it possessed the capacity to act decisively and enforce its laws consistently. Beneath that institutional argument lay a deeper assumption: that citizens would accept obligation as the necessary condition of liberty.

Hamilton wagered that Americans would accept restraint as the price of self-government and shared sacrifice as the basis of shared identity. He assumed citizens would accept short-term loss for long-term stability and that republican discipline would become habitual. This wager reflected a culture forged by war and scarcity, yet it relied on habits that could weaken as memory faded.

Hamilton did not imagine a frictionless republic. He imagined a disciplined one, sustained not by constant agreement or emotional unity, but by a broadly shared acceptance of responsibility.

When the Price Goes Unpaid

A union does not collapse the moment citizens refuse to meet its obligations. It erodes. When the price of union begins to feel too high, people rarely rebel outright or announce their withdrawal in dramatic terms. More often, they disengage quietly, treating government as a vendor and judging it by what it delivers. Loyalty becomes conditional, responsibility negotiable, and participation optional.

The effects of this erosion accumulate slowly but steadily. Civic participation declines, trust thins, and institutions shift from shared tools to contested prizes. Over time, the union remains intact on paper, its structures still functioning, yet its connective tissue weakens. What remains is a mechanical system that loses the moral authority that gives it legitimacy. This form of disintegration is quieter than rebellion and therefore easier to ignore, but it is no less dangerous.

The Hard Truth About Endurance

Union is not sustained by passion or protest, but by long stretches of restraint that attract little notice. It endures because citizens comply, contribute, and accept outcomes they would not have chosen, trusting the system even when it disappoints them. This quiet endurance allows a divided republic to persist across generations.

The danger facing the American union today is not sharper disagreement, for disagreement is inevitable in a free society. The greater danger lies in rejecting loss, delay, and restraint as legitimate civic costs. A republic can withstand fierce debate. It cannot withstand widespread unwillingness to shoulder the burdens of debate.

Share

The Cost Is Ours

Courts or legislatures do not set the price of union, nor is it imposed solely by political leaders. It is paid, or withheld, by citizens themselves. Each generation inherits a structure it did not design and institutions it did not build, yet must decide whether it is willing to sustain them.

A more perfect union has never meant a painless one. It has always required sacrifice without guarantee and commitment without constant affirmation. That price has not changed. What changes is whether people remain willing to pay it.

Editor’s Note
This essay is intended to be read alongside The Federalists Reloaded | No. 21: A More Perfect Union and its companion piece, The Price of Union (which will follow this piece). Together, these essays examine not only Hamilton’s critique of the Articles of Confederation but also his deeper effort to move Americans from confederacy to nationhood.

A government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 70

The Risk Hamilton Saw Most Clearly

Alexander Hamilton understood that the greatest danger facing the early American republic was not ambition, disagreement, or even corruption, but the far quieter possibility that independence would settle into habit without ever maturing into nationhood. In Federalist No. 21, he argued relentlessly for replacing a loose confederacy with a government capable of acting, enforcing, and sustaining itself, because he believed fragility, not tyranny, posed the greatest long-term threat to the American experiment. What Hamilton did not fully confront was that institutional strength alone could never complete the work he had begun, because building a nation requires more than capacity. It requires belief, obligation, and a shared sense of ownership that no constitutional structure can generate on its own.

Hamilton won the fight over structure. The Constitution replaced requests with authority and aspiration with execution, giving the federal government the power to tax directly, enforce its laws, and preserve internal order in ways the Articles of Confederation never allowed. Those changes mattered, and they worked. The republic did not fracture under the pressures that had nearly undone it in the 1780s, and Hamilton was vindicated in his insistence that a nation incapable of acting could not survive for long.

Subscribe now

Identity Did Not Settle with Structure

What did not resolve as cleanly as Hamilton expected was the question of national identity. He assumed that once Americans experienced a functioning national government, loyalty would deepen, faction would soften, and shared systems would gradually produce shared purpose. That assumption underestimated how quickly people retreat into narrower identities when obligation feels uneven, abstract, or imposed rather than mutual, and it overestimated the ability of institutions to generate trust simply by operating efficiently. Political structure can stabilize a republic and prevent it from collapsing, but it cannot, by itself, persuade citizens that they belong to one another.

The modern United States makes this tension difficult to ignore. The federal government now possesses far more capacity than Hamilton could have imagined, reaching directly into taxation, regulation, national defense, and nearly every domain of civic life. By eighteenth-century standards, the system works remarkably well. Yet the sense of collective belonging Hamilton believed would follow effective governance remains fragile, frequently eclipsed by partisan, regional, and cultural loyalties that feel more immediate and emotionally real.

Legitimacy, Not Power

Hamilton’s unfinished business is not about power or reach, but about legitimacy. A national government can compel compliance through law and enforcement. Yet, legitimacy depends on whether citizens believe obligation runs in both directions, that sacrifice is shared, and that institutions serve a common good rather than a rotating set of winners. Hamilton believed shared responsibility would naturally produce shared identity. Still, he did not anticipate how easily responsibility would come to be experienced less as participation and more as extraction once trust in institutions weakened.

This is where Hamilton’s optimism collided with reality. He designed a government capable of decisive action and assumed civic culture would reinforce the habits of citizenship necessary to sustain it over time. Madison, by contrast, treated ambition, faction, and rivalry as permanent features of political life and accordingly designed safeguards. History suggests Madison had the clearer understanding of human nature, but Hamilton supplied the only institutional framework strong enough to keep those forces from tearing the republic apart entirely.

Share

The Shape of Modern Fragmentation

Hamilton also underestimated how aggressively identity competes in a large, pluralistic republic. Citizens are never defined by a single allegiance, but belong simultaneously to parties, regions, professions, communities, and causes, all of which can eclipse national identity when it feels distant, procedural, or performative. In such moments, fragmentation rarely announces itself through open rebellion. Instead, it emerges through disengagement, cynicism, and the slow erosion of civic trust, producing a quieter but no less dangerous form of disintegration.

Hamilton’s unfinished business is therefore not institutional reform but cultural maintenance. The framework he helped build still functions, but its durability depends on citizens who understand responsibility as a condition of freedom rather than an infringement upon it, on leaders who treat national institutions as instruments of common purpose rather than tools of factional advantage, and on a civic culture willing to accept that belonging requires contribution and restraint rather than mere expression.

Still Unfinished

A more perfect union was never intended as a final destination. It was meant as a direction that demands constant renewal rather than reverence. Hamilton pushed the country decisively away from confederacy and toward nationhood. The remaining work belongs to every generation that inherits the system he helped create and must decide whether it is still worth sustaining.

Hamilton’s unfinished business is not about what the government can do or how much power it can exercise. It is about whether citizens still believe they belong to one another strongly enough to accept obligation, restraint, and shared responsibility as the price of self-government.

Hamilton built a government capable of holding together a republic, but he never pretended that structure alone would make Americans a people. What he assumed, perhaps too optimistically, was that shared institutions would cultivate shared responsibility, and that responsibility would mature into belonging over time. History suggests that the assumption deserves closer scrutiny. A union can endure on paper long after the habits that sustain it begin to weaken. If Hamilton’s unfinished business was creating a nation strong enough to survive, the question that follows is harder and more uncomfortable: what does that survival demand of the citizens who inherit it? That is the price of union.

A nation without a national government is, in my view, an awful spectacle. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 85

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of essays on the Union and the American identity. This piece opens up some questions that needed more exploration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Independence Without Identity Was the Real Failure

Most readings of Federalist No. 21 portray Alexander Hamilton as a frustrated accountant, obsessed with revenue shortfalls, weak enforcement, and administrative failures. That reading is not wrong, but it is incomplete. Hamilton is not only diagnosing a broken system but also confronting a deeper problem that had taken hold after years of living under a confederacy. Americans had won independence, but they had not yet learned how to think of themselves as a single people. Federalist 21 is Hamilton’s warning that liberty without a shared national identity will not hold.

The Articles of Confederation did more than weaken the national government; they shaped habits. They taught Americans that the union was conditional, distant, and optional. Congress could request money, but states could refuse without consequence. Congress could pass laws, but enforcement depended on local willingness rather than national authority. Order relied on goodwill, not obligation. Over time, this system produced exactly the outcome Hamilton feared. People learned to think of themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, or Pennsylvanians first, while being American remained more slogan than lived experience.

Hamilton understood that this was not a temporary inconvenience. He saw it as an existential threat. A republic cannot survive if its citizens treat the national government as an advisory board rather than their own collective instrument. Federalist 21 is his attempt to say, plainly, that the revolution had stopped halfway. The crown was gone, but the work of forming a nation had barely begun.

Subscribe now

Obligation Is How Identity Is Formed

Hamilton begins where identity often begins, with obligation. Under the Articles, Congress lacked the power to tax individuals directly and could only ask states for funds. Those requests were routinely ignored, leaving the national government insolvent and unreliable. Hamilton describes this as a recipe for collapse, and history quickly proved him right. Yet his concern is not limited to fiscal solvency. A system that allows citizens to opt out of shared sacrifice will never cultivate shared loyalty. When contribution is voluntary, belonging becomes conditional.

Hamilton was not naïve about the political unpopularity of taxes, but he understood something more durable about human behavior. People tend to care about institutions they are required to support because obligation creates ownership. Shared contribution binds people together in ways that abstract ideals rarely do. When citizens pay into a national system, they begin to see it as theirs rather than as a distant project run by someone else. The Confederation relied on generosity and hoped unity would follow. Hamilton wanted responsibility and expected identity to grow from it.

Laws That Make Citizens

From revenue, Hamilton moves to enforcement, a flaw often treated as merely technical. Congress could pass resolutions, but it had no practical means to enforce them. Any attempt to coerce states directly would either fail outright or risk armed conflict. Hamilton dismisses coercion of states as both dangerous and absurd, arguing that a government that must threaten its own members with force has already exposed its weakness. A functioning republic must operate based on individuals rather than political entities.

This argument is not only about control, but legitimacy. A government that cannot act directly on its citizens never fully claims them as members of a national community. Law becomes something filtered through state approval, distant and negotiable rather than immediate and binding. Hamilton wants to reverse that relationship so citizens experience the national government as a real presence in civic life, something tangible rather than abstract, something that claims them because it belongs to them as much as they belong to it. When national laws apply directly to individuals, citizenship becomes concrete rather than symbolic.

Disorder Reveals the Absence of Allegiance

Shays’ Rebellion looms behind Federalist 21 as an unspoken warning. The uprising exposed more than weak enforcement mechanisms. It revealed a collapse of confidence in national authority. Farmers did not believe the central government could protect them, mediate disputes, or respond meaningfully to a crisis. Massachusetts was left to manage the rebellion alone while Congress watched from the sidelines, constrained by its own lack of power and resources.

Hamilton grasped the danger immediately. When people lose faith in the nation’s ability to act, they retreat into local loyalties or open resistance. Disorder becomes a symptom of failed allegiance rather than simple lawlessness. A republic that cannot provide stability cannot command loyalty, and a union that cannot command loyalty will eventually dissolve.

Hamilton Feared Disintegration More Than Tyranny

Hamilton is often portrayed as fearing centralized tyranny above all else. Federalist 21 tells a different story. His deeper fear is disintegration. He worries that the states will slide into economic warfare, regional rivalry, and mutual suspicion, slowly eroding the bonds that hold the union together. He sees early signs everywhere in the form of trade barriers, broken commitments, and competing interests dressed up as principles.

This is why his tone feels urgent rather than theoretical. Hamilton is not asking Americans to abandon local identity. He is insisting that local loyalty alone is insufficient. A nation requires a strong sense of shared purpose to survive disagreement. Without it, liberty becomes fragile and the republic temporary.

The Constitution as a Deliberate Nation-Building Project

Read through this lens, the Constitution emerges in Federalist 21 as more than a technical fix. It is a deliberate effort to create an American identity. Shared taxation creates shared sacrifice. Shared laws establish shared standards. Shared defense creates shared fate. Hamilton understands that identity follows habit rather than proclamation. You do not declare a people into existence. You shape one through daily practices that reinforce a sense of belonging.

The Articles made that kind of formation impossible. The Constitution would make it routine. By acting directly on citizens and demanding shared responsibility, it turned the idea of being American into something tangible rather than rhetorical.

Share

Where Hamilton’s Confidence Outran Reality

Hamilton was right about the problem and largely right about the solution, but he overestimated how much structure could accomplish on its own. A stronger national government did not eliminate factionalism, ambition, or regional tension. It created a framework resilient enough to contain those forces without collapsing under their weight.

Madison understood this more clearly. He accepted conflict as permanent and designed institutions to manage it rather than wish it away. Hamilton believed order would produce harmony. History sided with Madison on human nature, but it was Hamilton who built a foundation sturdy enough to endure the struggle.

A More Perfect Union, Still Unfinished

Federalist 21 ultimately argues that independence without unity is insufficient and that liberty without shared belonging is fragile. A confederacy can win a war, but it cannot sustain a people. Hamilton was not calling for blind nationalism or the erasure of local identity. He was calling for a national government capable of earning loyalty by acting like a nation and demanding shared responsibility from its citizens.

More than two centuries later, his argument still resonates, not because the conditions are identical, but because the underlying tension between unity and fragmentation never truly disappears. A republic does not survive because its citizens always agree. It survives because they believe they belong to something larger than their disagreements and are willing to accept obligations that reinforce that belief. Hamilton understood that the hardest part of the American experiment was not breaking free from Britain but learning how to belong to one another, a task that remains ongoing and unfinished.

The high school gym smells like popcorn, dust, and varnish, the kind of scent that never really leaves a floor, no matter how many coats of polish it gets. Rows of folding chairs stretch across the court, and the school band works through a careful version of “America the Beautiful” that wobbles a little at the high notes. Near the front, a man in his late seventies straightens his collar as a student pins a paper poppy to his lapel. The applause around him is gentle, almost polite, but when he closes his eyes for a moment, you can see something deeper settle over him. It is the look of someone who carries memories far heavier than the ceremony can possibly express. He has been home for fifty years, yet part of him still lives in the places where he once served.

Hamilton would have understood that expression. Madison would have recognized it, too.

The Founders argued endlessly about many things, but they shared one belief with remarkable consistency. A republic survives only when its citizens see themselves as responsible for its defense. Not only in war, but in peace. Not only in emergencies, but in the steady work of preserving liberty.

When Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 29, he knew that freedom cannot rest on a permanent warrior class. It depends on ordinary people who answer the call when needed and return home as quietly as they left. He was not interested in creating a society where military power overshadowed civilian life. He was searching for a balance that would keep the republic strong without weakening the character of its people. Hamilton warned that liberty can become brittle if citizens forget their role in defending it. As he put it,

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. Yet it is a matter of utmost importance that the people should be properly armed and equipped.”

Hamilton was not romanticizing weapons. He was talking about readiness, discipline, and character. He believed that a republic’s greatest protection is a citizenry that does not shrink from responsibility.

Madison brought his own angle to the conversation. In Federalist No. 46, he argued that the strength of the republic lay not only in its institutions, but in the people themselves. He wrote,

“Ultimate authority… resides in the people alone.”

Madison’s point was not about firepower. It was about civic posture. Ambition, in his view, becomes dangerous only when citizens disengage from their own government. A republic remains protected not only by force, but by the vigilance and virtue of its people.

Both men would recognize the veteran in that gym. They would see him as the embodiment of the idea they spent so much time defending.

Subscribe now

How Service Shapes a Life

Service has a way of changing a person. It reshapes how you understand loyalty, teamwork, and trust. It puts you shoulder to shoulder with people you never would have met otherwise, and it teaches you to rely on them in moments when reliability becomes a matter of survival. It gives you a sense of purpose that outlasts fear and a sense of humor that helps you survive discomfort. It teaches you that the minor complaints that dominate ordinary life rarely matter as much as people think they do.

When veterans return home, they bring that entire education with them. They bring steadiness to places that need steadiness. They bring leadership to places that lack it. They coach youth teams, volunteer at schools and churches, settle arguments before they become feuds, and lend a hand when a neighbor is struggling. They bring the discipline to finish what they start and the humility to do the work without needing public applause.

Hamilton saw this clearly long before the modern concept of veteran transition existed. He believed that the qualities forged in service were essential to a self-governing nation. In Federalist No. 29 he warned that ignoring these habits of discipline and civic responsibility was,

“a crime against society.”

He was not calling for militarization. He was warning against complacency. A republic weakens long before an enemy appears if its citizens lose the habits that keep it healthy.

Liberty in Uniform

Veterans carry pride and humility in equal measure. Pride because they stepped forward when the country asked something difficult of them. Humility because they know what it costs, not only for themselves but for the people who served beside them. They have seen fear turn into steadiness, and they have seen courage emerge from people who never imagined they had such courage in them. They understand how quickly events can turn and how much depends on calm judgment in the middle of confusion.

Wearing the uniform changes how a person sees liberty. It stops being an abstract word that appears in mottos or speeches and becomes something you feel in your bones. You learn what it means to defend a place you may never visit again and people whose names you may never know. You see how fragile peace can be and how much work it takes to preserve it. The flag stops being a decoration and becomes a responsibility. The country stops being an idea and becomes a commitment.

Veterans bring that sense of clarity home with them. They know that strength is not measured only by force, but by restraint. They understand that leadership is often quiet and that influence comes from example rather than volume. They know what it means to serve without being the center of attention and to protect something larger than themselves. They have lived in environments where trust, accountability, and cooperation were not optional. Those habits stay with them long after the uniform is folded and put away.

They are the living expression of Hamilton’s citizen soldier. Not defined by medals or rank, but by the decision to serve when service required sacrifice. They carry themselves with a mix of seriousness and grace, and they bring that same posture back into their families, neighborhoods, and workplaces. They remind us that the strength of a republic rests not only on its laws or its institutions, but on the character of the people who inhabit it. When veterans return home and step back into civilian life, they do not stop serving. They simply serve differently.

They model what it means to stand up when needed and step back when the mission is complete. In that way, they echo Washington’s example without fanfare. They protect the republic in the moments when no one is watching and in all the small decisions that never show up in history books. Liberty requires that kind of steady commitment. Veterans understand that instinctively, and they show us what it looks like in practice.

The Example That Endures

Hamilton did not have to imagine what a citizen soldier looked like. He had Washington standing in front of him.

Washington had every opportunity to take power he did not want and did not seek. When the Revolutionary War ended, he resigned his command and returned to Mount Vernon. Like Cincinnatus, he returned to private life without bitterness or ambition. When the country called again, he answered. When his second service ended, he stepped away once more.

That simple act carried more weight than many victories on the battlefield. It showed the world that the new nation would not be defined by a general seeking a throne, but by a citizen returning home.

Madison admired this deeply. In Federalist No. 14, he wrote that the new republic would require leaders who understood that the authority they held came from the people, not from their own status. Washington modeled that idea in a way no speech could ever fully capture.

Hamilton built his theory of the citizen soldier on the example of Washington.

Share

The Second Mission

Service does not end when the uniform comes off. Veterans enter a second mission the moment they return home, a mission that is quieter but in many ways just as important. They bring with them the habits that healthy citizenship requires. They know how to handle uncertainty without panic. They know how to finish tasks others abandon. They know how to build teams and how to support people who feel overwhelmed.

Across the country, veterans become the ones who steady things when they begin to wobble. They mentor kids who need guidance. They help employers build teams that actually work. They serve in civic groups and volunteer at community events because they know that the strength of a nation begins long before it reaches a national crisis. They understand that local commitments are the foundation of national resilience.

Madison argued that a republic depends on the character of its citizens. Hamilton argued that liberty survives only when citizens take responsibility for it. Veterans illustrate both ideas with clarity. They remind us that citizenship requires work, humility, and participation.

What We Owe

Veterans Day gives us a chance to say thank you, but gratitude alone is never the full measure of what we owe. The deeper responsibility is to ask what we will do with the freedom their service protected. Veterans have returned home for generations and rebuilt their lives with dignity, never expecting the rest of us to avoid the hard work of citizenship. They brought their sense of duty into their communities and trusted that others would meet them halfway.

We owe them more than admiration. We owe them participation. That means voting with intention, even when the choices are imperfect. It means showing up for local meetings, supporting civic organizations, and engaging with people who see the world differently so our disagreements do not harden into divisions. It means offering mentorship, lending support, and taking responsibility for the spaces where we live and work. It means treating citizenship as a daily practice that demands time and attention.

Madison believed that a republic requires citizens who exercise qualities that no other form of government can afford to neglect. As he wrote in Federalist No. 55,

“Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”

Veterans showed us what courage, discipline, and service look like at their highest level. Now the weight shifts to us. We honor them by protecting the country they defended, by strengthening the communities they returned to, and by living with the purpose they carried into harm’s way. A republic survives only when citizens choose to carry its responsibilities with intention. Veterans have already shown us what that kind of commitment looks like. It is our turn to serve in the quiet ways that keep the nation whole.

Leave a comment

About This Post

This essay is part of The Federalists Reloaded, a series exploring how the ideas that shaped the early republic can guide us today. Each installment revisits a Federalist Paper and argues for a civic culture built by citizens who serve, lead, and participate with purpose. Service is not only something we honor; it is something we live. It is the foundation that keeps the republic standing.

“In matters where the confederacy was to act, unanimity was indispensable; hence the impossibility of action.” — Hamilton and Madison, Federalist No. 20

Previously on The Federalists Reloaded…

The trilogy began with Greece, a union of proud city-states that spent more time plotting against one another than building anything that lasted. Then came Germany, a confederation so tangled in its own rules that it mistook endless procedure for progress. Now, for the finale, Hamilton and Madison take us to the Dutch Republic, a country so well educated, well-financed, and well-intentioned that it managed to outsmart itself into paralysis.

If Federalists 18 and 19 were Evil Dead and Evil Dead II, then Federalist 20 is Army of Darkness, the part where the horror has gone on so long it becomes absurd. The Dutch did not collapse because they were conquered or corrupted. They collapsed because they could not stop talking long enough to act. The monster in this story is not a tyrant or an invader. It is bureaucracy itself, wearing the polite mask of deliberation.

Act I – The Cabin in the Lowlands

Imagine seven provinces and a dozen major cities locked together in a creaky wooden cabin surrounded by European powers eager to burn it down. Every decision requires unanimous consent. Every disagreement spawns another council. Every council writes another report that nobody reads. Somewhere in that chaos sits a governing body called the States General, trying to run a country through diplomacy, compromise, and a deep commitment to never finishing anything on time.

The Dutch Republic was brilliant in commerce and science, but its politics were a tragic comedy of independence taken too far. Each province guarded its sovereignty like a jealous lover, refusing to share power even in the face of existential threats. The States General could technically declare war, but only after every province gave written approval, a process so slow that battles were often over before the paperwork began.

Hamilton and Madison chose this example for a reason. It was their mirror. Under the Articles of Confederation, America looked uncomfortably familiar: a collection of states that loved liberty but could not agree on how to defend it.

Share

Act II – Possession

In Evil Dead, chaos begins when someone reads from the wrong book. In the Dutch Republic, it began when everyone started reading from their own script. The House of Orange fought to restore hereditary power. The merchant elite wanted stability for trade. The provinces wanted to protect their privileges at any cost. Each group swore they were saving the Republic, and each one was right in theory and wrong in practice.

Hamilton and Madison described how the provinces “continually plundered the general treasury,” a polite eighteenth-century way of saying that local governments kept looting the national budget while blaming others for the shortfall. When foreign armies appeared, the Dutch did not rally; they formed committees. When the country needed defense spending, the rich provinces refused to contribute until everyone else paid first. It was government by spreadsheet and delay.

If that sounds familiar, it should. The same disease spreads through modern alliances and federations. The European Union struggles to act decisively on defense or immigration. NATO still wrestles with members that want protection without paying the bill. American states squabble over borders, infrastructure, and disaster response. The curse is not ideology. It is design. Systems that give everyone a veto eventually teach everyone how to hide behind it.

Act III – The Chainsaw Will Not Start

By this stage of the trilogy, the heroes are exhausted, the walls are closing in, and the chainsaw is out of gas. That is the Dutch Republic in its final century: a government so tangled in its own procedures that it could not save itself even when it saw disaster coming. Hamilton and Madison recounted how provinces sent delegates who were not allowed to vote, how tax payments arrived months late, and how decisions that required unanimity died waiting for one more signature. It was a confederation that mistook stalling for strength.

The Dutch Republic could raise an army only when all seven provinces agreed, which meant that in practice, they rarely had one when it mattered. They debated contributions, troop levels, and jurisdiction while foreign powers crossed their borders. It was like watching a fire department hold a budget meeting while the house burned down.

The comparison is not just historical. Every generation of self-governing people eventually builds its own version of the Dutch Republic: alliances that meet often, talk long, and accomplish little. We rename the committees, trade the wigs for microphones, and call it progress. The machinery of dysfunction just gets sleeker.

Subscribe now

Act IV – Hail to the Chief, Baby

By the time Hamilton and Madison reached Federalist 20, they had seen enough. The Greek and German confederations had failed through disunity and weakness, and the Dutch proved that even wealth and sophistication could not save a system built on hesitation. Confederations, they concluded, are zombie governments: dead but still moving, animated by paperwork instead of purpose.

Hamilton captured the absurdity in one line: “The necessity of unanimous consent to the most trivial resolutions has been the cause of numberless embarrassments.” In plain English, when everyone must agree before anything can happen, nothing happens until it is too late. The Constitution they proposed was not a bid for tyranny. It was a plan for survival. They wanted a government capable of action but restrained by accountability, a system that could fight the real monsters without becoming one.

By now, Hamilton and Madison sounded less like founders and more like Ash Williams at the end of Army of Darkness, bruised, sarcastic, and still standing. They had seen what happens when liberty turns into chaos, and they were ready to rebuild from the wreckage. Their Constitution was not a spell of control. It was a chainsaw with a safety switch.

The Moral of the Story

The Army of Dysfunction never really dies. It just rebrands. It gets a logo, a mission statement, and maybe a conference about “stakeholder alignment.” But the disease remains the same: everyone wants a voice, no one wants the burden of choice, and all the good intentions in the world cannot fix a system designed to stall.

Self-government does not fail because people are lazy or corrupt. It fails because indecision feels polite and caution looks like wisdom. A republic survives only when people are willing to make decisions before the walls cave in, not after.

The Sequel Hook

Next time, in Federalist 21, Hamilton stops fighting the undead and starts rebuilding civilization. The chainsaw is fueled, the blueprint is ready, and this time the hero knows better than to trust the committee.

Hail to the Chief, baby.

Leave a comment

Madison and Hamilton were back for the sequel, and they brought receipts. After ransacking Greek history in Federalist 18, they turned their gaze north to the Holy Roman Empire, otherwise known as the Germanic Confederation. Think of it as Europe’s greatest hits of political dysfunction. Madison treated it like a crime scene. The body was still twitching, but the cause of death was obvious: too many sovereigns and not enough sovereignty.

He called it “a nerveless body.” The Emperor wore the title of ruler but had no real power. Every prince, bishop, and free city guarded its turf, vetoed its neighbors, and begged foreign kings to tip the scales when they could not. It was a government run entirely by HOA boards. Madison’s message was clear. If America had stayed on the path of the Articles of Confederation, it would have ended up just as fractured and helpless.

When Everyone’s a Prince, No One Rules

Federalist 19 opens like a grim diagnosis. The Germanic system, he wrote, “comprises a vast assemblage of republics and principalities, each with its own sovereignty, yet subject in certain cases to the authority of the whole.” That phrase “in certain cases” was the problem. The central authority could propose but never impose. Laws were passed, but only obeyed if convenient. The Diet, their version of Congress, could talk all day, but to act, it needed the consent of every province. Imagine trying to run a country where every law required a unanimous vote in the Senate.

Hamilton and Madison loved their examples. The empire, they said, “has been a continual scene of wars between the states.” Princes would call in France or Sweden for help, and before long, the so-called empire was at war with itself. The supposed union became a geopolitical food fight. “The great engine of their disorders,” Madison wrote, was that the federal head “had not power to enforce the decrees of the Diet, nor even to suppress the insurrections of particular states.” In plain English, no one was in charge.

It was a warning shot. America’s Articles of Confederation created the same kind of ghost government. Congress could vote, but it could not collect taxes, enforce laws, or regulate trade. States bickered over boundaries and tariffs while foreign powers laughed. Madison’s solution was a national government with real authority, one that could compel obedience rather than beg for it.

The Fear Behind the Fix

But here is the rub. The founders’ cure for paralysis was power, and over time, the cure created its own disease. They wanted a government that could act, not just talk. What they built eventually grew into a machine that acts even when no one agrees.

The Anti-Federalists saw it coming. “The government will be so extensive,” wrote Brutus in 1787, “that the people will soon lose sight of it.” He warned that consolidation would create “a power which will annihilate the state governments.” To men like Brutus and the Federal Farmer, the danger was not weakness but drift, a national government that would start as a servant and end as a master.

That prediction has aged like a fine bourbon. Two centuries later, the problem is not too little federal power but too much concentration of it in one branch. What Madison feared in Germany, a confederacy that could not govern, has been replaced by a republic in which the executive governs by default because the legislature cannot.

Subscribe now

The Modern Diet: Congress on Pause

When Madison described the Germanic Diet as “a body which deliberates and decides, but whose decrees are without energy,” he might as well have been describing Capitol Hill during a government shutdown. The resemblance is uncanny. Each faction insists on sovereignty, threatens to withhold consent, and blames the other for the standoff. The machinery of government stalls not because power is scarce, but because it is weaponized.

Every few years, Congress re-enacts the same constitutional farce. The government shuts down, workers are furloughed, and federal parks close while politicians hold press conferences about who is to blame. The public tunes out until their tax refunds or travel plans are threatened, and then everyone pretends to be shocked that the richest country on earth cannot keep its own lights on.

If Madison’s Germans were paralyzed by vetoes and divided loyalties, today’s Americans are trapped in a system where veto has become the point. Every negotiation is a hostage situation. Every budget deadline is a cliffhanger. “We must have a government with coercive power,” Madison argued, or we would “soon relapse into the feudal system.” We got that coercive power, just not in the branch he expected.

The Rise of the Imperial Presidency

The vacuum left by legislative gridlock never stays empty. It gets filled by the only branch that can act unilaterally. Presidents now legislate through executive orders, reallocate funds by emergency declaration, and rewrite regulations with the stroke of a pen. What began as a temporary workaround has become standard operating procedure.

Hamilton would probably admire the efficiency. Madison would be horrified by the dependency. When the founders debated how to balance liberty and authority, they assumed Congress would be the strongest branch. They forgot that paralysis itself could create tyranny. As the old saying goes, if you cannot beat the system, the system will beat you, and right now, the executive branch is winning by default.

The irony is rich. Madison and Hamilton wrote Federalist 19 to prove that a confederacy was too weak to survive. They succeeded. But in proving their point, they built a federal system so strong it eventually made the people feel powerless. The confederacy struck back, not through rebellion, but through bureaucratic inertia.

What They Got Right

Madison’s critique of the Germanic Confederation still rings true. Shared sovereignty without a clear center of gravity is chaos. America’s founders were right that unity requires enforcement. They were also right that national defense, trade, and diplomacy cannot be left to the goodwill of individual states. The Articles of Confederation really were a dead end.

The lesson applies far beyond the eighteenth century. Look at the European Union’s current struggles. It can regulate the curvature of cucumbers, but cannot agree on a single foreign policy. Each member state clings to its veto, and global rivals exploit the cracks. The same centrifugal forces Madison described are still at work, only with better branding and a flag with 12 stars.

Even within the United States, you can see the echoes. Federal disaster relief, pandemic policy, and immigration enforcement all turn into contests over who is really in charge. The governors sue Washington, Washington sues the states, and the Supreme Court referees the aftermath. We have not escaped Madison’s confederacy problem. We have just scaled it up to a national level.

What They Missed

Where Madison and Hamilton stumbled was in assuming structure could fix culture. They believed that if you build the right machinery, virtue will follow. But political trust cannot be engineered. The Germanic states failed not only because of weak institutions but also because they lacked a shared identity. Their loyalties ran local, not national.

Madison believed Americans were different. “The people of America,” he wrote in Federalist 14, “are not composed of detached and distant territories.” He assumed a unity of purpose that time has eroded. Two hundred years later, we are less a union of states than a federation of grievance cultures, each convinced the others are ruining the republic.

The deeper problem is not the division of power. It is the division of belonging. We built a government that can act without consensus and then wondered why consensus disappeared. The Constitution gave us stability. It also gave us a mechanism for permanent combat.

Share

The Empire Strikes Back

If Federalist 18 was the origin story, Federalist 19 is the darker middle chapter, the one where the heroes realize their grand design carries unintended consequences. Madison thought he was exorcising the ghost of failed confederacies. In reality, he was summoning a new kind of empire, one that rules not by decree but by drift.

The federal government of 2025 is neither weak nor divided. It is sprawling, procedural, and oddly fragile. Congress can hold hearings, but not pass budgets. States can legislate but cannot coordinate. The President can act, but only until the courts intervene. The citizen, meanwhile, watches from the gallery, unsure who actually governs.

Madison wrote that the Germanic confederation “has ever been kept in a state of imbecility by the intrigues of foreign powers.” Replace “foreign” with “partisan,” and you have the American condition. Our paralysis is self-inflicted. The threat is not invasion but entropy.

The founders feared anarchy. What they got was stagnation. They wanted energy in government. What we have is motion without direction, a perpetual campaign, a government that governs by deadline, and a public so numb it barely notices the alarms anymore.

A Republic Worth Running

The genius of Federalist 19 is that it forces us to confront the trade-off between unity and liberty. Too little unity, and you get Germany under the Emperor. Too much, and you get America under the administrative state. Somewhere between paralysis and overreach lies the republic the founders actually meant to build.

Maybe that is the real sequel, not “The Confederacy Strikes Back,” but “The Republic Fights On.” Madison’s warning still matters, but so does Brutus’s. Power must be strong enough to act and limited enough to listen. Right now, it feels like we have nailed the first part and lost sight of the second.

We keep arguing over who should have the lightsaber: Congress, the President, or the Court, while the ship drifts farther from the planet. The confederacy may be gone, but the dysfunction remains.

The Empire never really fell. It just changed its form.

We discuss the post, Are You Listening Now?, written after Charlie Kirk’s murder. We also discuss the social media stupidity over the misfired Cracker Barrel rebranding and the launch of Maxwell Apartment.

You can listen to the show on Spotify on the link below or wherever you listen to podcasts. Please share your thoughts in the comment section or send me a note.