The American Constitution is being ignored by Trump’s increasingly illegal federal administration, whose objective is a far right ethno-nationalist dictatorship.
Justice Barrett dismisses the premise that the United States is in a constitutional crisis. Yet, as Lara argues in this article, there are clear criteria for identifying one — and the U.S. meets them. A framework means little if it isn’t being used. So how can there still be so much misunderstanding about this issue?
I wonder about this. America does not face economic collapse as it did in the 1930s. There is the same level as %GDP of inequality and private debt as 1930. How you measure these things I do not know, but I believe there is a lot of rage out there among ethnic-majority Americans who see their status sliding, and are not accustomed to seeing themselves as peripheral, as Democrats since 1990s have shifted left on equality politics and right on economics. This rage would account for the rise of the evil and absurd Trump and his MAGA movement. Those on the right are not concerned by the authoritarian threat, as one person expressed it to me "cultures change", they believe America is going forward to the known past. Those on the left see Trump and MAGA, as a moral failure by the less enlightened. Many less political people cannot believe that American democracy can just effectively disappear. Goebbels might have said "Most people believe what they want to believe". It is only when disaster is obviously close that people wake up, which is why Trump and his gang of neo-fascists, will attempt to work quickly to overturn elections. He has warned people that he was going to do this many times, like a sexual predator that he is, he will say to the American people I did not get a strong reaction so I thought it was what you really wanted.
You raise an interesting point about the role of anger and social displacement in political instability. Many Americans cannot imagine democracy disappearing. That’s partly because the Constitution is often treated as if it were self-enforcing. In reality, it only functions when institutions and officials are willing to uphold and enforce its limits. Courts must defend constitutional boundaries, legislatures must protect their authority, and election systems must maintain public trust. Another factor shaping how people perceive the current moment is how much our institutional and informational landscape has changed.
What seems different now is the fragmentation of our information environment. Democratic institutions depend on at least a shared baseline of facts about elections, courts, and legitimacy. Today that baseline is weakening as algorithm-driven media ecosystems and highly partisan outlets feed different groups entirely different narratives about the same events. When citizens no longer share a common informational starting point, constitutional mechanisms struggle to resolve disputes. The framework may remain intact on paper, but its authority becomes contested in practice. I continue to reflect in my own articles that it doesn’t matter if the framework is there, if it’s not being used.
It is difficult to see how the framework can be put into use. The right have been working on getting more right-wing judges into the system since 1970s. Congress Republicans have abandoned support for democracy. The well funded right-wing smear campaign against American elections has made people see Illusory problems, while ignoring the real problems of gerrymandering and voter-suppression. The critical problem now is that Trump will illegally take over midterm elections in selected blue cities, using a much expanded security force recruited from loyalists in the US armed forces. This action will be outside the current system, and could only be blocked by actively defending free and fair elections (as defined by the Constitution and the laws of USA). There needs to be calls, especially by prominent Democrat politicians, to the military to do this in accord with their oath of enlistment, and for citizen militia to be formed under control of the highest state official willing to command. People need to be swearing public oaths of allegiance to actively defend and support free and fair elections, in the manner of the more general oaths of the American Revolution.
It is my hope that the chaos this administration has created will ultimately lead to greater civic engagement from the public at large—engagement that encourages people to question what they are seeing and to recognize both the value and the power of voting.
For many Americans, this moment may be the first time they are seriously examining how our system actually works. That kind of engagement matters. Democracy does not sustain itself through institutions alone; it requires participation, curiosity, and accountability from the people within it.
Part of that responsibility is creating spaces where thoughtful dialogue can take place. Forums like Substack, LinkedIn, and other public platforms allow for exchanges that can resonate with individuals, prompt deeper questions, and encourage people to seek clarity rather than simply accept narratives at face value.
To me, that process—engaging, questioning, and discussing openly—is just as important as many of the structural safeguards we often focus on. A healthy democracy depends not only on laws and institutions, but on citizens who are willing to think critically, speak openly, and participate in the process.
On these lines and in the spirit of the American Revolution, it would send a strong signal to Trump’s enablers, if millions of Americans took a public oath to actively defend elections, if Trump sends loyalists (est 400k in US armed forces) to blue cities to take over and rig elections in November.
Justice Barrett dismisses the premise that the United States is in a constitutional crisis. Yet, as Lara argues in this article, there are clear criteria for identifying one — and the U.S. meets them. A framework means little if it isn’t being used. So how can there still be so much misunderstanding about this issue?
I wonder about this. America does not face economic collapse as it did in the 1930s. There is the same level as %GDP of inequality and private debt as 1930. How you measure these things I do not know, but I believe there is a lot of rage out there among ethnic-majority Americans who see their status sliding, and are not accustomed to seeing themselves as peripheral, as Democrats since 1990s have shifted left on equality politics and right on economics. This rage would account for the rise of the evil and absurd Trump and his MAGA movement. Those on the right are not concerned by the authoritarian threat, as one person expressed it to me "cultures change", they believe America is going forward to the known past. Those on the left see Trump and MAGA, as a moral failure by the less enlightened. Many less political people cannot believe that American democracy can just effectively disappear. Goebbels might have said "Most people believe what they want to believe". It is only when disaster is obviously close that people wake up, which is why Trump and his gang of neo-fascists, will attempt to work quickly to overturn elections. He has warned people that he was going to do this many times, like a sexual predator that he is, he will say to the American people I did not get a strong reaction so I thought it was what you really wanted.
You raise an interesting point about the role of anger and social displacement in political instability. Many Americans cannot imagine democracy disappearing. That’s partly because the Constitution is often treated as if it were self-enforcing. In reality, it only functions when institutions and officials are willing to uphold and enforce its limits. Courts must defend constitutional boundaries, legislatures must protect their authority, and election systems must maintain public trust. Another factor shaping how people perceive the current moment is how much our institutional and informational landscape has changed.
What seems different now is the fragmentation of our information environment. Democratic institutions depend on at least a shared baseline of facts about elections, courts, and legitimacy. Today that baseline is weakening as algorithm-driven media ecosystems and highly partisan outlets feed different groups entirely different narratives about the same events. When citizens no longer share a common informational starting point, constitutional mechanisms struggle to resolve disputes. The framework may remain intact on paper, but its authority becomes contested in practice. I continue to reflect in my own articles that it doesn’t matter if the framework is there, if it’s not being used.
It is difficult to see how the framework can be put into use. The right have been working on getting more right-wing judges into the system since 1970s. Congress Republicans have abandoned support for democracy. The well funded right-wing smear campaign against American elections has made people see Illusory problems, while ignoring the real problems of gerrymandering and voter-suppression. The critical problem now is that Trump will illegally take over midterm elections in selected blue cities, using a much expanded security force recruited from loyalists in the US armed forces. This action will be outside the current system, and could only be blocked by actively defending free and fair elections (as defined by the Constitution and the laws of USA). There needs to be calls, especially by prominent Democrat politicians, to the military to do this in accord with their oath of enlistment, and for citizen militia to be formed under control of the highest state official willing to command. People need to be swearing public oaths of allegiance to actively defend and support free and fair elections, in the manner of the more general oaths of the American Revolution.
It is my hope that the chaos this administration has created will ultimately lead to greater civic engagement from the public at large—engagement that encourages people to question what they are seeing and to recognize both the value and the power of voting.
For many Americans, this moment may be the first time they are seriously examining how our system actually works. That kind of engagement matters. Democracy does not sustain itself through institutions alone; it requires participation, curiosity, and accountability from the people within it.
Part of that responsibility is creating spaces where thoughtful dialogue can take place. Forums like Substack, LinkedIn, and other public platforms allow for exchanges that can resonate with individuals, prompt deeper questions, and encourage people to seek clarity rather than simply accept narratives at face value.
To me, that process—engaging, questioning, and discussing openly—is just as important as many of the structural safeguards we often focus on. A healthy democracy depends not only on laws and institutions, but on citizens who are willing to think critically, speak openly, and participate in the process.
Ultimately, democracy works only if we do.
On these lines and in the spirit of the American Revolution, it would send a strong signal to Trump’s enablers, if millions of Americans took a public oath to actively defend elections, if Trump sends loyalists (est 400k in US armed forces) to blue cities to take over and rig elections in November.