This was my inaugural post on https://restoredemocracy.net. You can also view my post here.
What Do We Mean By “Restore American Democracy”?
How much have you thought about the workings of the American Republic? How much do you know about the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? Could you pass the U.S. naturalization test that immigrants take to become citizens? How interested are you in American politics? Do you pay close attention? If you haven’t thought about the American Republic in detail, are not confident in your knowledge of how the system works, or are not interested in politics, you are not alone.
The Annenberg Civics Study, which annually asks Americans basic facts about the U.S. Constitution, reports in 2024 that about 65% of Americans can name all three branches of government. Only 7% of U.S. adults surveyed could correctly name all five First Amendment rights (speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition of grievances), while 23% could name three or four rights. These findings are not new. The people who study Americans’ political knowledge, like political scientists, have known this for a long time. If you are interested in a good book on this topic, check out Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter’s 1997 book What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. I know it’s from the 1990s, but the results have been replicated across modern times. They argue that political knowledge is unevenly distributed in the U.S. and that this disparity seriously affects democratic participation and the quality of public decision-making. The authors show that while many Americans possess limited political knowledge, more informed people are significantly more likely to participate in politics, make consistent ideological choices, and hold government accountable. In other words, the most partisan Americans are the most knowledgeable and the most likely to participate, but in the most predictable ways. But of course, the most knowledgeable are also the most interested – they like politics!
So, don’t be too hard on yourself! It is quite reasonable to be politically uninformed. We live busy lives and rarely see how the government affects us directly. And even worse, many of us are turned off by the constant infighting between our two political parties (and their very interested partisan citizens) that seem not to agree on anything! But Americans actually agree on much more than you think. Morris Fiorina, in his 2010 book, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America argues that most Americans are not deeply divided on key policy issues; instead, political elites and media narratives exaggerate the extent of polarization. He contends that the general public tends to hold moderate views and that apparent divisions are primarily the result of how choices are structured in elections and how parties have sorted ideologically. Fiorina supports his argument with data showing that, on issues like abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage, most Americans consistently cluster around centrist positions, with only a small minority holding extreme views on either end of the spectrum. For example, although PEW finds that Americans are becoming more polarized over time, the effect is relatively small. Figure 1 below is a good reflection of the data. While polarization did increase from 1994 to 2014, there is still a considerable overlap between voters on their policy stances. The point is that the elites are far more divided on politics than is the general public. By watching cable news or scrolling through your social media feed, you wouldn’t think Americans agree on anything. But that is not the case.
Figure 1: Democrats and Republicans More Ideologically Divided than in the Past
No matter how informed you are, it is never too late to learn more about the government and pay attention to what policymakers are doing. That is the only way a democracy can function as intended by the founders. We at R.O.A.D. feel the United States is at a critical crossroads in the American Republic. The foundations of the American system are being pushed to the brink, and if we don’t do something soon, the foundation will crack, and the entire house may come crumbling down. Now is the time for citizens to pay attention, even if they didn’t before. And, in some cases, more importantly, it is time for partisans to step outside of our echo chambers and focus on preserving the American Republic. We must unite as a citizenry to ensure the Republic doesn’t fall into tyranny.
The Basics of the System: Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
You have certainly heard of the separation of powers and checks and balances. These concepts were something you covered in an American history or government class (maybe some time ago). We have three branches of government — the Legislative (Congress), the Executive (The Presidency), and the Judicial (the courts led by the Supreme Court). The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. This setup is the separation of powers.
On top of that, each branch holds power over the others in specific ways. They can use these powers to check each other’s influence. For example, the President has veto power over laws passed by Congress. However, Congress can override the veto power with a 2/3 majority in each chamber. The Supreme Court has a special power of judicial review, as affirmed in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). This power means that the Supreme Court can decide whether a law passed by Congress, or an Executive Order issued by the President, is Constitutional. When the President or Congress oversteps their Constitutionally enumerated or implied powers, the Court can stop them and roll back the law. Why does this matter, and how does this apply to what is happening today?
Understanding the Federalist Papers
Have you ever considered what the founding fathers did when they designed the system above? The framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the people from the government itself! They designed the system to prevent tyranny in many forms. They created a Republic (representative democracy) rather than a pure democracy to limit the effects of the tyranny of the majority, or when one large group outvotes everyone in the minority. They separated the powers and created built-in checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. They wanted to ensure we would never descend into a monarchy (or other form of authoritarianism) with one person making, enforcing, and interpreting the laws. They learned this idea from the French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, who wrote The Spirit of Laws. Montesquieu wrote that if the ability to make laws, enforce them, and interpret them were all in the hands of one person or group, the system would inevitably be tyrannical. There are 85 different Federalist Papers, all worth reading. You can read them all for free at the link above. There is also a collection of essays from the Anti-Federalists — called the Anti-Federalist Papers — who argued against the original Constitution because they thought it went too far in creating a strong central government that would tyrannize over the states and country. Both sets of papers are an excellent read for fully understanding American political thought and the extent to which the nation’s founders went to create a lasting system that prevented the collapse into tyranny. The Anti-Federalists eventually demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the original Constitution to enshrine individual liberties and states’ rights. This was one of the first acts of Congress after the Constitution was ratified.
The fundamental understanding of this system is that we are a nation governed by written laws, not people! That is the definition of a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution binds and constrains our elected officials. It governs our elections, how the police can handle a criminal investigation, the powers of each branch, and the checks on the other branches. The government cannot do whatever it wants. In other words, the Constitution protects us from the arbitrary use of power. There must be due process in all areas of government. Otherwise, what is to stop the government from trampling on your rights? Or from discriminating against you based on inherent characteristics like race or religious affiliation? What prevents the government from becoming tyrannical if not for the rules and those who hold them accountable to the rule of law (e.g., the citizenry)? And remember, it is the Supreme Court’s role to declare what is and what is not Constitutional when there is a conflict. And then, the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which obligates the president to enforce not only acts of Congress but also Supreme Court rulings, even when they conflict with the president’s own policy preferences or political agenda. If the president fails to execute the laws, including Supreme Court rulings, faithfully, Congress has several forms of recourse. It can hold oversight hearings, use its power of the purse to restrict funding, pass clarifying legislation to compel compliance, or—in extreme cases—initiate impeachment proceedings for failing to uphold constitutional duties. These are checks and balances in action, designed to protect us from one branch, person, or party becoming too powerful.
The founders also understood that the people would be the most crucial check on the government. It is up to us to preserve the Republic and prevent the system from devolving into tyranny. As Ben Franklin has been famously attributed as saying when they asked him what kind of government they gave the people after the Constitutional Convention, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” So, what is going on that might make us question whether the Republic is under threat?
Some Concerning Things in the News
First of all, in his first 100 days, Trump relied almost exclusively on executive orders. In just about 100 days, President Trump has already issued 139 executive orders. For example, President Trump has tried to overhaul voter registration by executive decree. President Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration was blocked by a federal judge. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the order infringed upon the constitutional authority of Congress and the states to regulate federal elections. The ruling came after lawsuits from organizations like the League of Women Voters and the Democratic National Committee. President Trump has also tried to remove birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. This has also been blocked by the courts and is headed to the Supreme Court.
Orders have also attacked Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Executive orders aimed at prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in federally funded schools and colleges were blocked by federal courts. Judges in New Hampshire and Maryland issued injunctions, stating that the directives were vague, restricted free speech, and were improperly executed. How about the order eliminating U.S. Aid? Executive Order 14169, which paused all U.S. foreign development assistance programs for a 90-day review, was partially blocked by a federal judge. The Court halted the government’s ability to restrict foreign aid that had already been in place before the order, citing concerns over the lack of explanation for the blanket suspension. Nevertheless, Trump has restricted the funds.
Kilmar Ábrego García
The case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a 29-year-old Salvadoran man, has become a significant legal and political controversy in recent weeks. García, who had been residing in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and their children, was deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 federal court order protecting him from removal due to credible fears of gang persecution. This legal protection allowed him to live and work legally in the United States. He complied with all immigration requirements, including annual check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Despite this protection, on March 15, 2025, ICE deported Ábrego García to El Salvador, citing an “administrative error.” This action violated the standing court order that prohibited his removal.
In response, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled on April 4, 2025, that Ábrego García’s deportation was illegal. He ordered the government to ensure his return to the United States by April 7. The Trump administration contested this order, leading to a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that Ábrego García’s removal was unlawful and mandated that the government “facilitate” his release. Read the short opinion here. An excerpt from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson is worth quoting here,
“The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
When taken to their logical conclusion, the administration’s arguments advocate defying the Constitution and all our protections. The Trump administration narrowly interpreted “facilitate,” asserting that taking proactive steps to secure his release from El Salvador was not required. President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has refused to release Ábrego García, stating that he lacks the authority to do so.
President Trump is defying the Supreme Court and the lower courts. This violates the Take Care Clause referenced above. We must pay closer attention to these actions, as they erode the institutional checks and balances and put us on a slippery slope into tyranny.
There are other challenges as well. In March 2025, the Trump administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan nationals alleged to be affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang. This action prompted immediate legal challenges, culminating in a significant emergency intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court. And even though the highest court in the land paused the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under this order, President Trump continues to deport people under this framework. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, how the policy goals are accomplished matters. Preserving the Republic matters.
Conclusion
If you have made it this far, you know the conclusion. President Trump is violating the separation of powers and checks and balances. He is not passing laws by facilitating their movement through Congress. Instead, he uses executive orders to create law rather than executive power to enforce the law. Then, he implemented his laws and used federal funding in ways not directly prescribed by Congress. And worse yet, when the courts strike down his laws, he ignores the courts and does what he wants anyway. And what do the Republicans in Congress do? They won’t check his power. Instead, they are passing laws in the House to limit the influence of federal judges—another unconstitutional act.
This is not how the founders intended the system to work. We have taken our Republic for granted for far too long. We, the people, won’t know what we have lost until it’s gone, and arbitrary use of power is normalized. In this post, I have focused on only a few egregious oversteps in power. We have not even touched on the attack on universities (and education generally). The cutting of life-saving research by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a non-Congressionally authorized extra-governmental entity headed by billionaire Elon Musk, that has been given vast power to access federally protected data – our data. The loss of jobs, research funding, international aid, and more will have devastating effects for years. But let’s say you agree with these actions. That’s fine; we should have healthy democratic debates! The problem is that these actions did not follow the rules. They are not within the boundaries of the Republic. They do not follow due process. And that means that someday, something you disagree with can be done via executive decree, and there might not be anything you can do about it.
Everyone should ask themselves one question, regardless of their ideology or party. Suppose the opposition party was in power, and they were making public policy in a way that violated the Constitution. Would I be afraid of being tyrannized? Or better yet, would the Republic be threatened if the opposition were in power and could use the same tactics without regard for court orders? For example, let’s say you value the Second Amendment. Imagine a future Democratic president who declared gun violence a national emergency and used an executive order to ban assault weapons. Imagine that same president decides they would work in cooperation with local law enforcement to begin confiscating specific firearms. The NRA sues and wins. The Supreme Court strikes down the Executive Order, but the President doesn’t care. They refuse to listen to the Court. In this scenario, the Congress is majority Democrat and refuses to do anything. Now what? I bet you would want checks and balances to work and declare that we were in a Constitutional crisis! When you take partisanship out of it, or reverse the situation, it is easy to see how absolute power harms our Republic. We must bring due process back. We must restore our American democracy.
It is up to all of us to protect the American Republic! We must fight to restore due process, no matter how we feel about the policy outcomes. A system governed by rules, not people, is more important than policy wins. Because no matter what, someday, a system with no protection will tyrannize all of us. That is why the founders created a system that protects the people from the government. The question is, can we keep it?