Category: Commentary

America is not facing a policy disagreement.

America is facing a constitutional stress test.

Every generation eventually discovers whether it truly believes in the limits placed on power — or only supports those limits when they restrain political opponents. The moment we are living through now forces that question upon us.

The Founding Fathers of the United States did not design government for efficiency or speed. They designed it to restrain ambition. When they embedded the separation of powers into the Constitution, they were responding to centuries of human history that proved a simple truth: Unchecked power eventually silences the people.

They understood human nature’s tendency toward absolutism. Kings centralize authority. Leaders justify overreach. Governments expand unless they are deliberately restrained. The American republic was built differently. Authority was divided so that no single person could ever claim to speak fully for we the people.

That is why last Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision matters far beyond tariffs or commerce. The court reminded the executive branch of a basic constitutional principle: Decisions concerning commerce — especially taxation and tariffs — must originate in Congress.

Yes, the process is messy. Debate is slow. Compromise is imperfect. But the friction is intentional. The founders built resistance into the machinery of government so that sweeping economic power could never again be exercised by personal decree.

If tariffs are truly wise policy, then Congress should debate them openly. Legislators should defend them before voters. That is representation. That is accountability. That is self-government.

Our nation was born out of resistance to unilateral taxation. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was not simply protest theater — it was a rejection of economic authority imposed without representation. The Constitution ensured such power would never again rest in one individual’s hands.

When one branch exceeds its authority, another branch must respond. That is not dysfunction; it is design. The judicial branch exists precisely to interpret the law and restore and remind us of the constitutional boundaries when political actors drift beyond them.

Courts have not always been right. History reminds us of poor decisions that took decades and courage to correct. Yet, judicial independence remains essential. Without it, constitutional limits become optional.

What should concern Americans today is not disagreement with the court’s ruling, but the reaction that followed.

Instead of accepting the decision, the executive branch responded with personal attacks against justices carrying out their constitutional duty. Even more troubling were the immediate efforts to search for ways around the ruling — to achieve the same outcome by different means.

That should unsettle every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

I remember when one of my children was young, and my wife placed a forbidden toy on a high shelf for their safety. Determined to retrieve it anyway, the child stacked books and climbed upward, trying to bypass the boundary we had set. The creativity was impressive. The disobedience was undeniable.

A constitutional ruling is that high shelf.

Attempting to maneuver around it rather than respecting it undermines not only the court’s authority but the rule of law itself. The Constitution works only when leaders accept limits they dislike.

Equally troubling was the suggestion that a president could act militarily against another nation at will while being constrained economically. The Constitution says otherwise. The power to declare war rests with Congress. The president commands the military, but he does not possess unilateral authority to wage war or impose economic punishment without legislative participation.

The founders feared concentrated authority in every form — economic, military, and political. Their caution was wisdom born from history.

Republics rarely collapse in dramatic moments. They erode gradually — one ignored boundary at a time. One exception becomes precedent. One act of defiance becomes normalization.

The question before us now is not about one ruling or one administration. It is whether Americans still believe constitutional limits apply equally to those who govern and those who are governed.

The founders’ vision was never about strong personalities. It was about strong institutions accountable to a free people.

This feels like a dark chapter in the life of our republic. Yet, darkness often clarifies responsibility. Citizens must decide whether we will defend the structure that preserves our liberty, or remain silent as its guardrails are tested.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government had been created. Franklin replied with words that echo across generations: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The question is no longer theoretical.

Now, we the people must decide whether we will.

The Rev. Dr. Michel J. Faulkner, a former NFL player, community leader, pastor, and registered Republican, is chair of the board of directors of the Philadelphia Council of Clergy.

There is a particular kind of ugliness that does not merely offend but instructs. It tells us something about who we have been, who we are becoming, and what social permissions are quietly being expanded. Donald Trump’s circulation of an image portraying Barack and Michelle Obama as apes belongs squarely in that category. It is not a one-off lapse. It is a signal flare.

This was not just racist imagery; it was historically literate racism. The ape trope is among the oldest tools in the dehumanization kit, refined over centuries and deployed whenever Black Americans have come too close to full belonging. One does not stumble into it by accident.

To understand why this matters — and why it is likely to get worse — we have to situate Trump not just as a provocateur, but as a product of moral inheritance, cultural permission, and a long American tradition of racial degradation repackaged as “joking” or “provocation.”

Trump has always been less an ideologue than an accelerant. He doesn’t invent resentments; he senses which ones are newly safe to express. His strategy, if we must call it that, is social intuition — an ability to intuit when cruelty will be rewarded rather than punished.

That intuition was honed in a family and business culture that Mary Trump, his niece, describes in her 2020 memoir, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man, as emotionally brutal, hierarchical, and relentlessly contemptuous of perceived weakness. Empathy was treated as a liability; dominance as virtue.

That worldview maps neatly onto racial hierarchy. When Trump rose to political prominence by falsely claiming Barack Obama was not really American, he was not engaging in policy disagreement. He was policing the boundaries of belonging. The ape image is simply that instinct stripped of euphemism.

It is also not untethered from history. Trump’s defenders bristle at any mention of white supremacist lineage, but history is stubborn. His father, Fred Trump, was arrested at a 1927 Ku Klux Klan rally in Queens — an event Trump has long dismissed without serious reckoning.

Whether Fred Trump was a member or merely present is ultimately less important than what this moment symbolizes: Trumpism did not emerge in a vacuum. It grew in soil long fertilized by segregationist politics, racial grievance, and coded contempt that later became uncoded.

Cultural historians like Henry Louis Gates Jr. have shown how the ape trope was central to 19th and early 20th-century pseudoscience, minstrel culture, and colonial propaganda. To depict Black people as simian was to deny them reason, morality, and ultimately rights. It was a way of making cruelty feel natural.

Scholars from Frantz Fanon to Saidiya Hartman have traced how this imagery did not vanish with Jim Crow; it merely went underground, resurfacing whenever racial hierarchy felt threatened.

The Obama presidency was precisely such a moment. For some Americans, it symbolized not progress but displacement. Trump rose by giving voice to that panic, laundering it through grievance and mockery. The ape image is not regression; it is escalation.

Why will it get worse? Because norms erode asymmetrically. Once a president can circulate imagery that would once have ended a public career — and suffer no meaningful consequence — the floor drops out. What was once unsayable becomes debatable. What was once debatable becomes funny. And what was once funny becomes policy.

What made this episode briefly arresting — before it slid into the familiar churn of outrage — was that condemnation came, at least initially, from both sides of the political aisle. Democrats responded with predictable fury, naming the image for what it was: racist, dehumanizing, indecent. But some Republicans, too, recoiled. A handful of conservative commentators, former officials, and religious leaders expressed a kind of moral embarrassment, as if they had suddenly overheard a family secret spoken aloud at the dinner table.

That bipartisan outrage matters, but not in the way we might hope. It did not signal a renewed moral consensus so much as a fleeting recognition of how far the ground has shifted.

Many of the Republican critics framed their objections narrowly — not that the image was wrong in itself, but that it was “unhelpful,” “distracting,” or “beneath the dignity of the office.” This is the language of procedural discomfort, not moral revulsion. It suggests that the line being defended is not the humanity of the Obamas but the decorum of politics.

On the Democratic side, the outrage was morally clearer but strategically fatigued. There was anger, yes — but also weariness. A sense that we have seen this movie before, named its villain, issued our statements, and then moved on. Moral clarity without moral consequence eventually becomes ritual. It reassures the speaker more than it restrains the offender.

This asymmetry reveals something crucial. Outrage alone does not halt degradation; it can even normalize it by making it routine. When every transgression is met with the same crescendo of denunciation and the same absence of consequence, the culture learns a quiet lesson: that cruelty is survivable, that it carries no lasting cost. Trump understands this intuitively. He relies on the fact that outrage is loud but short-lived, while the permissions he expands are durable.

What we witnessed, then, was not a national reckoning, but a brief moral spasm — a reminder that many Americans still know, at least intellectually, that some lines should not be crossed. The tragedy is that knowing is no longer the same as enforcing. In a healthier moral ecosystem, bipartisan outrage would be a stopping force. In ours, it is often just a speed bump.

Trump’s political project has never been about persuasion in the classical sense. It is about habituation. Repetition dulls outrage. Shock exhausts resistance. Eventually, people stop asking whether something is wrong and start asking whether it “works.”

This is how democracies corrode — not in grand coups, but in the slow reeducation of moral reflexes. The danger is not only Trump’s blatant racism and cruelty, but the lesson it teaches: that dignity is conditional, and that some people may always be safely reduced.

If history teaches us anything, it is that dehumanization does not stop where it starts. Once a society relearns how to sneer, it rarely remembers where to stop.

And that is why this moment deserves more than disgust. It deserves memory.

Jack Hill is a diversity consultant, child advocate, journalist, and writer.

The most important printing job in American history took place in Philadelphia, on the corner of Second and High Streets, on the night of July 4, 1776.

There, in the shop of John Dunlap, the Declaration of Independence was first printed and sent around the new United States. Yet today, no Pennsylvania Historical Marker commemorates the spot on Market Street where the declaration first emerged to tell the world about the birth of a new country.

On the 250th anniversary of American independence, a marker should be erected as soon as possible by the city or state.

Dunlap’s job was of the first importance. Congress, led by the Boston merchant John Hancock, knew that getting word of independence out to the rest of the colonies was critical to gaining support at home for a war that was not going well. Since the war started in Lexington and Concord up in Massachusetts in April 1775, the Americans had forced the British out of Boston, but lost ground in New York. Independence was just as crucial for trying to get arms and money from Great Britain’s adversary, France, for George Washington’s poorly equipped Continental Army.

Sometime in the afternoon of July 4, Thomas Jefferson walked from the State House on Chestnut Street to the shop of Dunlap, a 29-year-old Irish immigrant and publisher of the Pennsylvania Packet. Jefferson handed Dunlap the original handwritten copy of the Declaration of Independence, adopted just hours earlier by the Continental Congress, and ordered several hundred copies to be printed as soon as possible.

Working through the night, Dunlap and his assistants printed up at least two batches of “broadsides,” some on paper bearing the watermark of King George III. Dunlap had to rush, and some copies were printed slightly askew, while many were folded while still wet, leaving offset imprints.

They were rushed back to Congress and given to dispatch riders to distribute to colonial assemblies and the army. Washington received his on July 9 and had it read that day at his headquarters in Manhattan.

It took weeks for the other Dunlap broadsides to reach their destinations, the last arriving in Savannah, Ga., on Aug. 10.

One Dunlap broadside was used for the first public reading of the declaration, on July 8, in front of the State House, by Col. John Nixon. The scene was immortalized nearly a century later by Frederick Peter Rothermel, in a painting now hanging in the Union League Club.

To this day, no one knows how many were printed, but only 26 original Dunlap broadsides are known to exist, making them among the rarest of American artifacts.

The last one to come up for auction, in 2000, was bought for $8 million ($15 million in 2025 dollars) by the television producer and liberal activist Norman Lear. Most are held by museums or universities, but whenever they are displayed, the Dunlap broadsides draw crowds who are just as fascinated to see the words that declared a sovereign state as were those a quarter millennium ago.

Yet, few passersby, if any, stop to look at a tarnished, old plaque affixed to a rundown building at Market and Second. Put there 50 years ago by the Society of Professional Journalists, it is the only acknowledgment of one of the most important sites of the American Revolution.

Next to a shuttered diner, the plaque is likely all but ignored by any but the most dedicated history buff.

There is not enough time to go through the formal Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office process, but given the historic importance of the site, an ad hoc or special exemption by the city or state should be made, and a proper blue historical marker should be put up before July 4.

It is the least that can be done to commemorate a site where actions that still reverberate around the world took place.

Michael Auslin is a historian at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and is the author of the forthcoming “National Treasure: How the Declaration of Independence Made America.”

While countries around the world strive to protect their citizens from climate change, the U.S. government is attacking its citizens through climate regulations. Repealing the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding” hits Americans where it hurts: their health.

This all started last year, when the Trump administration convened a group of five “climate contrarians” who have profited from their fringe views denying climate change and called it a “Climate Working Group.” The group quickly threw together a report full of cherry-picked data and other bad science. It was soon disbanded in the face of widespread scientific criticism, but the damage was done. The EPA — or a gutted version of it — used this sham Climate Working Group’s conclusions to propose a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, the foundation of our ability to regulate the polluting emissions that cause climate change and endanger human health.

Instead, it wants environmental regulation to be based solely on costs to businesses — effectively valuing human health at $0 in its scientific models.

This battle of reports and regulations might seem abstract, but it threatens real people. In the nearly two decades since the endangerment finding was issued, the impacts of climate change on health have only become clearer. Air pollution and extreme weather cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths in the U.S. every year, impacting everyone from newborns to working-age people to older adults — and it’s only getting worse.

Doctors understand this reality beyond the science. Pretending health has no economic value passes the cost of climate change and air pollution onto people who are sick.

These are our patients — the truck driver in Cleveland having an asthma attack because of smoke from the Canadian wildfires, the gig worker who wiped out on her e-bike in a torrential storm, the day laborer who gets kidney failure working day after day in extreme heat — and they are sacrificing their health to pay their rent and feed their families. It’s no surprise that 120 leading patient care organizations (including Doctors for America) signed a letter urging the EPA to save the endangerment finding.

None of this seems to matter to the Trump administration.

The EPA officially repealed the endangerment finding Thursday. As doctors, we can’t believe we’re having this conversation again. The evidence is clear: Climate change is making us sicker and sicker, but we can limit that harm with better policy and regulations. This government is trading our health for the interests of big business.

We’re tired and angry, but we’re also scared. We’re doctors, but we’re also people.

We’ve been the new mom afraid to bring her newborn home from the NICU under skies turned orange by wildfire smoke. We’ve sat in our driveways during a flash flood warning, wondering if it’s worth risking our safety to get to work on time. We stay up at night worrying about an America where a livable environment is a luxury.

The America we want puts its citizens over politics. It cares more about people than dollars. Repeal of the endangerment finding has made that America a pipe dream. Only real science, a government that protects its people, and strong climate regulations can get us there.

Madhury “Didi” Ray is a public health physician, a Drexel Med alum, and a Copello Fellow in Health Advocacy with Doctors for America. Olivia Rizzo is a pulmonologist from northeast Ohio and the cochair of the Public Health Taskforce for Doctors for America.

This week, lawmakers in Congress renewed their push to pass the SAVE Act, rebranding it as the “SAVE America Act.” Wednesday night, this bill passed the House and will move on to the Senate.

Although this legislation’s title suggests safeguarding Americans and ensuring election security, its actual impact would be catastrophic.

The SAVE America Act would impose sweeping new “show your papers” requirements that threaten to disenfranchise millions of eligible Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians. It places new burdens on voters and election officials without addressing real problems. Mainly, it seeks to solve an issue that does not exist: Noncitizens are already prohibited from registering to vote, and checks are already in place to prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots.

The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania urges our senators to reject this renewed effort to undermine Americans’ freedom to vote.

The SAVE America Act would require voters to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in person when registering to vote, whether it be for the first time or when voters move, along with proof of state residency. It would also require proof of citizenship and photo ID not only for registration, but again when casting a ballot — including when requesting and submitting an absentee ballot.

This is not a minor paperwork adjustment. It is a fundamental change to how Americans exercise a constitutional right.

In Pennsylvania, that means hundreds of thousands of eligible voters could face new barriers. Voters who don’t have a passport or a copy of their birth certificate, voters who move and don’t update their driver’s licenses right away, married women who change their names and lack matching documentation, Americans living abroad, including members of the military and their families overseas, and naturalized citizens who would need to safeguard their original citizenship papers.

These are not hypothetical voters. They are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. They are people like you.

The SAVE America Act would add undue burden on voters, including travel, fees, lost work time, and bureaucratic hurdles, to solve a problem that does not meaningfully exist.

There is simply no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting that justifies such sweeping restrictions, especially ones that rely on obtaining documents that are hard to get under the best circumstances, and are simply inaccessible for some.

This legislation is a gross example of federal overreach into our elections. Pennsylvania already has safeguards to ensure only eligible citizens vote. Federal law requires voters to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. Election officials verify identity and eligibility. Adding unnecessary documentation does not strengthen democracy; it burdens it.

For over a century, the League of Women Voters has defended the right of eligible citizens to participate in our democracy. We do not support candidates or parties, but we will always stand for voter access and voting rights.

The original SAVE Act failed last year after widespread public opposition. The SAVE America Act is simply a new vehicle for the same restrictive policy. Election integrity and voter access are not at odds with one another. We can protect both without disenfranchising millions.

Democracy is strongest when all eligible citizens have their voices heard. For more than two centuries, our nation has moved — often imperfectly, but steadily — toward a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

The SAVE America Act reverses this progress by creating new barriers to a fundamental right. Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation must reject this bill and reaffirm a simple principle: If you are an eligible citizen in America, your right to vote should not depend on producing the right documentation at the right moment.

Our democracy depends on participation, not paperwork.

Amy Widestrom is executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania.