Two Questions, Not One

In April, I argued that the birthright citizenship fight contained two separate questions: what the Fourteenth Amendment means, and whether a president can force a new answer by executive order. The Supreme Court has now decided Trump v. Barbara, and the decision shows why that distinction matters. Collapsing those questions was always the mistake.

The first question is hard: does the Constitution leave any room for Congress to revisit how birthright citizenship applies in a modern immigration system? The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. For more than a century, United States v. Wong Kim Ark has been the central case interpreting that promise. That precedent matters.

But serious precedent is not beyond examination. Wong Kim Ark arose in a different legal and political world. That does not make it obsolete, but it does raise a fair question about how far its reasoning extends when applied to facts the Court did not squarely confront. The modern debate asks whether temporary or unlawful presence changes the constitutional analysis, and whether Congress can clarify the statute without crossing the line drawn by the Fourteenth Amendment. The law now has categories, and the country now faces a scale of migration that the Court was not confronting in 1898.

That does not mean Congress would win. It means that if the question is going to be tested at all, lawmakers should be the ones to start. The second question is much easier: can a president settle this by executive order? The answer is no.

A president cannot amend the Fourteenth Amendment by proclamation. He cannot create exceptions the statute does not contain because he thinks the law should have been written differently. And he cannot take one of the most basic questions in a republic, who belongs to it at birth, and answer it by executive command.

That is the difference this case should force us to see. Birthright citizenship may be open to constitutional argument. Citizenship by executive order should not be.

Subscribe now

The Proper Branch to Test the Question

The Supreme Court’s majority reached a broad constitutional answer. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority read the Citizenship Clause through English common law, Reconstruction, the repudiation of Dred Scott, and Wong Kim Ark. Its conclusion was clear: if a child is born on American soil and subject to American law, that child is a citizen.

That may be right. And when a constitutional question is properly presented, courts have the authority to answer it. Courts interpret the Constitution and decide whether statutes or executive actions exceed it. That role is not optional, especially when citizenship is at stake.

But there is a difference between saying the courts have the final word in a constitutional case and saying no one else has a role in asking the question. Congress writes citizenship statutes. It also has enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment, though that power has limits. Lawmakers can hold hearings, build a record, and pass legislation that asks the courts to decide where the constitutional line sits. That is how the constitutional process is supposed to work.

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to enforce the Amendment. It does not allow Congress to narrow a right the Amendment itself guarantees. If the Citizenship Clause means what the majority says it means, no statute can legislate around it. But the legislative branch can test whether the Constitution leaves room for statutory clarification. And if it is wrong, the courts can say so.

Justice Kavanaugh’s separate opinion is worth reading because it refuses to collapse the issue into one question. He rejected the Executive Order because the President cannot add exceptions to citizenship law that the statute does not contain. But he also left open the possibility that Congress may have some room to test the boundaries of birthright citizenship. The majority disagreed, treating the constitutional rule as already settled. That disagreement is exactly why the Executive Order was the wrong instrument.

The Wrong Instrument

The Executive Order was not just a disputed answer. It was the wrong instrument. Our politics has grown too comfortable with shortcuts. When Congress does not act, presidents often try to fill the gap. When presidents act, the courts are asked to bless or block what lawmakers never debated. Then everyone claims the system is broken because one branch refused to do the work and another tried to do too much.

This is not a problem unique to one president or one party. Executive orders have become the duct tape of modern government. They are used to patch over legislative failure, signal political commitment, and create the appearance of action when the constitutional process is slow, public, and hard. But the slowness is deliberate.

Citizenship is not paperwork. It is the legal recognition of membership in the political community, which is why a republic should debate its boundaries with care. That means legislation when legislation is proper, judicial review when constitutional limits are tested, and amendment when the Constitution itself must change. None of that fits inside an executive order.

Justice Scalia once drew the line between changes “adopted as progressive by the American people” and changes “decreed as progressive by the Justices of this Court.” His point was aimed at courts, but the principle runs deeper. In a constitutional republic, lasting change should not be handed down by judges when the Constitution leaves the matter to the people. And it should not be announced by presidents when the Constitution gives the work to Congress, the courts, or the amendment process.

The Constitution does not require us to pretend hard questions are easy. It requires us to answer them through the institutions built for that purpose.

Share

The Constitutional Line

The debate over birthright citizenship is not frivolous simply because the current rule is old. Old precedents can be strong. They can also be tested by new facts. A serious republic should be able to say both things at once. Wong Kim Ark deserves respect. The Fourteenth Amendment deserves more.

If Congress believes the citizenship statute no longer fits the modern immigration system, it can make that case in the open and accept the judgment of the courts. What lawmakers cannot do is hide behind presidential action. And what the President cannot do is act as if executive power becomes constitutional authority whenever Congress lacks the courage to move.

The danger is not limited to this order. The larger danger is not only that one president may reach the wrong answer. It is that the country becomes comfortable with the wrong method. Today the shortcut may point in one direction. Tomorrow it may point in another. The constitutional damage is the same either way.

The Constitution gives us a way to argue about citizenship: Congress legislates, courts judge, and the people may amend the Constitution when the text itself must change. What it does not give us is a single person with the power to settle belonging with a signature.

Leave a comment

Every Fourth of July, we return to the Declaration of Independence, or at least to the lines most Americans know best.

That sentence deserves its place in our civic memory. It gave Americans a standard the country would spend generations trying to meet. Later generations would use it to challenge the nation, often more forcefully than the founders themselves had imagined.

But the Declaration was not written only to announce a principle. It was written to defend a decision.

The men who approved it were not writing from the safety of victory. They were speaking for a cause that could still fail. The colonies had been fighting Britain for more than a year, but independence remained a step many Americans had not yet accepted. Before Congress could ask the world to recognize a new nation, it had to explain why separation was justified. That argument had been building for years, but most of it had not begun as an argument for independence.

Subscribe now

Before Independence

The Declaration did not appear out of nowhere. By the summer of 1776, the colonies had been arguing with Great Britain for more than a decade, and most of that argument had not been about independence.

For years, colonial leaders insisted they remained loyal subjects of the Crown. Their quarrel was not with British government itself, but with a government they believed had violated the rights British subjects were supposed to possess. They were not yet asking to leave the empire. They were asking the empire to honor its own principles.

Even after fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord, many Americans still hoped the breach could be repaired. By July 1776, Congress no longer believed that was possible. The Declaration gave that conclusion its public form. After years of arguing that British authority had violated British rights, Congress now had to explain why those violations justified leaving the empire altogether.

The Burden of Persuasion

By July 1776, Congress had already decided that the colonies would separate from Great Britain. The remarkable thing about the Declaration is not the decision itself, but what the delegates chose to do next.

Before speaking of equality or natural rights, and before listing a single grievance against the king, they paused to explain why they believed they owed the world an explanation.

Those are not the words of people who believed conviction alone settled the matter. The famous principles that follow are the beginning of a case Congress believed had to be made before independence could be defended.

Raising the Standard

The opening of the Declaration invites its readers to hear the case. The next paragraph tells them how to judge it. Jefferson begins with a thought that feels almost out of place: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…”

Those words slow the document down just when we expect it to gather speed. Jefferson does not ask his readers to begin with the colonies’ grievances. He asks them to begin with the weight of the decision itself. Governments are not to be discarded because they disappoint us, nor is every injustice enough to justify revolution.

Only after establishing that principle does he turn to the conduct of George III. The grievances that follow are not simply a catalog of complaints. They are Congress’s answer to the standard Jefferson has already set. If long-established governments should not be changed for “light and transient causes,” then Congress had to show that Britain’s abuses were neither light nor transient. The Declaration is asking whether separation had finally become not a choice but a necessity.

The Citizen Appears

By the time Jefferson writes that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” Congress has already presented its case and left the judgment to its readers.

That is easy to overlook because we know how the story ends. The delegates did not. They could not assume agreement, much less demand it. The Declaration had to persuade its readers. It treated them not as subjects receiving an order, but as people capable of judging whether the case had been made.

Consent of the governed is usually read as a statement about the source of political authority. It is that, but it also says something about the people themselves. A government can rest on consent only if citizens are capable of judgment. The Declaration does not merely claim that power comes from the people. It assumes the people can decide whether power has been used justly.

Share

An Unfinished Experiment

The Declaration declared that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” but it left a question that would follow the republic from the beginning: who counted among the governed?

The question appeared almost as soon as independence did. Abigail Adams saw the problem before the Declaration was approved.

“We will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”

She was not rejecting the Revolution. She was asking whether its principles would be applied as broadly as its language suggested.

Nearly a century later, Frederick Douglass returned to the same question from the perspective of a man born into slavery.

“What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?”

Douglass did not argue that the Declaration was wrong. He argued that the nation had failed to live under the principle it had already proclaimed.

Abraham Lincoln answered that challenge by returning to the Declaration itself. At Gettysburg, he reached past the Constitution to the nation’s first principle.

“Conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

For Lincoln, the Civil War was a test of whether the proposition announced in 1776 could endure.

A century after emancipation, Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the Lincoln Memorial and described the Declaration as a promise still waiting to be honored.

“A promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

King was making the same argument Abigail Adams had made before the republic was born. The question was not whether the principle had power. The question was whether Americans would extend it to the people still waiting to be included.

That is where the Declaration becomes harder to live with than to quote. It gave Americans a way to defend independence, then left behind a principle that did not stay where the founding generation tried to leave it. It moved outward, slowly and unevenly, carried by people who could read the words and see themselves missing from them.

That does not make the Declaration weaker. It makes our obligation clearer. If we claim its principles as an inheritance, we also inherit the work of upholding them.

What Comes Next

The sentence we remember still deserves its place, but the Declaration is deeper than its most famous line. Its strength lies not only in the fact that it declared independence. It gave Americans a standard for what they should become.

We have never fully lived up to that standard, but we have never stopped returning to it. Americans have fought wars over it, amended the Constitution for it, and unsettled old arrangements because of it. That history should not make us cynical about the promise. It should remind us how much Americans have been willing to do when the country has fallen short of its own principles.

That is the inheritance the Declaration leaves us: not perfection, and not surrender, but the work of drawing the republic closer to the promise it made at the beginning. We are not the first Americans asked to do that work, and we will not be the last. But for now, it is ours.

Leave a comment

The words above were published a week after Lexington and Concord, which should give us pause. We tend to remember Lexington as the beginning of an independence movement already gathering momentum. Yet the men who had just watched the Massachusetts militia confront British regulars still described themselves as loyal subjects of the Crown. They condemned what they called the “persecution and tyranny” of the ministry, but they had not yet abandoned the political world they inherited.

The distance between Lexington and Independence is one of the easiest realities of the Revolution to overlook. Looking backward, the path seems direct. Looking through the documents of 1775, it appears far less certain.

Subscribe now

Still Loyal, Already Preparing

The spring of 1775 was not calm. British troops occupied Boston, and few colonists still trusted royal officials. In Massachusetts, provincial leaders had already begun operating outside the normal channels of royal government, while preparing for the possibility that force might settle the conflict between colony and crown.

Yet preparation and loyalty existed side by side. The Massachusetts Provincial Congress repeatedly framed its cause in constitutional terms. Its members argued that British officials had violated long-established rights and exceeded their lawful authority. They spoke less as founders of something new than as defenders of liberties they believed already belonged to them.

To modern readers, that position can seem contradictory. To many colonists, it was not. They believed the problem was not the British constitutional tradition itself. The problem was that those entrusted to uphold it had begun to abandon it.

A Constitution Worth Saving

A resolve adopted on 24 March 1775 makes that understanding clear. The Provincial Congress urged towns and individual inhabitants to continue the measures already recommended for “putting this colony into a complete state of defence.” It also warned that any relaxation would bring “the utmost danger to the liberties of this colony and of all America.”

Those ideas belong together. Massachusetts prepared for a serious confrontation, but the Congress had not yet prepared for independence. It sought to defend what it regarded as constitutional liberty. The colonists wanted to preserve rights they believed they had inherited through law and feared Britain now threatened.

This is where modern readers can easily lose sight of the world the colonists inhabited. Leaders in Massachusetts did not usually describe those rights as American rights. More often, they described them as the rights of Englishmen. They cited charters, common law traditions, and constitutional principles that they believed bound both Parliament and the Crown. They did not argue that Britain lacked all authority over the colonies. They argued that authority had limits.

The political categories later generations would use had not yet hardened. The spring of 1775 did not pit committed Loyalists against committed advocates of independence. Many colonists opposed the course Britain had taken and prepared for armed resistance, while still hoping the constitutional relationship could be repaired. They feared what might happen next, but they had not yet agreed on what should happen afterward.

Share

The Night Before

By mid-April, that fragile balance had begun to narrow. Reports circulated that General Thomas Gage might move against military stores outside Boston, and the warning network built over months of crisis began to matter in practical ways.

Paul Revere later testified that on the evening of 18 April, Dr. Joseph Warren sent for him and told him that British troops were expected to march “by water to Cambridge, and from thence to Lexington.” His account keeps the night grounded in what people knew at the time: troops were moving, leading men might be in danger, and the countryside had to be warned.1

That is the April 18 worth remembering. The concern was immediate and practical. Would troops seize supplies? Would they arrest leaders? Would force now settle disputes that petitions and political arguments had failed to resolve? Those questions mattered without a settled vision of independence.

In retrospect, independence can seem like the obvious destination. It was anything but obvious in the spring of 1775. Colonial leaders still framed the dispute as a fight over constitutional obligations and inherited rights, even as some prepared for the possibility of armed resistance.

The Declaration speaks with the confidence of a people who have reached a conclusion. The documents from the months before Lexington read like the work of people still wrestling with a question.

Farther From Independence Than We Remember

The Declaration of Independence now dominates our memory of the Revolution, but it remained distant in the spring of 1775. Not merely distant on the calendar, but distant in political imagination. Even after Lexington and Concord, many Americans continued to hope that Britain and the colonies could repair their constitutional relationship.

The Continental Congress offers another reminder of how much political ground remained. Congress had not yet treated independence as the inevitable result of the fighting in Massachusetts. To reach the Declaration, colonists first had to conclude not merely that British officials had acted improperly, but that the imperial relationship itself could no longer secure the liberties they sought to protect.

That conclusion came gradually as the war widened and reconciliation failed. In the spring of 1775, many Americans still stood between resistance and independence. The opening image makes that clear: even after Lexington and Concord, and even after blood had been shed, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress still described the colonists as loyal subjects of the Crown.

What Changed After Lexington

Lexington did not instantly create a movement for independence. It changed confidence that the existing relationship could be restored. Before the fighting, many colonists believed they could preserve constitutional liberties within the British system. After the fighting, that belief became harder to sustain.

The men who described themselves as “loyal and dutiful subjects” were not confused about who they were. They believed they defended a constitutional inheritance that stretched across the Atlantic and back through generations of English history. When they prepared for resistance, they hoped to preserve those liberties, not discard them.

The fighting at Lexington did not answer that question. It made the question harder to avoid. The Revolution did not begin with a settled vision of a new nation. It began with colonists trying to save a political world they believed was worth preserving, until events forced them to confront that it might no longer be repaired.

Sources

• Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, 24 March 1775 Resolve.

• Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, 26 April 1775 Address.

• Paul Revere Deposition, 1775.

• Journals of the Continental Congress, 1775–1776.

• Peter Force, American Archives, Fourth Series.

Leave a comment

By the time Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 31, the argument over taxation had been going on for years. The United States had emerged from the Revolution with debts it could not reliably pay and a national government that depended on the states for the money needed to meet its obligations.

The Articles of Confederation created a common treasury, but Congress could not fill it on its own. The states were expected to raise their assigned shares through their own legislatures. In theory, the arrangement preserved their independence while allowing the Union to function. In practice, it left Congress asking for money it could not compel anyone to provide.

Hamilton had already described the problem in Federalist No. 15. Congress could pass resolutions, but without authority over individual citizens, those resolutions became “mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.” Congress tried to work around that weakness by proposing import duties in 1781 and again in 1783. Both efforts failed, leaving Hamilton convinced that a single state could frustrate the entire system.

By the time he reached Federalist No. 31, Hamilton believed the lesson was clear. A national government responsible for national obligations needed the authority to raise revenue directly. Since no one could predict the cost of the next war or emergency, that authority could not be confined within narrow limits established in advance. “As revenue is the essential engine” for meeting national needs, Hamilton wrote, the federal government “must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes.”

Hamilton had a strong case. A government that cannot pay its debts or provide for its defense will eventually discover that its other powers do not mean very much. But the Anti-Federalists saw a different danger inside the solution. They worried that a power granted to cure weakness would gradually change the character of the Union.

Subscribe now

What Brutus Saw in the Taxing Power

The Anti-Federalist writer known as Brutus, widely believed to have been Robert Yates of New York, raised that question before Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 31. Yates had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention but left Philadelphia before the Convention completed its work. By the time the first Brutus essay appeared in the New York Journal in October 1787, he had become one of the strongest critics of the proposed Constitution.

Brutus did not treat taxation as one provision among many. He saw it as the power that would allow the rest of the federal government to grow. “The authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted,” he wrote, because it “will in process of time draw all other after it.”

That was more than an objection to taxes. Brutus was trying to understand what the new power would do to the relationship between Washington and the states. Congress would gain access to duties, imposts, excises, and direct taxation. The states would retain their authority, but they would be competing for revenue with a national government whose laws were supreme.

Brutus believed Congress should control duties on imports while the states retained greater authority over internal taxation. Hamilton rejected that distinction because he believed it would recreate the weakness the country had spent years trying to escape. Import duties might be enough in ordinary times, but a war could require much more.

The disagreement was not between people who understood the problem and people who did not. Hamilton saw the danger of giving the federal government responsibilities without the resources needed to meet them. Brutus saw the danger of giving it access to nearly every resource and trusting future generations to preserve the balance.

When the Argument Reached John Neville’s Door

The disagreement did not remain theoretical for long. In July 1794, it arrived at the home of John Neville outside Pittsburgh. Neville was the federal tax supervisor for western Pennsylvania, charged with collecting the excise tax on distilled spirits that Congress had enacted at Hamilton’s urging. For farmers west of the mountains, whiskey was not simply a drink. It was a practical way to turn grain into something easier to transport and sell.

Resistance had been building for years. When federal officers began serving writs on distillers who refused to comply, the conflict escalated. Armed men surrounded Neville’s estate at Bower Hill and demanded the surrender of a federal marshal. Fighting broke out, and by the end, the house and outbuildings were burning.

President Washington responded by calling out a militia force of nearly 13,000 men. By the time the troops arrived, the rebellion had largely dissolved. But the episode made the stakes plain. The new federal government could do what the Confederation could not. It could levy a tax and enforce it.

Hamilton saw a government capable of governing, and he was right that a republic could not allow armed resistance to determine which laws would be obeyed. But Brutus might have seen something else. The stronger government had arrived, and the power to tax carried with it the authority and resources needed to make that power real.

From Taxation to Influence

The federal government remained relatively small for much of the nineteenth century, but the direction of travel was clear. The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed Congress to collect income tax without apportioning the burden among the states according to population. That did not create an entirely new taxing power, but it made federal revenue easier to collect at scale.

Federal authority also grew through spending. Washington developed a powerful way to shape decisions traditionally left to the states by attaching conditions to federal money. The clearest example came in the 1980s, when South Dakota still allowed 19-year-olds to purchase low-alcohol beer and Congress threatened to withhold a portion of the state’s federal highway funds unless it raised the drinking age to 21. Washington did not order the state legislature to change its law. It used money to make the alternative more expensive.

South Dakota challenged the law, and the Supreme Court upheld it in South Dakota v. Dole. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor dissented. Her concern was not that Congress could never attach conditions to federal funds. It was that highway money had become a tool for regulating a separate area of state policy. If that logic extended too far, she warned, Congress could reach “almost any area of a State’s social, political, or economic life.”

There was a serious public-safety argument for a uniform drinking age. But the case revealed how federal power had evolved. Washington did not need to eliminate the states when it could influence their decisions through money. That was the modern version of the concern Brutus raised two centuries earlier. The power to tax had become the power to spend, and the power to spend had become a way to shape decisions Washington could not always impose directly.

Share

The Ratchet

The Anti-Federalist argument becomes more persuasive when we stop imagining the growth of government as a dramatic act of seizure. That is rarely how power accumulates. More often, it grows through decisions that appear reasonable on their own and become difficult to reverse after people begin to rely on them.

The danger is that emergency power rarely feels temporary once people have learned to live with it. What begins as a response to a particular failure becomes part of the country’s expectations, and after a while the burden shifts from justifying its creation to defending its removal.

Some of those programs have been necessary. Others corrected failures that the states were unable or unwilling to confront. There is no serious way to look at American history and conclude that every expansion of national authority was a mistake. But the cumulative effect matters. Authority moves toward Washington more easily than it moves back, and programs created for defensible reasons do not disappear simply because the circumstances that first justified them have changed.

Ronald Reagan captured the problem in his 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing: “Governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” The line has lasted because it describes an institutional reality. Congress can create a program one vote at a time because each new program begins with a purpose and a constituency. Ending one is harder because every proposed reform becomes a separate fight, and each fight produces an argument for why this particular program should be spared.

Recovering Power

If power is easier to grant than to recover, restraint is not enough. The courts can police the outer boundaries, but they cannot rebuild the balance on their own. A citizen movement can create pressure, but without a process for returning authority, that pressure eventually turns into another slogan.

The best model may come from an unlikely place: the Base Realignment and Closure process, better known as BRAC. Beginning in the late twentieth century, Congress faced a problem it could not solve through ordinary politics. The country had more military installations than its post-Cold War needs, but closing a base meant that jobs, contracts, and local influence would disappear from someone’s district.

So Congress changed the process. An independent commission reviewed military installations and recommended a package of closures and realignments. The President and Congress could accept or reject the package as a whole, but they could not carve it apart one base at a time. That mattered because it prevented every local interest from defeating the larger national decision.

Returning authority to the states will require the same kind of discipline. Congress should create a HARBOR Commission, modeled on BRAC: Handing Authority and Responsibility Back to Our Republic. The name carries a little history. Americans once protested distant taxation by throwing tea into the Boston Harbor. HARBOR would be less theatrical, though there may still be some satisfaction in throwing a few taxes into the harbor along the way.

Its task would be easy to state and hard to execute: identify which federal responsibilities still require federal control, which should be returned to the states, and which no longer justify their existence. The recommendations would come as a single package of transfers, consolidations, and closures so Congress could not spare every favored program one fight at a time.

That structure matters because ordinary politics is built to protect the familiar. The point is not to cut for the sake of cutting. It is to force the question Congress usually avoids: where does this responsibility belong?

The debt makes that question harder to postpone. The next fiscal crisis will not arrive as a seminar on federalism. It will arrive as pressure and an emergency. In moments like that, constitutional limits are often treated less like rules of self-government than obstacles to be overcome. In the current political climate, even asking whether Washington has the authority to act can be treated as a refusal to care about the problem.

That is how constitutional government weakens. Not usually through open contempt, but through impatience. A crisis arrives, and the demand for action becomes absolute. Limits that once defined the system begin to look like excuses. Before long, anyone who insists on those limits becomes the problem.

That is why HARBOR matters. If there is no mechanism for returning power before the next crisis, the crisis itself will become the mechanism for expanding it. Hamilton was right that a government too weak to act could not survive. Brutus was right that a government accustomed to acting would not easily yield power back. The work now is to build a way back while constitutional limits still have a fighting chance.

Leave a comment

Two hundred and fifty years after the Declaration of Independence, the American republic remains unfinished. That is not a failure of the founding. Self-government has always depended on the people entrusted with it.

The founders created a system strong enough to endure disagreement and survive change, but they never assumed the Constitution could settle every question that followed. The arguments at its core would be carried from one generation to the next, especially the question of how much power a free people should give their government.

That is why the 250th anniversary matters. It should be more than an occasion for nostalgia or a parade of familiar images and polished quotations. The American story is more useful than that. It reminds us that liberty does not sustain itself and that citizenship asks something of us in return.

I have spent much of my life returning to these questions, first as a student of history and later through work in government and public service. The more time I have spent with them, the less interested I have become in easy answers. The value of the American story is not that it settles every argument for us, but that it helps us see the choices in front of us more clearly.

Subscribe now

The Arguments Never Ended

The Unfinished Republic will return to the debates that shaped the country and follow them beyond the founding era. The Federalists deserve careful attention, but they were not the only voices worth hearing. The Anti-Federalists understood that a government strong enough to solve immediate problems could also become distant from the people it was meant to serve.

Their concerns did not vanish with ratification. The Federalists feared that a weak government would fail when the country needed it most. The Anti-Federalists worried that concentrated power would become difficult to restrain. Both sides understood that the structure of government matters because human nature does not change simply because a Constitution has been written.

We are still living with that tension. The scale of modern government would have startled both sides, but the underlying question remains familiar: how much authority can a free people safely place beyond their immediate reach? The question becomes more pressing when public institutions seem distant from the citizens they serve or less accountable for the decisions they make.

The Argument Across Generations

The debate did not end with the founding because every generation encountered its own version of the same problem. Lincoln wrestled with whether the Union could survive and become more faithful to its stated principles. Frederick Douglass forced the country to confront the distance between its promises and its practices.

The 20th century brought new versions of the same challenge. Eisenhower warned that power could gather quietly, even within institutions created for legitimate purposes. The civil rights movement reminded the country that constitutional promises mean little when they are not lived in practice. And the debates of the 21st century have shown that the tension between liberty, authority, and accountability has not gone away.

The circumstances changed, but the larger question remained. Could the country respond to new pressures and new forms of power without losing sight of its principles? That question has shaped the republic for generations, and it continues to shape our politics today.

Anniversaries can make history feel inevitable. Looking backward from the safety of the present, we can imagine that the outcome was always waiting for us. It was not. The country survived because people made difficult choices without knowing whether they would succeed. Some decisions brought the republic closer to its ideals. Others exposed the distance that remained.

A serious reading of the past must make room for both achievement and failure. The country has never been as pure as its admirers sometimes claim, nor as empty as its harshest critics suggest. Its history is more demanding than either version allows. The republic has endured because people continued to challenge it to live more fully by its own principles.

Share

The Responsibility Is Still Ours

That work does not belong only to presidents, judges, or elected officials. Self-government depends on citizens willing to pay attention and accept responsibility for the health of the republic. It requires us to argue in good faith and resist the temptation to treat every disagreement as proof of betrayal. A free society cannot function for long when people demand restraint from their opponents while excusing excess from their own side.

The 250th anniversary gives us a chance to reconsider those habits. The past does not offer simple answers, but it reminds us that our frustrations are not entirely new. Earlier generations left us arguments worth revisiting and lessons earned at considerable cost. What we do with them is now our responsibility.

No generation can complete the work of self-government and hand it down intact. Each inherits a republic shaped by the choices that came before and faces the question anew: what are we willing to preserve, what are we prepared to repair, and what have we allowed to weaken? The republic remains unfinished because each generation has to answer that question for itself.

Americans love to argue about taxes, but we rarely argue honestly about what they reveal. Most tax debates focus on who pays. Far fewer ask whether the public can still see clearly enough to understand what they are paying for. We have built a tax code that touches nearly every part of public life, yet hides behind rules few can follow without help.

Hamilton would have recognized the danger. Federalist No. 30 is usually treated as a defense of federal taxing power, but the deeper issue is accountability. A government that promises what it cannot finance is dishonest. Financing what people cannot understand creates a different problem. We all know the taxman collects, but we can no longer see him clearly.

Subscribe now

The Cost of the Articles

When Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 30, the young nation was struggling under the Articles of Confederation. Congress could request money from the states, but it could not compel payment. Hamilton wanted a government powerful enough to function, but accountable enough to trust. The national government carried responsibilities it could not reliably support.

Hamilton saw the contradiction immediately. “Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic,” he wrote, “as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions.” Many modern readers stop at the word “money” and assume Hamilton was talking about wealth. He was talking about capacity. Responsibilities without resources are just promises.

The problem under the Articles was not only financial weakness but confusion. Congress could blame the states, and the states could blame Congress. The public had no clear way to know who was responsible when obligations went unmet. Hamilton believed responsibility and authority were bound together. If the federal government carried national obligations, it needed the power to meet them. Only then could the public know who deserved credit when government succeeded and who deserved blame when it failed.

A Different Problem

Today, the problem has taken a different shape. Hamilton worried that the federal government lacked enough authority to raise revenue. Few would make that argument now. Washington has the power to tax, but power is no longer the issue. Clarity is.

The tax code began as a way to raise money. Over time, Congress made it carry more of the work of governing. A choice that might look costly in the budget can look less visible in the tax code, even when it still shapes behavior and shifts resources. That does not make every tax preference wrong. It does mean the public has to work harder to see what has been done.

That is where complexity becomes more than a tax problem. The more Washington hides choices inside the code, the harder it becomes to hold anyone responsible for them. Hamilton feared a government too weak to meet its financial obligations. We should fear one that forgets its obligation to the people paying the bill.

That is the danger of a tax code that becomes too hard to follow. It does not merely confuse people. It changes the relationship between the government and the governed. The people who know how the system works gain leverage. Everyone else is left to comply first and understand later.

The Transparency Deficit

Americans do not get to opt out of the tax system. We live under the code whether we understand it or not, which is why its rules should not become clear only after the bill comes due. Most people accept that taxes are necessary. What they should not have to accept is a government that sends the public a surprise bill for decisions it never got to see clearly.

That matters because taxes are not just numbers on a return. They represent a portion of someone’s life already spent earning the money. When the cost only becomes clear later, people are right to wonder whether the rules were written with them in mind.

If citizens are expected to obey the law and pay their bills, they should be able to understand the rules. If only the taxman knows the rules, taxation without representation takes on a new form.

Share

The Game Is Not Neutral

Complexity is often defended as the unavoidable cost of governing a modern economy. There is some truth in that. A country this large will never have a tax code that fits on a postcard, and pretending otherwise does not help the argument. But complexity does not fall evenly. It favors the people who can afford to understand the rules before everyone else even knows where to look.

That is where the imbalance begins. Expertise has value, and there is nothing wrong with hiring good advice. The problem comes when the system depends so heavily on specialists that ordinary taxpayers can no longer follow the rules without them.

Most Americans are not studying the tax code in their spare time. They are trying to live their lives and make good decisions with the information they have. When the rules become too complicated for most people to follow, the public loses more than convenience. It loses confidence that the same system is working the same way for everyone.

Hamilton’s Challenge

Federalist No. 30 contains another line that deserves more attention. Hamilton argued that “a complete power… to procure a regular and adequate supply” of revenue “may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.” It is often read as a defense of federal taxing authority, and it is. But Hamilton was also setting a standard: if government claims responsibility, it must show the means.

That standard still matters because revenue is not only a tool of government. It is also a test of accountability. The question is not only whether Washington can collect. It is whether the people funding the system can still judge it.

This is where Hamilton’s argument turns back on modern government. He wanted a Union with enough power to meet its responsibilities, but that power was never meant to become distant from the people who fund it. Revenue should make the government function. It should not give the government shelter from accountability.

Trust Requires Light

Hamilton won the argument over federal revenue authority long ago, but the question beneath Federalist No. 30 did not disappear. The old question was whether the government had the means to act. The modern question is whether the public can still see how that power is being used.

That is where modern America has work to do. Washington can move money at a scale Hamilton could not have imagined. The problem is not that the government acts. The problem is that too much of its work now happens where the people paying for it cannot clearly see it.

Self-government asks more of us than voting. It asks us to see power clearly enough to challenge it. That becomes harder when the rules are written for people already inside the system.

Free people should never have to guess how they are governed.

Leave a comment

The Diagnosis Is Easy

Americans have never lacked confidence in their diagnoses of national decline. Every age finds proof that the republic is weakening, and ours is no exception. We can spend a great deal of time naming what feels broken, but diagnosis has a way of becoming its own substitute for action. The harder question is what might make us healthier.

That is why Federalist No. 29 deserves a better reading than it usually receives. At first glance, it can feel like one of the more technical essays in the series, focused primarily on the militia and national defense. But Hamilton is working toward a larger question that still matters: what keeps a free people free?

Hamilton’s argument rested on a simple idea. Liberty survives only when citizens remain connected to the responsibilities of self-government. Read that way, Federalist No. 29 becomes more than a technical debate about military readiness. Beneath the constitutional mechanics, Hamilton asks whether a republic can preserve freedom once its citizens grow detached from the work of preserving it.

Subscribe now

The Fear Behind the Argument

The Anti-Federalists were not foolish to worry about military power. They had history on their side. Americans had just fought a revolution against imperial authority, and many remembered British troops not as abstract defenders of order, but as instruments of control. To people who had lived through that experience, giving the new federal government authority over the militia sounded less like efficiency and more like restoring the crown under a new name.

Hamilton understood the fear. One reason The Federalist Papers endure is that their authors rarely treated objections to the Constitution as unserious. They often thought those objections were wrong or overstated, but they understood their force. In Federalist No. 29, Hamilton was writing to citizens who feared that the very government created to protect liberty might someday command the means to destroy it.

His response was practical rather than sentimental. Hamilton argued that the federal government needed meaningful authority over the militia because common defense could not depend on scattered systems moving in different directions. A nation that could not organize its own defense would eventually discover that disorganization is not a theory of liberty. It is an invitation to danger. When he wrote that militia authority was one of the “natural incidents” of providing for the common defense, Hamilton meant that the duty to defend the nation carried with it the authority necessary to do so. If the Union had the duty to protect national survival, it needed the tools to meet that duty.

Hamilton distrusted political arrangements that depended on everyone behaving nobly at the same time. The Articles of Confederation had already shown the danger of a national government that could request and hope, but not reliably act. He wanted a republic capable of defending itself, not because he worshiped power, but because he understood that weakness could endanger liberty as surely as ambition.

The Limits of Theory

Federalist No. 29 is not a blank check for central power. Hamilton spends much of the essay explaining why the militia system would not become the nightmare his opponents imagined. He rejected the idea that the federal government could realistically turn the whole population into a constantly drilled military force. Trying to discipline the entire body of the people, he argued, would be both “mischievous” and “impracticable.” It would burden ordinary citizens, disrupt productive life, and turn civic obligation into a weight few people could reasonably sustain.

Hamilton’s answer is more restrained than the caricature usually allows. He was not imagining a country organized around permanent military readiness. He was trying to solve a practical problem: how to give the republic enough capacity to defend itself without letting defense consume the ordinary life of its citizens. His proposed “select corps” of the militia was an attempt to hold that line. It kept the people connected to the work of defense without asking every citizen to live as a part-time soldier.

That balance is the heart of the essay. Hamilton wanted the republic to be capable of defending itself without allowing defense to consume civic life. He wanted federal authority, but not a system in which the people disappeared from the equation. Properly understood, the militia was not only a military instrument. It was a reminder that the defense of a free society should remain connected to the citizens who live under it.

The Citizen Soldier and the Republic

Federalist No. 29 becomes larger and more hopeful when read as an argument about citizenship. A free people cannot treat the republic as someone else’s responsibility, push every duty upward, and then wonder why their institutions feel distant and unresponsive. Liberty depends on a living connection between citizens and the system they expect to preserve their freedom.

The Citizen Soldier embodies that connection. The idea is not simply that civilians may be called into military service. It is that service leaves behind the habits a republic needs long after the uniform comes off. The Citizen Soldier serves when called, then returns home to the longer work of citizenship.

That is what makes the idea hopeful without making it sentimental. Hamilton was not asking Americans to admire a cleaner past. He knew the republic had been born in argument and would live in argument. His confidence rested on something harder: the belief that free people could disagree fiercely and still accept enough obligation to keep the country from coming apart.

Share

The Modern Habit of Outsourcing

Our problem is not that Americans lack opinions. It is that opinion has become too easy to mistake for citizenship. We can react to politics all day without accepting responsibility for it. Hamilton would have recognized the danger. A republic does not survive because people admire liberty from a distance. It survives when citizens accept personal responsibility for whether freedom endures.

The Constitution can set the framework, but it cannot supply civic will. That work belongs to the people. Federalist No. 29 reminds us that liberty cannot be handed off to others or preserved by spectatorship. The republic needs citizens who still believe freedom asks a sacrifice of them.

That is the promise inside the Citizen Soldier ideal. Service is not only what happens in uniform. It is the habit of answering when the republic calls and carrying that obligation back into ordinary life. A country that remembers that habit has not lost its way. It still knows how to find its way back.

The Hope Inside the Essay

Federalist No. 29 carries warnings, but its deeper current is constructive. Hamilton believed the American experiment could work if free people remained close enough to the responsibilities of self-government. He did not ask Americans to choose between security and liberty. He asked them to build a republic capable of preserving both.

That belief is easy to miss because modern readers often come to Hamilton through the lens of his conflicts. We remember the ambition, the financial system, the fights with Jefferson, and the fatal duel that still casts too long a shadow over his public memory. But Hamilton’s constitutional writing is animated by a stubborn faith that the republic could be made to work if its design matched human nature.

There is hope in that realism. Hamilton did not ask Americans to become angels. He asked them to build institutions suited for flawed people who still wanted to live free. That may be one of the most useful lessons for our own time. We do not need a political system that waits for Americans to become less angry or less tribal. We need civic habits strong enough to help us act responsibly anyway.

Hope, then, is not denial. It is not pretending the republic is healthier than it is or using slogans to avoid hard truths. Hope is the belief that free people still have the power to repair what has weakened and that national dysfunction does not excuse personal withdrawal. That kind of hope is harder than cynicism because it asks something of us. It asks us to do the work of freedom.

The Right Prescription

The cure for what ails us will not come from a politics built around resentment, nor will it come from protecting the powerful because they happen to wear the right party label. Citizenship requires something more honest than that. It asks us to hold elected officials accountable regardless of party and to reject the old habit of political insiders shielding their own while asking everyone else to carry the cost. A country cannot outrage its way back to health. It has to recover the habits that make self-government possible.

That is the older and better meaning of citizenship Hamilton points us toward in Federalist No. 29. The militia question belonged to his time, but the principle behind it still belongs to ours. Liberty endures only when free people remain connected to the republic and to the responsibilities of citizenship.

That is the cure: renewed citizenship, rooted in the belief that freedom still asks something of us and that Americans are still capable of answering. For a country tired of diagnosing its own decline, that may be the hope Hamilton leaves behind: the cure is still in our hands.

Leave a comment

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.