Presidents can do a lot on “day one,” ranging from issuing executive orders to making appointments, changing priorities, and reversing decisions made by their predecessors. The fiction is that the keys are already in the Oval Office ignition and we can go from zero to change in 100 days. Some truly believe the border will be fixed, regulations gone, and wars ended on “day one.” No Congress required.

“Day one” isn’t just about speed of action. It suggests that the last election settles everything. Candidates create those expectations because, with each passing cycle, the voters increasingly expect immediate action. We elect a president and then demand almost immediate transformation. Elections change who occupies the office, but that office does not turn the country on a dime.

Subscribe now

The People, Not the Party

In Federalist No. 39, James Madison answered what form of government the Constitutional Convention created. A republic, he wrote, derives its authority “directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.” His argument was radical in its simplicity: legitimate power came from the people. Still not far removed from the monarchy, the Framers refused to concentrate power in one institution or one person.

Instead, they built a government where interests converged through different institutions, none of which could speak for the country alone. They intentionally divided power, but did not disconnect it. Those separate entities had to work with one another for government to function, requiring slow consensus rather than immediate national referendums.

At the same time, winning an election does not make any institution the property of the party that won it. A president is chosen for the whole nation, including the millions who voted for the opposition. This idea of representative government carries on: the people elect leaders to govern collectively, not selectively. That is why the oath of office requires loyalty to the Constitution, not to the party that helped put you there.

“The People Have Spoken”

The tired electoral cliché, “the people have spoken,” has the benefit of sounding true enough. This is how political leaders want us to think: we’ve received a mandate and debate is over. Meanwhile, our history has never provided a single decisive election to end the debate. That idea is the very basis of The Unfinished Republic: that self-government is in perpetual motion. Every election begins with a government already in motion, shaped by the choices of the generations before it. Even the Constitution, amended 27 times, carries with it the friction of that ongoing debate. An election can shift the direction of our country, sometimes even dramatically, but it does not completely erase the past or settle the future.

Despite the wishes of some, Americans clearly do not speak with one voice when it comes to voting. A presidential election may have one outcome, but the voters divide power in other ways, whether in Congress or state governments. Tens of millions can vote for the losing candidate, but remain every bit as American when they wake up the next morning. Election night chooses a candidate and a direction, but requires everyone to remain represented and engaged.

Though misunderstood, selecting our president shows how deeply that idea was built into the system. The Framers did not intend for us to simply hand the office to the candidate who received the most votes. Instead, they created the Electoral College, a group of electors representing each state based on the combined state representation in Congress. A candidate has to receive a majority of those votes or the election moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, with each state delegation voting as a single vote. The system blended popular choice with the role of the states rather than treating the country as a single national electorate. Madison, in short, described presidential power as coming from “a very compound source.”

Modern political sentiment increasingly characterizes elections as carrying more weight than they can actually bear. The political opposition is more commonly defined as dangerous rather than just wrong. We’re approaching a dangerous point where the opposition party has transformed from rival to existential threat to our safety and security. Political rhetoric is an addiction that requires a higher and higher dose to achieve the same effect.

Americans today want elections to end debates that have carried on for generations, and when they don’t, they treat their very existence as proof the system is broken. This sentiment proves a nation increasingly dependent on and expectant of shortcuts, as though a five-minute YouTube video will teach all of us how to solve complex problems. Instead, each election shapes the direction of a political continuum that the next electorate will judge accordingly.

It is both a necessity and a frustration of self-government that no instant solutions exist. Almost as soon as the votes are counted in one election, the debate begins again. Our republic depends on citizens willing and able to challenge our government and demand that leaders always answer to them. Political power grows not by eliminating opposition but by persuading it.

Share

The Value of Friction

Madison understood that human nature fostered debate. In Federalist No. 10, he wrote faction was “sown in the nature of man.” Liberty allows debate and dissent so that anyone can be heard. Madison understood that the only way to destroy factions was to destroy liberty.

To prevent debate from being uncontrolled noise, we need representatives in various forms to “refine and enlarge” public opinion. To show how Congress achieved this, the old saying is, “the House poured the tea, the Senate let it cool.” In short, the People’s House was there to react quickly to public reaction, and the Senate deliberated it. Although the filibuster is not a constitutional tool, it reinforces the notion by forcing a majority to work with a substantial minority before acting. Eliminating it would effectively make the Senate another center of political id.

Persuasion takes time, and sometimes that is the point. Presidents should have to persuade the people and ultimately, Congress to enact change. Too often, a president pursues a policy aimed squarely at his political base while members of his own party in Congress refuse to stand in the way. Voters encourage this fear by treating any opposition as virtually criminal obstruction rather than deliberating the nuances of an issue. Even still, presidents have increasingly used extra-constitutional Executive Orders because even waiting for Congress to act is viewed as weakness.

Elections were never intended to marginalize voters who did not support the winners. Americans increasingly look to government entities to shield themselves and others from debate, building a government-sanctioned echo chamber. The warning is simple: a majority willing to silence the opposition today should remember how quickly power can reverse. After the next election, you may be the one begging to be heard.

But the balance is freedom to speak, not freedom to stop. The Framers rejected the Articles of Confederation, which paralyzed our new nation by demanding too much agreement. In Federalist 22, Hamilton warned that when a minority can overrule the majority, government can be kept “in a state of inaction,” weakened when action is most needed. He warned that decisions should come only after the “regular deliberations” of the whole body.

Hamilton warned against allowing a minority to stop the government from acting. The Constitution had to allow for opposition to prevent the oppression of the majority, but not replace it with the oppression of the minority. The majority must be able to govern, but it should have to hear the people it defeated along the way.

Incomplete Victory

Our impatient republic was not created by politicians alone. Over time, voters have incentivized it. Candidates quickly learn that promises to fight are easier than acknowledging that complex issues require patience and persuasion. So a vicious cycle of instant gratification feeds itself. The result is a self-government failure: speed has become a substitute for constitutional restraint.

This flawed expectation cuts across party lines. In July 2026, Pew found that a majority of voters in both parties prefer congressional candidates who will “fight hard” for partisan policies “even if it makes it harder to get things done.” So we increasingly reward political leaders for not compromising, then wonder why our institutions cannot govern effectively.

Politicians are like feral animals, responding to what keeps them alive politically. So they layer intellectual dishonesty to paper over their own failures. When campaign promises don’t come at lightning speed, they blame an imagined corrupted system rather than admitting our system requires them to earn outcomes. Voters get more impatient, and politicians get more creative, all at the expense of our constitutional republic. So where does that leave us? Applying the rules selectively. The Constitution is easy to defend when it slows down “the other side” but harder to defend in the face of “our guy.”

What worries me is that this habit is becoming more and more dangerous because power flows like water, always looking for space to fill. A shortcut lives long after the politician who cut it, and is deposited into the hands of someone else who will stretch it again. The constitutional limits that frustrate quick political victories also remind us that those victories are temporary.

Self-government requires more than “winning” because the constitution creates a deadline to those wins. We have to balance progress, liberty, and respect to maintain a republic. So the burden is not simply on prevailing, but rather on the work you do after the victory. Otherwise, the only progress is the erosion of liberty and respect. And we’ve seen enough progress on that already.

Leave a comment

There is an old joke about a New Yorker walking through a small town in Georgia when he sees a dog attacking a young boy. He jumps into action, killing the dog while saving the child. A reporter, who saw the whole thing, congratulates him and proposes the headline: “Local Man Saves Child by Killing Vicious Animal.” When the man explains that he is not a local, the reporter changes the headline to “Georgia Man Saves Child by Killing Dog.” Then he learns the man is from New York, and the headline changes again: “Yankee Kills Family Pet.”

The joke works because the event never changes. The child remains unharmed. The dog remains dead. The man still a hero. Only his origin story changes, and the judgment changes with it.

Congress shares that headline problem. Democrats retained control of the House in January 2021 when Joe Biden took office, but now their oversight was on a Democratic Administration. In the previous Congress, during Donald Trump’s final two years in office, House committees devoted much of their time to investigating the executive branch. Under Biden, the same committees slowed their oversight. Among 20 comparable committees, the median share of tracked hearings and letters devoted to executive oversight dropped from 36.9 percent during the first 18 months of the 116th Congress to 24.9 percent during the first 18 months of the 117th. Fifteen of the 20 committees did less oversight.

There are limits to the comparison because COVID disrupted congressional business and unified Democratic control gave the party a substantial legislative agenda to pursue. The pattern doesn’t begin or end with Trump or Biden. Research on House investigations from 1898 through 2014 found committees pursued executive branch oversight more aggressively when the other party controlled the White House. This does not prove that Congress simply abandons the Capitol when their own party occupies the presidency, but it does show that party shifts the incentives to use congressional power.

That matters because Madison expected personal and institutional interests reinforcing one another. He believed members of Congress would defend congressional power because doing so would also defend their place in the constitutional order. Modern parties have torn those interests apart.

Subscribe now

The Interest of the Man

Madison argued the people occupying each branch needed the “constitutional means, and personal motives to resist encroachments by the others.” His explanation was blunt: “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”

The formula was simple: a president would protect presidential power, while members of Congress would protect congressional power. Madison expected each branch to resist the other because the people occupying each had something to lose when another branch gained leverage. The design relied on self-interest being attached to the institution. Though presidents and members of Congress alike have been motivated by self-interest, that alone has not kept up in modern times.

Madison also understood parties would influence the system. Four years after Federalist 51, he wrote that “in every political society, parties are unavoidable,” and he soon became ironically involved in organizing opposition to the Federalists. The vulnerability in his argument is not that he did not envision parties. Instead, it’s that modern parties give legislators political interests that extend beyond the very branch lines Madison expected to generate rivalry.

A senator may care about the Senate’s authority, but if protecting it means blocking a president of his party, his institutional interest is no longer operating alone. The party can make presidential success more valuable than resisting presidential power or its failure.

When Party Changes the Incentive

Appropriations law offers an example because the underlying question is fairly constant: did the executive spend in the way Congress intended? The Government Accountability Office interprets those questions for Congress, and congressional requests have become increasingly partisan.

Previous administrations experienced more cross-party and bipartisan activity. During the Obama administration, Republicans made most of the requests, though Democrats still asked GAO to examine their own administration. Some requests were even bipartisan. Republican and bipartisan requests also continued into Trump’s first term in office.

More recently, the partisan pattern has solidified. Of the 26 congressional requests for GAO decisions on executive branch compliance with appropriations law during the Obama and Biden administrations, 18 were submitted solely by Republicans. Of the 33 requests during Trump's first administration, 27 came solely from Democrats. Under Biden, requests regarding his administration have come solely from Republicans. As of 16 July 2026, requests regarding Trump's second administration have come solely from Democrats.

This does not prove that party determines every congressional action, but it shows how strongly partisan alignment determines who questions executive compliance.

The same pattern emerges in litigation. The Republican-controlled House sued the Obama administration over Affordable Care Act payments it claimed Congress had not authorized. A few years later, the Democratic-controlled House sued the Trump administration after it redirected federal funds to the border wall. The legal questions were not identical, but both Houses asserted the same fundamental prerogative: presidents cannot spend money Congress has not authorized for that purpose.

Those cases do not show what either party would do against a president from their own party. They do show that both parties clearly use the institutional principle when it means opposing the other party.

Legal scholars Daryl Levinson and Richard Pildes identified this as the “separation of parties, not powers.” National parties create political alliances that cross the formal boundary between Congress and the presidency. Under divided government, partisan and institutional interests often reinforce one another. During unified government, they do not, because defending Congress may mean hamstringing a president whose success members of the majority party want.

Share

Checks That Depend on Party

Members of Congress do not always yield to the partisan incentive. In 2019, 12 Republican senators joined Democrats in voting to end Trump’s national emergency declaration at the southern border, opposing a president from their own party on a question of congressional authority.

Those votes show that institutional interest has not completely disappeared. The question is how costly it becomes when it conflicts with party loyalty. Challenging an opposition president can protect Congress and help your party at the same time. Challenging your own president might sacrifice policies you support, provoke your base, or weaken a president whose success is tied to yours.

The broader oversight record reflects that difference. Congress tends to pursue executive oversight more aggressively during divided government and relax when one party controls both Congress and the White House. Its constitutional authority does not change after an election, but the political price of using it does.

That is the pressure party places on Madison’s design. The institutional incentive remains, but is less reliable when legislators have stronger political reasons to protect the president than to resist him.

What Madison Could Not Solve

We might see another test after the November elections. Democrats have a realistic chance of taking the House and, in doing so, returning Congress and the White House to divided control. If that happens, oversight of the Trump administration will almost certainly become more aggressive, and it may be justified. The interesting question will be whether the same congressional powers suddenly seem more necessary because an election changed the party holding the gavel.

Voters reinforce the same dynamic when we demand aggressive oversight of a president we oppose and dismiss similar efforts as obstruction when our party occupies the White House. The hardest test of constitutional principle is not whether we want it applied to “the other side.” It is whether we still want it applied when it blocks something we support.

If Congress and the public defend constitutional limits arbitrarily, presidents quickly learn the lesson. Some resistance will be strong when the opposition party controls Congress and much less when their own party does.

That is the same distortion at work in the old joke. A presidential power does not become more constitutional because our candidate is using it, and congressional oversight does not become obstruction because it is aimed at a president we support. The office is the same. The authority is the same. Only the party changes.

If that is enough to change our judgment, then Madison’s problem is not confined to Congress anymore. We have made constitutional limits conditional on the party in power. The facts should not change because the party does. Neither should the Constitution.

Leave a comment

When Hamilton opened Federalist No. 1, he did not begin with the details of the Constitution. He began with the stakes of the choice.

Americans had declared that rights came before political authority. They had fought a war on that principle and won. But winning independence did not prove that self-government could endure. The harder test came next: whether a free people could create a republic strong enough to protect liberty without surrendering the principle that made liberty possible.

That question does not feel as radical to us as it did in 1787. Most people lived under authority they had not chosen. The American claim rejected one of the oldest assumptions of rule: power began above the people. The Revolution rested on a different premise. Power began with the people.

Subscribe now

The Problem the Revolution Created

The Declaration gave that claim its clearest form: governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” But a principle declared in revolution still had to become a working republic.

Federalist No. 1 forced Americans to face the problem the Revolution had left behind. If rights came first, the new republic had to be judged by whether it secured them. But if the Union remained too weak to act, liberty would rest on promises the country could not reliably keep.

That was the harder work after independence. Americans had rejected a king. Now they had to decide whether they could build a Union capable of governing while still remaining answerable to the people. The Revolution had proved that Americans could resist illegitimate power. It had not yet proved that they could create legitimate power strong enough to last.

The Failure of a Weak Union

Hamilton wrote after what he called “an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government.” The wording is formal, but the problem was practical. The Articles of Confederation had left the Union too weak to act reliably as a nation.

The Articles described the Union as a “firm league of friendship” among the states. The phrase carried hope, but it also revealed the weakness of the arrangement. The states had joined together, yet the national government still depended on them to make common decisions real. Congress could request money, but it could not reliably collect it. National promises depended on state cooperation.

The Revolution had left the country in debt and dependent on public credit. If the Union could not meet its obligations, it could not easily command trust at home or respect abroad. This was more than an accounting problem. A republic that could not pay what it owed would struggle to prove that independence had produced a durable nation.

The same weakness appeared in trade. Because Congress lacked power to regulate commerce among the states, local interests could pull against national ones. Treaties created a similar problem. Congress could make agreements with foreign powers, but it often could not make the states honor them.

The Articles also left national policy without reliable enforcement. There was no separate executive to carry out the laws, and no national judiciary to settle disputes under national law. Congress could act in the name of the United States, but too often it lacked the tools to make that action meaningful.

This is why Hamilton did not open with a list of constitutional provisions. The United States had won independence, but the Union still lacked dependable authority to make national decisions real. Hamilton was not defending power for its own sake. He was arguing that liberty could not survive if the republic meant to protect it was too weak to act.

Reflection and Choice

Hamilton framed ratification as a test of public judgment. Americans had the chance, he wrote, to decide whether societies could establish good government through “reflection and choice,” or whether they would remain dependent on “accident and force.”

That line names the stakes cleanly, but Hamilton did not assume the debate would rise naturally to the level of the moment. The proposed Constitution touched state power, local influence, and sincere fears about national authority. A debate that consequential was bound to draw out ambition as well as principle.

Hamilton did not ask Americans to approve the Constitution out of loyalty or habit. He hoped their choice would be guided by “a judicious estimate of our true interests.” Then he admitted that this was “more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected.” That is not cynicism. It is realism about republican politics.

Federalist No. 1 is often remembered for its confidence in reasoned choice, but it is just as clear-eyed about what can distort that choice. Hamilton warned that ambition, personal resentment, and party spirit could shape arguments on both sides. He also warned that men who begin as demagogues can end as tyrants.

That warning belongs at the center of the essay. If the people were the source of legitimate authority, then the people also had to judge arguments made in their name. Self-government required more than a love of liberty. It required citizens to ask whether an argument served the public good or merely claimed to.

Hamilton trusted the people enough to make an argument to them, but he did not flatter them. He treated citizens as capable of judgment, not immune from passion. That is the tension running through Federalist No. 1. Americans could govern themselves, but only if they could think seriously about what self-government required.

Power Worth Trusting

The Constitution did not answer weakness by making power unlimited. It gave the Union more authority, then tried to keep that authority bound to the people.

Under the Articles, Congress could ask the states for support. Under the Constitution, Congress could tax and regulate commerce. Laws would no longer depend on state cooperation alone, because a president would be responsible for carrying them out. National disputes could also be heard in national courts. These were not small changes. They gave the Union tools the Articles had withheld.

But the point was not simply to move power from the states to the center. The point was to make national authority capable of acting while still keeping it republican. The Constitution placed power in institutions that depended on the people and then divided that power so no single part could claim the whole. The Union would be stronger, but it would still answer to the people who had created it.

Hamilton did not ask Americans to stop fearing power. Fear of power was part of the Revolution’s inheritance. But he asked them to see that weakness had dangers too. A government too strong could threaten liberty. One too weak could fail to protect it.

That was the balance Federalist No. 1 asked Americans to consider. The choice was not between liberty and authority. The choice was whether liberty could survive without authority strong enough to defend it.

Leave a comment

The Test

Self-government was more than a principle to admire. It was a responsibility. Americans had claimed the right to choose their government, but now they had to decide whether the country they created could survive under a system that lacked the authority to govern. Hamilton believed they were capable of making that judgment, but he did not treat their success as automatic.

That is what makes Federalist No. 1 more than an introduction to the Constitution. Hamilton was asking Americans to face the next demand of the Revolution. It was not enough to reject power that ruled without consent. They had to decide whether they could create power that still answered to consent.

That question gave the ratification debate its deeper meaning. Americans had already shown that they loved liberty enough to fight for it. Hamilton wanted to know whether they understood liberty well enough to build a government capable of protecting it.

He did not offer that belief as praise. He treated it as something Americans still had to prove.

Share

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

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