Author: admin

I was sitting at a table at The Tipsy Cow Bar & Grill in Cedar Key, FL enjoying a shrimp quesadilla, which they call a Shrimp-a-dill-a. My day on Cedar Key was the official kickoff to what I have variously called my Homeless Tour of America, My Great Summer Adventure, and the Summer of Lou. I’m still not sure what I’m going to call it, but it was made possible when I sold my house in Wisconsin and bought a new-build home in Tennessee that is not going to be finished until the middle of September. I have to stay somewhere, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to do a little traveling, see family and friends, and enjoy my homelessness.

At the Tipsy Cow, Prince’s “Little Red Corvette” played over the speakers and Baywatch was on the TV near the bar. Lt. Stephanie Holden (played by Alexandra Paul) was being held hostage, and it seemed that even the great Mitch Buchanan (played by the equally great David Hasselhoff) wouldn’t be able to save her. I was enthralled by the show. Between the music and the images on the TV, I was transported back to the much simpler times (at least for me) of the 1980s. But then the server brought my lunch and I decided to let Lt. Holden fend for herself. It was time to eat.

It wasn’t just the music and TV show that made it seem like a throwback to the 80s. The rustic vibe and bohemian charm around Cedar Key made it feel that way too. It was as if I had crossed a bridge and gone back in time.

Cedar Key is located a little over an hour west of Gainesville, FL and about two-and-a-half hours north of St. Petersburg on Florida’s Gulf Coast. The island is home to about 750 people, as well as the Cedar Key National Wildlife Refuge, which itself is home to about 20,000 birds. But those numbers were once much higher. In the mid to late 1800s, Cedar Key was a thriving town of more than 13,000 people, and the area was home to more than 200,000 birds. Today, things are not booming the way they once were for either people or birds on Cedar Key.

Last year, the area was hit by Hurricane Helene, a devastating storm that produced a great deal of destruction along the west coast of Florida. After ravaging the Gulf Coast, Helene then turned inland, made its way across Georgia, and settled into western North Carolina, inundating that region with rain and causing terrible flooding.

Cedar Key experienced a 14-foot storm surge that submerged much of the island, with water making its way into nearly every home and business. The destruction is still visible in many areas, and work continues to repair and rebuild structures across the Key.

I couldn’t help but notice that there are dozens of homes for sale throughout Cedar Key. In some ways, the area feels like a hidden paradise, off the beaten path, but well worth the effort to get there. But below the surface, the island is facing an existential crisis.

Cedar Key’s economy relies on tourist dollars to survive, but since the hurricane, the economy has taken a real hit. Many people have decided to leave, tired of hurricanes (2024 was an especially tough year) and the struggle to earn a living on a remote island. But the bigger culprit in driving people off the island is the cost of homeowners insurance.

Florida’s insurance market is an absolute mess, and Cedar Key—which, after all, is an island that sits barely above sea level—has felt the fallout from the insurance market especially hard. Assuming homeowners on the Key can get insurance, it’s almost always unaffordable. One person I spoke to said that many people are paying more for homeowners insurance each year than the cost of their mortgage.

Despite its struggles, Cedar Key remains a unique destination that is quaint, laid-back, and has an Old Florida feel. In contrast to many of Florida’s tourist areas, which are commercial and often overrun, Cedar Key harkens back to a time gone by, when life was slower, more friendly, and less crowded. There are plenty of restaurants, bars, and boutique shops, but there aren’t hundreds of things to do, like in other areas of Florida. There are no amusement parks or massive miniature golf courses. No outlet malls or chain restaurants. What there is is water, and lots of it. Boating swimming, fishing, lying on the beach, and birding on nearby islands are the area’s strong suit.

During my visit, I took a boat tour with Captain Doug’s Cedar Key Tours. Captain Doug Maple left Georgia 25 years ago to enjoy the natural splendor of the inland. He is a graduate of the University of Florida’s Master Naturalist Program, and he enjoys sharing his knowledge of the Island and its history with guests.

Our first stop was Atsena Otie Key. The Key is part of the Cedar Key Natural Wildlife Refuge and once served as home to the cedar trees that were made into pencils for the Faber Pencil Company. The company ran a sawmill on the island and shipped cut cedar planks north to New York. The planks were then whittled down, matched with graphite imported from Europe, and made into pencils that were sold around the world. Today, the Faber-Castell Pencil Company is the largest manufacturer of pencils on the planet.

In contrast to the Pencil Company’s success, Atsena Otie Key has become a ghost town. Once home to nearly 200 people, today, no one lives on the Key. The reason for that is that, in 1896, the homes and the Faber Pencil Company sawmill were destroyed by a powerful hurricane. Few people decided to remain on the island after the storm, and the Faber Pencil Company decided that there weren’t enough cedar trees left to make rebuilding the sawmill worthwhile. In 1923, the island was purchased for $500 by a private party, and in 1997, it was sold to the Suwanee River Management District (SRMD). The SRMD entered into an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the island as part of the Cedar Key National Wildlife Refuge.

Today, visitors are allowed to use the beach on Atsena Otie Key and can take advantage of the hiking trails, but are otherwise prohibited from accessing the interior of the island. The same rules also apply to nearby Snake Key. However, during bird nesting season (March – June), access to the island is strictly prohibited. I found Snake Key especially interesting. We saw several different types of birds from the boat, including frigatebirds, roseate spoonbills, white ibis, cormorants, snowy egrets, great blue heron, and brown pelicans.

Snake Key has an interesting history, which includes once being used as a quarantine island for ships making their way to unload cargo on Cedar Key. Ships first had to stop on Snake Key to make sure they didn’t carry disease onto Cedar Key. Any sailors found to be ill were treated at a hospital on the island.

At one time, Seahorse Key was used as a military infirmary, and during the Second Seminole War (1835-1842), the island was home to a detention camp for enemy combatants. As Cedar Key became more of a shipping destination, a lighthouse was constructed on Seahorse Key. The lighthouse still stands today, but is no longer operated as a lighthouse. Instead, it is used by the University of Florida to house students who are conducting research in and around Cedar Key. In fact, several students were in the area collecting samples while I was in town.

After my day on the water, it was time for a drink. I stopped by Steamers Clam Bar and Grill and ordered a beer. After being out in the heat and sun, it tasted especially good and went down fast. So, I ordered another. My bartender, Mary, was only too happy to accommodate my request.

I was in the mood for seafood (after all, I was on an island in the Gulf of Mexico), and knew I wanted to try Steamer’s clam chowder. I knew the clams would be fresh because Cedar Key is home to several clam farming operations. But when it came time to order dinner, I forgot to order the chowder. Instead, I ordered a combo platter with blackened grouper, grilled scallops, and grilled shrimp. It was delicious, and with a side salad and sweet potato waffle fries, I had plenty to eat. Even so, I feel like I really missed out by not getting the clam clowder.

Steamers was not shut down because of Hurricane Helene, but that isn’t as good as it sounds. Less than a week before Helene hit Cedar Key, the building where Steamers used to be located on Dock St. was destroyed by a fire (the building is currently for sale).  Along with Steamers, Duncan’s on the Gulf, the Rusty Hook Bait Shop, and the Island Trading Post were also destroyed. When Helene arrived, Steamers hadn’t yet relocated to their current location on 2nd St. In other words, they weren’t operating when the island was hit by Helene. I’m not sure if that’s a blessing or not, but it may have allowed the casual restaurant to begin the healing process more quickly than other area businesses.

After dinner, I had another beer. I wish I could remember what brand it was. All I remember is that it was a blonde ale and it was very good.

With the end of the beer came the end of my day on Cedar Key. I have to say, I really enjoyed my visit, but I’m not certain everyone would like it as much as I did. Cedar Key is quiet, laidback, and unrushed. Not everyone finds that type of atmosphere attractive. I do, and I very much would like to visit again to enjoy all that Cedar Key has to offer. And next time I’m on the island, I’ll be sure to get the clam chowder at Steamers.

I’ve always loved log homes. There’s something about them that just speaks to me. For years, I have yearned to own a log home, preferably back in the woods on some acreage, where I could commune with nature and enjoy the peace and quiet. That would be the dream.

Back in 2022, I found a place similar to the one I had been conjuring in my mind over the previous years. The log home sat on 26 acres, and it was surrounded by hundreds of acres of undeveloped land. It was secluded, quiet, and it already had trails cut through the woods where I could hike. As soon as I saw it, I knew I had to have it. I made an offer, and just like that, my dream came true.

But dreams are funny things. What you dream about in your thirties or forties isn’t necessarily the same dream you have in your sixties. When I first started dreaming about living in a log home in the woods, I was married and had two young kids. On the surface, I dreamed of owning a log home. But deeper, below the surface, what I really wanted was a log home on some acreage that I could share with my wife and kids. Sadly, by the time I bought my place, I was divorced and my kids were grown. And as I quickly learned, my dream was never to live alone in the woods, log cabin or not.

As much as I love my home and the land it sits on, I view it differently now that it is mine than I did when it appeared to be the answer to a dream. For instance, as much as I like quiet and seclusion, my place is often too quiet since there’s no one here to talk to. And it’s too secluded. Unless I make an effort, I can go days without seeing another human being. As nice as that might sound on the surface, it’s not good to be that isolated. Once in a while? Sure. But not constantly.

I now know that owning a log home was not my dream. My dream was to share something I love—a lifestyle I hold near and dear to my heart—with my family. But the years have made that difficult, if not impossible. I’m no longer married, and my kids are out on their own. Never say never, but it’s unlikely the kids and I will ever live under the same roof again. And as I grow older, it has become increasingly important to me to be physically close to my kids and to spend as much time as possible with them.

With that in mind, I recently sold my log home and have purchased a new home near my kids in Tennessee. I look forward to getting into my new house (it won’t be completed until September) and to being around my kids again (I’m not sure they feel the same way 😉).

As for my log home and the wooded acreage, I’m going to miss it. I feel very fortunate to have lived in such a great home in such a beautiful area. But as I have learned from this experience, a house isn’t  a home until you fill it with the people you love. Soon, I’ll be able to fill my new house with the two people I love most in this world, making my house into a home.

In 2018, I was divorced and living in Florida. I had been on Match.com for a little over a year at that point, and I was sick of it. If you’ve never had the pleasure of using an online dating site, count yourself lucky. It can turn into a full-time job, and at it’s worst, it can be humiliating. Even so, it’s the best way to meet a potential partner (or so I am told).

Anyway, although I was living in Florida at the time, I was also spending a decent amount of time in Wisconsin. So, as an act of desperation, I began looking at dating profiles for women in Wisconsin. But after looking at a few profiles, I gave up. What was the point? Wisconsin was twenty-three hours away from my home in Florida. Even if I met someone, how would I manage the logistics of a long-distance relationship?

If you’ve never used Match.com you may not know that one of the perks of being a paying member is that you get to see who has viewed your profile. That’s how Connie, one of the women whose profile I viewed, knew that I had looked at her profile. The next day, she wrote to me and said simply, “It’s too bad you don’t live closer.”

I wrote back and told her that I agreed, which was the start to a conversation that went on for a couple of weeks. We really hit it off, and the more we talked, the more interested we both became. I was planning a trip to Wisconsin three or four weeks in the future, so Connie and I agreed we’d get together for dinner while I was in the area.

As luck would have it, about a week after Connie and I agreed to meet, I met another woman in Florida. Things started moving pretty fast, and in short order, the Florida woman and I decided to become exclusive. Although I was excited about my new relationship, I was nervous about telling Connie. Even so, it was the right thing to do. So, I told her that I had met someone, and that we had agreed not to see other people. Connie couldn’t have been better about it. She said meeting someone was the whole reason we were on Match, and she wished us luck.

I didn’t talk to Connie again for the next four years. The relationship that came between Connie and I ran its course, and I made the decision to sell my house in Florida and move back to Wisconsin (Don’t judge me!). I told some friends about Connie, and they encouraged me to reach out to her. They reasoned that we were once interested in each other, and since I was moving back to Wisconsin, why not contact her. What they were saying made sense. Even so, it seemed kind of creepy. I hadn’t spoken to this woman for four years. What kind of stalker does something like that?

Then my brother encouraged me to contact Connie. “What have you got to lose?” he asked. Again, what he was saying made total sense, but after thinking a bit about it, I again felt weird. I doubted if she’d even remember me, let alone be interested in talking to me, so I didn’t contact her.

For whatever reason, the day I closed on my house in Florida, I decided to send Connie a text. It felt strange reaching back out to someone I hadn’t spoken to in so long, but whatever inhibitions I had about contacting her seemed to fade that day.

It took a couple of hours, but I got a text back from Connie. To my surprise, she remembered me. And although it took a few back-and-forth texts, we settled into the same comfortable exchange we had experienced previously. Sadly, the day I reached out to her for the first time in four years was the same day she found out she had an aggressive form of breast cancer.

For months, while Connie went through cancer treatments, we stayed in touch, texting or talking nearly every day. We grew closer, even though we still hadn’t met each other face-to-face. As you can imagine, Connie wasn’t in the right head space to be thinking about dating. She had other things to worry about. The breast cancer treatments were rough at times. At one point, Connie suffered a heart attack related to the treatments, although in typical Connie fashion, she played it off like it was nothing.

I’m honestly not sure what changed for Connie, but at some point, she decided we should get together. We met up for pizza at a little hole-in-the-wall place she had heard good things about. We met and I was pleased to see that Connie was doing well, despite her treatments. We talked and laughed and had a great time, until I saw a sign on the wall that said “Cash Only.” We had already had a couple of drinks, and our pizza was on its way. The good news was, they had an ATM. Unfortunately, I had just gotten a new debit card, and it wouldn’t work (I later found out I connected it to the wrong account). Connie tried her debit card and it didn’t work either. We were in a panic. We pooled all the cash we had and came up with just enough to cover our tab. It was a hilarious, embarrassing situation.

We got together a few more times, and the more time we spent together, the more we became close friends. We celebrated together when Connie’s cancer treatments ended, we mourned together when my dog passed away, and we were both in shock when Connie learned that her cancer had come roaring back. The doctors told her that there was nothing they could do to get rid of the cancer. The best they could do was give her chemo to keep the cancer from getting worse.

Connie knew she didn’t have long to live. The doctor said it could be as much as three years, but Connie wasn’t buying it. She made plans to do as much as possible with the short time she had left. She sold her condo and moved in with her daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. They fixed up a mother-in-law’s suite in her daughter’s house, and Connie and Kristin (her daughter) set out to see the world. First, they went to Paris and London, two places Connie always wanted to see. Then they spent time in Cape Cod, and St. Croix, and Chicago. They also made trips to Houston (MD Anderson Cancer Center) and Rochester, MN (Mayo Clinic), for second opinions.

Then Connie got the news that her cancer had spread, first to her lungs, then her spine, then to her brain. The doctors thought they could combat the brain cancer with radiation, but it became clear pretty quickly that their plan wasn’t going to work.

Between the cancer, the chemo, and the radiation, Connie’s body began to fail. She experienced hypoxia (low oxygen) and dizziness, and had to be admitted to the hospital. Tests revealed that the cancer in her lungs had gotten much worse. In talking with her oncologist, Connie made the decision to stop all treatments. Within a few days, Connie went into hospice where she could be kept as comfortable as possible. We’d known for months how all of this would end, but I didn’t think things would get this bad this quickly.

Kristin asked that Connie’s friends write a letter she could share with her mom. This is what I wrote to Connie to let her know my feelings toward her and what she has meant in my life.

Dear Connie –

It breaks my heart to write this letter to you. I had hoped we’d have more time to spend together, but I guess God has other plans.

I want you to know how much you have meant to me over these past few years. We have shared some of our best and some of our most difficult times with each other. I am so thankful to have had you as a friend, even if it wasn’t for as long as I would have liked. You are one of the toughest, sweetest, strongest, most caring people I have ever known. You have brightened my life, and I will forever be grateful.

I don’t mean to be selfish, but this is all ending too quickly for me. I want to talk to you and see you again. I want us to laugh together some more, and if need be, share some tears. You have been a good and caring friend, and I will miss you.

I pray that the journey you are about to take is a good one. If there is a Log Tavern Pizza in Heaven, please be sure to save me a seat.

All my love,

Lou

Connie passed away yesterday, May 23, 2025. She was a wonderful person, a loving mother and grandmother, and a truly good friend. I mourn her loss. I’m grateful to have known her, and I will miss her.

I don’t want to rehash the 2024 Presidential Election. Your guy won a free and fair election and is now the President of the United States. That’s all well and good, but it’s hard for me to believe that what Donald Trump has done in his first 100+ days in office is what you voted for. It’s not, is it? I mean, I disagreed with your support of Trump, but I assumed you supported him because you felt he would do a good job for the country by bringing down the price of consumer goods, securing our border, reigning in spending, ferreting out corruption, and strengthening the rule of law. That’s what you wanted, isn’t it? What are you thinking now?

In less than four months in office, Donald Trump has violated the Constitution, broken laws, and has become the most corrupt president in American history. I suspect you don’t agree with me. Your loyalty to the man completely and utterly blinds you to his bad behavior. So, let me spell it out for you.

So far during Trump’s second term, everything of consequence he has done has been illegal. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but let’s look at what he has accomplished in just over one hundred days.

In a recent opinion piece in The Atlantic, former Federal Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig laid out the case against Trump. Here’s what he had to say:

“For not one of his signature initiatives during his first 100 days in office does Trump have the authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States that he claims.

• Not for the crippling global tariffs he ordered unilaterally;
• Not for his unlawful deportations of hundreds of immigrants to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), El Salvador’s squalid maximum-security prison;
• Not for his deportation of U.S. citizens to Honduras;
• Not for his defiantly corrupt order from the Great Hall of the Department of Justice to weaponize the department against his political enemies;
• Not for his evil executive orders against the nation’s law firms for their representation of his political enemies and clients of whom he personally disapproves;
• Not for his corrupt executive orders against honorable American citizens and former officials of his own administration, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security chief of staff who dared to criticize Trump anonymously during his first term;
• Not for his unlawful bludgeoning of the nation’s colleges and universities with unconstitutional demands that they surrender their governance and curricula to his wholly owned federal government;
• Not for his threatened revocation of Harvard University’s tax-exempt status;
• Not for his impoundment of billions of dollars of congressionally approved funds or his politically motivated threats to revoke tax exemptions;
• Not for his attempt to alter the rules for federal elections;
• Not for his direct assault on the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright-citizenship guarantee;
• Not for his mass firings of federal employees;
• Not for his empowerment of Musk and DOGE to ravage the federal government;
• Not for his threats to fire Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell;
• Not for his unconstitutional attacks on press freedoms; and finally,
• Not for his appalling arrest of Judge Dugan.”

None of the things Judge Luttig listed are legal. None. Of. Them. They are all unconstitutional, in violation of statute, or both. As Judge Luttig says, “It would be impossible to say, after Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, that America has a government of laws, not of men.” That is a sobering admission from a man known for having an even keeled demeanor and impeccable conservative credentials.

But it isn’t just that his executive orders violate the Constitution. Trump’s acceptance of gifts and his selling access to the Oval Office fly in the face of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Not familiar with it? Here’s what it says:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” (U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8)

As I write this, I can practically hear you saying (shouting?), “Trump isn’t doing anything corrupt.” Oh, really? Let’s consider a few of his greatest corrupt hits:

$Trump Meme Coin – The $Trump Meme Coin was launched just three days before Trump’s inauguration to his second Presidential term. The meme coin has no intrinsic value, but it does allow anyone with money—including foreign countries and criminal organizations—to purchase a coin(s) and potentially have direct access to the President. Recently, Trump announced that he will be holding a dinner for the 250 largest “investors” in the meme coin at the Trump Golf Club in Washington D.C., complete with a “tour” (presumably of the White House). Trump even promoted the coin on social media and encouraged people to spend more money on the $Trump Coin so they have a better chance of meeting him at the dinner.

Executive Branch Club – Donald Trump Jr., son of the President, has started a club he calls the “Executive Branch” that allows wealthy people—including foreign governments and criminal organizations (Notice a trend here?)—to pay $500,000 to become members and have access to his father. In other words, the two Donalds have concocted a scheme to sell access to the Oval Office, enriching the Trumps in the process. And because it is a private club, there is no requirement that Don Jr. provide transparency on who he is receiving money from. Remember how we screamed about the Clinton Foundation that Bill Clinton started that allowed anyone to donate money?  Remember when Republicans in Congress were claiming that Hunter Biden took money in exchange for access to his father and they wanted to impeach him for it? How are the “Executive Branch” or the $Trump Coin any different?

Qatar to “Gift” $400 million Private Jet to Trump – This may be the most audacious bribe in the history of the world. The Royal Family of Qatar (financiers of pro-Palestinian protests in the United States and of Hamas) has offered to gift Donald Trump a luxurious Boeing 747-8 jet valued at more than $400 million. The Trump Administration said that the jet—known colloquially as “The Palace in the Sky”—will be used by the President as a replacement to Air Force One during his time in office and will then be transferred to his Presidential Library Foundation, which means Trump will be able to continue using the plane after he leaves office.

Continues to Promote His Personal Businesses – As President, Donald Trump continues to promote his main company, The Trump Organization, attending golf tournaments at his Doral golf club, striking real estate and crypto deals with Middle Eastern countries, and requiring the Secret Service and other government agencies to stay at Trump hotels and resorts. In addition, he uses his position to sell Trump-branded merchandise, such as his made in China “Make America Great Again” caps, including a pink cap he promoted for Mother’s Day. Previous presidents were required to give up control of and involvement in businesses they had an interest in, but Donald Trump refuses, causing constant conflicts of interest between what is good for the country and what is good for Trump’s bottom line.

These are just the four biggest acts of corruption Trump is involved in. Any one of these things would have gotten any previous president impeached, but the feckless Republicans in Congress refuse to take any action against the President, and in fact, seem to support his clearly illegal, corrupt behavior.

Here’s my point: Unless I misunderstood what you, my MAGA friends, said prior to the election, none of these things come close to what you wanted Trump to do. You said you wanted him to fix the economy, not destroy it. You wanted him to deport illegal immigrants guilty of violent crime, but you said you didn’t want him to deport legal immigrants and citizens, and I suspect you didn’t want him to defy court orders in the process. And you wanted him to drain the swamp, not become the swamp. Did I misunderstand?

This is the part that is hard to say but needs to be said. Going back to 2015 when Donald Trump came down the golden escalator, I have not understood your support for him. Even though I disagreed with the stand you were taking, I believed that you still wanted what was best for the country. We may have disagreed about Trump, but I never thought your goal was to see our economy ruined and our democracy destroyed. But now, when the facts are so clear about Donald Trump’s illegal actions and corrupt behavior, if you still support him, the only conclusion I am left to draw is that you actually are not the Constitutional conservative you claimed to be. Supporting Trump at this moment means you do not support the Constitution, you do not believe in the rule of law, and like Donald Trump himself, you want to see our democracy replaced by an authoritarian regime with hallmarks of white supremacism, Christian Nationalism, and Putin-style corruption. Is that really what you want?

Being on the inside of the MAGA Movement, you may not see this, but the MAGA view of the world is simplistic, lacking in nuance and subtlety. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Conservative good, liberal bad. Trump good, anyone who disagrees with Trump bad. Your tribe sees the world in black and white rather than in shades of gray. But the world is not black and white. It is not simplistic. It is big and complicated and constantly changing. The MAGA faithful long for simple solutions to complicated problems that can be easily communicated in 30-second sound bites. But the reality-based world doesn’t work that way. Complicated problems require knowledge, expertise, and an ability to know history and apply its lessons.

Tariffs are a good example. Trump acts like he discovered tariffs and he sells them as a get rich quick scheme for our nation, not seeming to realize that tariffs led to the Great Depression and made the economic recovery from it much more difficult than it had to be. He also doesn’t seem to realize (or simply refuses to acknowledge) that American citizens, not foreign countries, pay for tariffs. They are a tax, much like sales tax, on the goods we rely on to run our everyday lives. Not to mention, establishing tariffs on our trading partners is not a power the Constitution gives to the President.

Immigration is another good example. Blame our immigration woes on Biden, even though it’s been a problem for decades, and then try to solve the issue by rounding up anyone with brown skin, including legal immigrants and citizens; claim they are terrorists, gang members, and criminals; and send them out of the country to a concentration camp without due process. Is that an effective solution? No. In fact it’s anti-American and causes more problems than it solves. But it’s simple, and it’s easy to understand and explain. So, Trump doubles down on the deportations, breaking laws, defying court orders, and ignoring public sentiment in the process.

We are a blessed people to live in the United States. And like all people, we have been given the gifts of intelligence and discernment. To those of us outside the MAGA movement, the facts could not be more obvious. Trump is burning down our democracy, making enemies of our allies, allies of our enemies, and pitting citizen against citizen. His behavior is crude, his policies are cruel, and his impact on our once great nation is corrosive. In the first few months of his new term, he has damaged the economy, weakened and weaponized the government, made a mockery of the rule of law, and made us a laughingstock to both allies and enemies alike.

And maybe worst of all, he convinced the MAGA faithful that he was our nation’s savior, the only one who could treat our ills and stand up to those “Godless liberals.” He told you that the enemy (what he calls his fellow Americans who hold different political views than him) works every day to bring socialism and communism (he doesn’t know the difference, so he uses the words interchangeably) to America. He called himself “The Chosen One” and claimed that deporting the stranger, denying food to the hungry, and marginalizing the poor were the “Christian” things to do. Sadly, many within the MAGA Movement believed him.

At this dark hour in our country’s history, it’s time to make a choice. I don’t mean to point fingers, but if you still support Donald Trump, you need to come to grips with the type of person you have become. You have to accept that your support is enabling Donald Trump to destroy the country that you have long claimed to love. Is that who you are, an enabler to the destruction of America? If not, then you really need to consider what your support of Trump means. Are you being true to your values and beliefs when you support Trump, or have you simply gotten caught up in the tribalism of the MAGA Movement?

Here’s the thing: Admitting you’re wrong is hard. I get it. But it’s okay to admit you made a mistake or that you believed Trump’s nearly constant stream of lies. As your friend, I understand how hard it is to make that admission. So, consider this an intervention, an effort by your friends to open your eyes to the reality of your situation. If you can muster the courage to admit you were wrong, the rest of us would be happy to welcome you back into the world of facts and truth, where our beliefs and opinions are formed based on evidence, not the other way around. The soul of our nation hangs in the balance. We’d love to have you with us on the right side of history.

What would you have done if you had lived in Germany in the 1930s? If you had had the chance, would you have left the country? And if you hadn’t left, would you have regretted that for the rest of your life?

The answers to these questions are pretty easy from where we sit today. We know what happened in Germany. Leaving would have been the obvious choice.

So, is what’s happening in the United States today similar to what happened in Germany in 1933? Three professors from Yale—Marci Shore, Jason Stanley, and Tim Snyder—think that it is. In fact, they’re so sure of it that they have all decided to move out of the United States. In a video op-ed in the New York Times, the three professors detailed the reasons they are leaving, and sounded a clear warning to others that, although we are in the early days of Trump’s authoritarian takeover of the government, things are only going to get worse.

Although I’m not overly familiar with Professors Shore and Stanley, I have read a good deal of Professor Snyder’s writing, and I’ve followed him on social media for several years. I find his writing intelligent and his rhetoric quite compelling. So, his decision to leave the country has somewhat thrown me for a loop. And if I’m being honest, I have mixed emotions about his decision.

Timothy Snyder is no run-of-the-mill historian. He is considered one of the world’s foremost experts on fascism, and his writing on the topic has been widely read. His book, “On Tyranny” is one of the most popular books on authoritarianism, and the Twenty Lessons from the book have enjoyed a life of their own in recent years. If he thinks it’s time to leave the United States, then we’d all better take a hard look at the situation the country finds itself it.

Snyder’s first lesson (of the Twenty Lessons) is to not obey in advance. In other words, don’t give in to the authoritarian wishes of the leader/government before it is necessary. It’s a lesson I completely subscribe to, but I can’t help but wonder if Snyder isn’t doing exactly what he instructed us not to do.

I can’t claim to know Professor Snyder’s situation in great detail, but what I do know is that he is a white intellectual with a large platform to communicate his thoughts with the world. He has tenure at one of the country’s preeminent universities, and he appears to have the financial wherewithal to hire the best legal representation should he need it. In other words, Snyder has as much privilege as anyone in the country, so it seems to me he should be one of the last to leave, not one of the first.

That’s not to say that I think Snyder is running away unnecessarily. He knows his situation better than I do. But if we are going to save our democracy, we need people like Timothy Snyder in the resistance. We need his expertise. We need his knowledge. And we need people in his position to push back against Donald Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.

Another person I have turned to over the years for their intelligence and insight is Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution. And as it turns out, Wittes is critical of Snyder’s move to Canada. In writing about the video by the “Yale Three,” here’s what he had to say on the Brookings Institution website, Lawfare:

“These are the people who should be out there doing stuff, taking risks so that others who actually have real vulnerabilities don’t have to. They should be leading from the positions of incredible safety they occupy. If they don’t want to do that, fine, no judgment. As I say, we should all live where we want. But making videos congratulating yourself for abandoning the United States is just thumbing your nose at the people you leave behind in situations of much greater risk than you ever had.”

I tend to agree with Wittes. The best I can say about the professors’ move out of the country, and the video they created to announce their moves, is that it may serve as a wake-up call to the nation. As Wittes says, perhaps the video can create a moment that energizes the resistance to Trump. If I’m going to spin the video, that’s the best I can come up with.

What I fear is that the “Yale Three” are obeying in advance. If I want to put a slightly less positive spin on the video, I fear that the professors are giving Trump exactly what he wants. Rather than staying to fight, American intellectuals—experts in fascism—are leaving the country of their own accord. It’s not only three fewer people to push back on Trump, but three of the best positioned people in the country to hold the line against Trump’s authoritarian behavior and rhetoric.

I have to admit, I can’t help but feel like the “Yale Three” are running away, abandoning the fight and giving up on America’s democracy. It seems like a cowardly thing to do. That is, unless the United States in 2025 is in a similar position as Germany in 1933. In that case, the professors are making the smart move.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) recently posted a long, relatively negative tweet critical of Donald Trump and her Republican colleagues in Congress. That may be surprising since MTG has been one of the biggest supporters and enablers of Trump and his corrupt, anti-American agenda in Congress. But even in her criticism, MTG gets a lot wrong.

I’ve included MTG’s tweet below along with my thoughts, as if we were in conversation. Of course, we were not actually in conversation. Generally speaking, MTG and I don’t run in the same circles.

——————————

Marjorie Taylor Greene: I represent the base and when I’m frustrated and upset over the direction of things, you better be clear, the base is not happy.

Me: MTG , you’re not wrong about this. Increasingly, the base of the Republican party is upset with Donald Trump. It’s no wonder. What he is doing currently and how he is doing it is unpopular with a majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans. Having said that, I think you’re wrong about the lessons you’ve drawn from the unhappiness of your base.

MTG: I campaigned for no more foreign wars. And now we are supposedly on the verge of going to war with Iran. I don’t think we should be bombing foreign countries on behalf of other foreign countries especially when they have their own nuclear weapons and massive military strength.

And on top of that, now we are told that we have signed a deal for mineral rights in Ukraine, in order to pay us back for the hundreds of billions of dollars that we gave Ukraine and they used for money laundering, sold the weapons we gave them to our enemies, and their leader is a dictator who canceled elections, was involved of the first impeachment of Trump, and campaigned for Biden. Didn’t we learn our lesson when we went to war in Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein because of “weapons of mass destruction?” Did we ever find any? And did any of that oil over in the Middle East make us rich? The answer is no, we are $36 trillion in debt today. So why on earth would we go over and occupy Ukraine and spend an untold amount of future American taxpayer dollars defending and mining their minerals as well as potentially putting American lives at risk and future war? Why don’t we just mine our own rare earth minerals that are tied up on federal lands that the government confiscated years ago?

Me: Wow, there’s a lot to breakdown here. Let’s start with no more foreign wars. MTG, you may find this hard to believe, but we generally agree on this point. The United States should not be engaging in war on behalf of another nation. I assume the other nation you are talking about is Israel, right? I don’t know that we are on the verge of a war with Iran, but it would be a bad idea, no matter the reason we might engage in such a war.

Next, you’re view of the aid we gave to Ukraine is strangely skewed. First, it is right and proper that the United States, an ally to Ukraine, should give military and humanitarian aid to them in their defense against Russian aggression. For the moment, I won’t get into the accusations made by your own Republican colleagues in the House that you are a Russian asset who often parrots Russian propaganda and talking points, but it’s important to remember that such an accusation still hangs out there and has never been withdrawn. In the very least, you’re a stooge for Russia and your view of the war in Ukraine is not credible.

Second, we didn’t make loans to Ukraine, we provided them with aid with no expectation that they would pay us back. That’s how these things work. We did what we thought was right, not what we thought we could profit from. The transactional nature of your perspective on how we should relate to our allies is troubling.

Third, I’m troubled by your obsession with spoiling our natural lands—which you wrongly stated were confiscated—in order to mine for rare earth minerals. You fail to look into the future to see what damage such mining would do, your only concern for the here and now. Expand your view, Marjorie. The world will go on long after you are gone. Let’s try to leave them a country and a planet worth protecting.

Fourth and finally, why do you insist on spreading lies about Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine. He’s not a dictator. He was overwhelmingly elected by Ukrainian voters. Also, he didn’t cancel elections. The Constitution of Ukraine provides for the suspension of elections during war, although I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know that. You don’t bother to read our Constitution. Why would you read theirs?

MTG: I also campaigned on accountability for the communist and tyrannical acts made by the government during Covid. Yet the Covid vaccine still has FDA approval even though there are millions reported injuries and deaths, and this mRNA vaccine is known to have horrific side effects and DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM CATCHING COVID. And to this day, it’s still on the childhood vaccine schedule, why on earth is this happening? Hasn’t big pharma made enough billions and billions and billions of dollars on this lie?

Me: Seriously, is there any conspiracy theory you won’t champion? Let’s start with some hard facts. First, it was your boy Trump who made it possible for the Covid vaccine to be created in the first place. That’s not a criticism. It was by far the best thing he did during his first term. Your uninformed accusations about the dangers of the vaccine, especially since what you claim has been debunked completely, should embarrass you, if in fact you had the ability to generate embarrassment. Like any drug, the Covid vaccine has side effects. But they are not horrific nor are they widespread. It’s also true that it is not 100% effective in stopping Covid. But what you fail to mention or understand is that the vaccine reduces both the risk and severity of Covid. If you don’t want to get the vaccine, don’t get it. I don’t care. But stop spreading lies about something you clearly don’t understand.

MTG: I also campaigned on accountability for all the law fair that was waged against the American people in the past four years. What about all the people that were locked up in jail and the abuse that they went through? And when are those vicious attorneys and judges ever going to be held accountable for the lives they ruined?

Me: Sorry, that massive eyeroll was not meant in a personal way. Let’s start with the term “law fair.” It’s actually “lawfare.” If you’re going to talk about a subject, even if all you are going to do is lie about it, you should at least learn to spell it.

Of course, you’re talking about the January 6 defendants who you claim were unfairly prosecuted and locked up by “vicious attorneys and judges.” Marge, you seem to forget that we all saw what the January 6 insurrectionists did. It’s all on video, including on video shot by the insurrectionists themselves. Many, if not most, of the people convicted of crimes on January 6 pled guilty to the charges against them. Your base isn’t as stupid as you think they are. They saw what the insurrectionists did. That’s why the majority of people in this country—including Trump’s own vice-president—think it was wrong for Trump to pardon all of the J6 insurrectionists.

MTG: And I campaigned for an end to waste fraud and abuse of the American people’s harder tax dollars. I believe the DOGE mission is one of the most important things happening today in our government, and yet where are the rescissions that we should be voting on in Congress?

Me: “Harder tax dollars?” Perhaps you should proofread your tweets before vomiting them out into the cybersphere.

I’ll give you this, you are correct that Congress should be voting on the rescissions being made by Elon Musk and DOGE. Congress appropriated that money and it is only proper (and legally necessary) for Congress to rescind the spending. DOGE does not have the legal authority to do that. So, we do agree on this one point.

MTG: And one of the biggest issues in the nation that I have fought for, and early on I was one of the only ones that took a loud screaming stand against, is the evil transgender assault against our children. Most normal people in this country can’t even comprehend how it’s allowed to happen to kids who by law can’t even get a tattoo, drive, or vote. And how did so many of our teachers turn into the predators themselves that groom children with gender lies? This should be an all out effort by Republicans to end this insanity.

Me: No! No! No! You’re living in a fantasy world. Not only is this not “one of the biggest issues in the nation,” it is not an issue deserving of Congressional oversight. There is not “transgender assault” on our kids. If you truly believe this, please point out where it is happening. The transgender issue is red meat for your base, but in reality, it just isn’t much of an issue.

I especially take exception to your claim that “many of our teachers turn into the predators themselves that groom children with gender lies.” You are just flat out wrong with this claim. The vast majority of our teachers are underpaid heroes who are doing an extraordinarily difficult job under increasingly difficult and dangerous circumstances, made all the more difficult and dangerous because of ignorant people like you who spread lies for your own benefit. You and people like you need to stop the baseless attacks on our teachers.

MTG: And look at the extreme nature of our rogue judicial system that is so defiant that there are judges that defy our nation’s laws and block the deportation of literal enemies of the United States of America. Where is the outrage and moral courage to dispose of this treason? Sadly not in Congress.

Me: MTG, does your ignorance know no bounds? It’s clear that even though you serve in Congress, you do not have the slightest idea what the Constitution says or how our system of separation of powers and checks and balances is supposed to work.

Judges are not preventing the deportation of “literal enemies of the United States.” All judges are saying is that anyone you want to deport first has to be given due process in order to determine if they are truly enemies of the country. You see, that’s how our system works. We don’t allow people like you to determine who should stay and who should go. We have courts who make that determination by applying the laws that you in Congress pass. It’s all written out in the Constitution. You should read it. I think you’d find it fascinating.

MTG: And what about election integrity? This should be the most important issue that the Republicans aggressively fight to protect because without secure elections protected from illegals voting and protections from stealing our votes, the American people have lost their power.

Me: Let me turn that question around on you. What about election integrity? What are you even talking about? There are already laws against illegals voting in our elections. There is also research done that shows that illegals are not voting. In fact, election fraud of all stripes is largely a problem that exists only in your mind, not in the real world.

Think it through. Why would illegals try to vote. They face the prospect of arrest and deportation if they even try. Why would they take that risk? And if they did, how could they coordinate their efforts well enough so their votes made an actual difference, swaying the outcome of the election? Again, you are focusing on a problem that simply doesn’t exist. It’s just more red meat for your base, an attempt to generate outrage among your low information supporters, making them believe that the power of their vote is diluted by illegals voting. But it’s a lie. It simply isn’t happening.

MTG: When you are losing MTG, you are losing the base. And Trump isn’t on the ballot in the future, so do the math on that.

Me: Are you sure he’s not on the ballot in the future? He claimed he’s running again in 2028, the Constitution be damned. Oh, yea of little faith.

Also, please don’t refer to yourself in the third person. Even for you, that’s cringey.

In 1776, the colonists had had enough. For years, the leaders of the colonies, many of whom went on to become the Founding Fathers of the United States, had been pushing King George III and his government in England to allow the colonies more autonomy. Most of these colonist leaders wanted America to remain part of the British empire. They enjoyed their association with Great Britain and the King, including having British troops to protect the colonies. But they didn’t always like the way the King and his government treated the colonists, especially when those same British troops were used against the very colonists they were supposed to protect.

By July 4, 1776, the leaders came to the conclusion that the bond between America and the King had been stretched beyond the breaking point. It was on that date that representatives from each of the thirteen colonies issued the Declaration of Independence, separating the United States from Great Britain.

Most of us know the first paragraph or two of the Declaration. In particular, the first line of the second paragraph is learned by most children in the United States by the time they reach high school. That passage reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What you may not know, or might not remember, is the Declaration of Independence includes a list of grievances against the King and his government. These grievances were listed to make it clear why the colonists were rebelling against the King and declaring their independence from Great Britain.

I won’t list all the grievances here, but there are several I’d like to focus on. The relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence reads:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:”

As I read over these grievances, I was amazed that the exact same things can be said about Donald Trump. He has refused to abide by the law, he has damaged or destroyed relationships with our trading partners, he has imposed the largest tax increase in the history of our nation without the consent of the people by issuing outrageous tariffs, he has deprived people subject to the laws of the United States (citizens and non-citizens alike) due process of law, and he has sent both legal and illegal immigrants out of the country (“beyond Seas”) in an effort to usurp the rule of law. In the same way our Founding Fathers viewed the King, we now view Donald Trump. He has become an absolute tyrant.

It has never been clearer to me that those of us who resist Donald Trump’s attacks on our democracy are the true heirs to the work first done by our Founding Fathers and the revolutionaries who fought for our freedom nearly 250 years ago. We are the spiritual descendants of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and the defenders of the Constitution. While it is frustrating that not all Americans can see clearly what Trump is doing to the nation, it is important that we continue the work of keeping the United States strong, free, and committed to the rule of law.

Our democracy does not survive without the effort of true patriots. As author and political pundit Tom Nichols said, “Democracy is an act of will, it’s a choice. It doesn’t just happen. You have to expend actual energy to sustain democracy.”

So, keep battling. Continue to fight the good fight. Our democracy and the future of this nation hangs in the balance.

The United States Constitution was built on the belief that no one person should have unchecked power. The Founding Fathers understood the danger of tyranny and worked to build a government that could resist it. They created three separate branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—and built in a system of checks and balances to ensure that each branch could limit the others. This design protects freedom and prevents the rise of authoritarian rule.

But in recent years, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, this balance of power has come under serious strain. The increasing use of executive orders to legislate—without proper action from Congress—and the failure of Congress to hold the President accountable represent a dangerous shift away from constitutional government. This trend threatens the very foundation of American democracy.

The Role of the Executive Branch

The executive branch, headed by the President, was created by Article II of the Constitution. Its primary role is to enforce the laws passed by Congress. It is not supposed to make laws on its own. The power to legislate belongs to Congress, as stated in Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

This separation of roles is not just a matter of formality, it is essential to preventing tyranny. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, when one person can make, enforce, and interpret the law, freedom is at serious risk.

The Growth of Executive Orders

The use of executive orders by American presidents is not new, and when used properly, they serve an important function. Executive orders can help manage federal agencies and clarify how existing laws are enforced. But when a president uses executive orders or memoranda to create new policies, spend federal funds, override acts of Congress, or target specific people or groups with retribution, they become a direct threat to the constitutional balance of power.

During Donald Trump’s first term, his use of executive orders often raised eyebrows and drew legal challenges. But since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has issued a series of executive orders that are more aggressive. More importantly, Trump’s executive orders are blatantly unconstitutional and far more dangerous to the democratic structure of the U.S. government than the executive orders and memoranda he issued in his first term in office.

Here are some examples of executive orders and memoranda from Trump’s Second Term (January 2025–present)

1. Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Executive Order 14159): In his first week back in office, Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to detain and deport all undocumented immigrants without due process. This bypasses existing immigration laws and constitutional protections guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Legal experts and civil rights groups immediately challenged the order, but enforcement began anyway in many jurisdictions before courts intervened, and has resulted in people being sent to CECOT, a concentration camp in El Salvador.
2. Renaming Federal Geographic Features to Reflect American Heritage (Executive Order 14172): Trump issued an order authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to “evaluate and suspend access” to any journalist deemed a threat to “national morale or political stability.” This sweeping restriction violates the First Amendment’s protection of a free press and represents an authoritarian move to suppress dissent and independent journalism. The most well-known result of this executive order occurred when Trump banned the Associated Press from White House briefings because they refused to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump’s preferred name, the “Gulf of America.”
3. Executive Memorandum Declaring Select Cities as “Anarchist Jurisdictions” (Executive Memorandum ): Building on a controversial directive from his first term in the White House, Trump renewed an Executive Memorandum which declared several U.S. cities “anarchist jurisdictions” and ordered federal agencies to withhold funding from those cities. This action punishes local governments based on their political positions or public criticism of federal policies. The Constitution does not give the executive branch authority to bypass Congress and unilaterally cut funding based on political disagreement.
4. Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP (Executive Order 14230): In response to several major U.S. law firms representing clients challenging administration policies, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to investigate firms for “undermining national governance” and to consider their eligibility for federal contracts. In addition, some law firms had their security clearances revoked and were barred from entering government buildings, including courthouses. This move sends a chilling message to the legal profession and interferes with the constitutional right to legal representation and due process.
5. Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism (Executive Order 14188): Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities found to be “hostile to American values.” In practice, this has meant targeting schools that host speakers critical of administration policy or who engage in DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. Critics argue that this order violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty by punishing institutions for protected speech and academic freedom.
6. Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information (Executive Order 14152): In a highly controversial and unprecedented move, Trump issued an executive order calling for the immediate suspension of security clearances, government consulting privileges, and federal contract eligibility for individuals he accused of “sabotage” during his first term, including specifying by name former Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor and former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director Chris Krebs. Both had publicly criticized Trump’s actions in office. The order is widely viewed as retaliatory and unconstitutional, violating due process rights and further weaponizing the executive branch against dissenters.
7. Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (Executive Order 14160): Perhaps the most constitutionally alarming of all, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court has upheld this principle for over a century. Trump’s order not only challenges long-standing constitutional precedent but does so without any legislative authority or constitutional amendment process, effectively attempting to rewrite the Constitution by executive fiat. Legal scholars and civil rights organizations widely condemned the move, and it immediately triggered a wave of lawsuits nationwide.

What makes these executive orders more dangerous than those from his first term is not just their legal overreach, but the President’s open defiance of judicial rulings and congressional oversight. In several cases, courts have issued injunctions blocking enforcement of these orders, but the Trump administration has either delayed compliance or continued enforcement through legal loopholes and agency action. Meanwhile, many members of Congress, particularly those allied with the President, have remained silent, or worse, supportive.

The President’s current approach is no longer limited to policy differences or political brinkmanship. It is a deliberate attempt to govern without Congress and to sidestep the Constitution altogether. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47, combining legislative and executive powers in one individual is “the very definition of tyranny.” That warning now feels less like a historical theory and more like a description of present-day reality.

Congressional Abdication of Responsibility

While executive overreach is a serious problem, it is made worse by Congress’s failure to respond. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government, not a subordinate one. Lawmakers swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath requires them to guard the separation of powers, even when it is politically difficult.

Yet, during President Trump’s time in office, many in Congress, especially those from his own party, chose not to challenge his actions. Even when courts raised concerns or ruled against certain executive orders, Congress often remained silent. In some cases, it actively supported the President’s overreach.

When Congress allows the President to legislate by executive order, it sends a dangerous message: that the legislative branch is no longer necessary. This breaks the constitutional design and opens the door to authoritarianism.

In Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” That was not a mistake or a historical accident, it was a deliberate choice by the Framers. They believed that a strong Congress was the best defense against tyranny, and it’s why the legislative branch is often referred to as “first among equals.”

Historical Parallels and Constitutional Warnings

American history offers many warnings about the dangers of unchecked executive power. During the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon famously said, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” This idea—that the President is above the law—was soundly rejected by the courts and Congress. Even so, Trump posted a message to the social media platforms “X” and “Truth Social” saying, “He who saves his country violates no law,” indicating that he feels anything he does is by definition legal.

During Trump’s first term, the idea that the President could not be held accountable gained more ground. At his first impeachment trial in 2020, some senators argued that the President’s actions—pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political opponent—did not rise to the level of removal. Despite clear evidence, the Senate chose not to convict.

This reluctance to act sent a message that the President could use the powers of his office for personal or political gain, as long as he remained popular within his party. That is a dangerous precedent, and one that erodes the rule of law.

The Danger to Democracy

When a President is allowed to act as both lawmaker and law enforcer, the system no longer resembles a democracy—it resembles a monarchy or dictatorship. The entire purpose of the Constitution’s checks and balances is to prevent that outcome.

If executive overreach continues without consequence, future presidents—regardless of party—may feel empowered to ignore Congress entirely. That would be a dramatic shift away from the Constitution’s vision and a step toward authoritarian rule.

It is not enough to say that voters can remove a president in the next election. The Founders did not trust elections alone to preserve liberty. That is why they built in other protections: separation of powers, checks and balances, impeachment, and judicial review. These tools must be used when necessary to preserve constitutional government.

Conclusion

The use of executive orders and memoranda to legislate, especially as practiced by President Donald Trump, poses a serious threat to the U.S. Constitution. By attempting to both create and enforce laws, the President has stepped outside his constitutional role. Just as troubling is Congress’s growing unwillingness to challenge this behavior. By failing to act, lawmakers violate their own oath and allow power to concentrate in the hands of one person.

This is not just a political concern, it is a constitutional crisis. If left unchecked, it could lead to the breakdown of the American system of government. The Constitution was designed to protect against tyranny, but it only works if each branch does its job. That includes saying “no” when the President oversteps his bounds.

The United States has faced many challenges in its history, but the strength of its democracy has always depended on the courage of its leaders to uphold the law, even when it is inconvenient. Now is such a time. Defending the separation of powers is not just a matter of politics. It is a matter of preserving the freedom and integrity of the republic.

The United States government was carefully designed to avoid the dangers of too much power being held by any one person or group. When the Constitution was written in 1787, the Founding Fathers had just fought a war to gain independence from Great Britain, where power had been concentrated in the hands of a king. They wanted to build a system that would protect freedom, prevent tyranny, and ensure fair and balanced government. To do this, they created a system with three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, and each has ways to limit the powers of the others. This structure is known as the separation of powers, and the system that keeps these powers balanced is called checks and balances.

The Constitution and the Three Branches of Government

The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. It sets up how the government works and lists the rights of the people. When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they wanted to make sure that no one part of government could become too powerful. To do this, they divided the federal government into three separate branches:

1. The Legislative Branch makes the laws. This branch includes Congress, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
2. The Executive Branch carries out the laws. This branch includes the President, Vice President, and all the departments and agencies that help run the country.
3. The Judicial Branch interprets the laws. This branch includes the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

Each branch was created in a different article of the Constitution. Article I sets up the legislative branch, Article II establishes the executive branch, and Article III creates the judicial branch. By placing each branch in a separate article, the Founders showed that they were equal in importance and should be kept independent from one another.

The Importance of Separation of Powers

The idea of separating powers into different branches goes back to the political philosopher Montesquieu, who believed that freedom depends on keeping legislative, executive, and judicial powers apart. The Founding Fathers agreed. They believed that if all the powers of government were held by one person or group, that person or group could abuse their power and take away the rights of the people.

James Madison, one of the authors of the Constitution and our 4th President, explained this idea in Federalist Paper No. 47. He wrote, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In other words, if one group controls all parts of the government, that is the same as having a dictator.

By separating the powers, the Constitution makes it harder for anyone to take control of the entire government. Each branch is strong in its own area, but no branch can act completely on its own. This keeps the system balanced and helps protect the freedom of the people.

Checks and Balances

Separation of powers works best when the branches of government can check, or limit, each other’s powers. The system of checks and balances was created to make sure that no branch can become too powerful or act unfairly. Each branch has some control over the others.

Here are a few examples of how checks and balances work:

• The President (Executive Branch) can veto laws passed by Congress (Legislative Branch). This means the President can reject a bill and stop it from becoming a law. However, Congress can override the veto if two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree.
• Congress (Legislative Branch) has the power to impeach the President or federal judges. This means they can remove someone from office if that person breaks the law or abuses their power.
• The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) can rule that a law passed by Congress or an action taken by the President is unconstitutional. This means the law or action goes against the Constitution and must be stopped.
• The President appoints judges to the Supreme Court and other federal courts, but the Senate must approve those appointments. This prevents the President from choosing judges without limits.

These checks and balances help keep the government fair and accountable. They force the branches to work together and to respect the limits of their own power.

A History of Caution Against Tyranny

The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about the dangers of one person or group taking too much power. They had seen what could happen under a monarchy, where the king had nearly unlimited power. Many of the complaints listed in the Declaration of Independence were about King George III abusing his power.

After winning independence, the United States first tried a different form of government under the Articles of Confederation. In that system, there was no president and no national court system. Most of the power was held by the states, and the national government was weak. This caused many problems, like the inability to raise taxes or enforce laws, and it made the country hard to govern.

That’s when the Constitutional Convention was held in 1787. The delegates decided to create a stronger national government, but they also wanted to make sure it would not become tyrannical. That is why they created the three branches and built in the system of checks and balances.

In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison wrote about the need for each branch to have a “will of its own” and to be able to defend itself against the others. He explained, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” In other words, the different parts of government should be strong enough to keep each other in check. This way, no one branch could take over the entire system.

Protecting Freedom Over Time

The system of three branches has lasted for more than 200 years. It has helped the United States survive wars, economic struggles, social movements, and political conflicts. Even when leaders have tried to take more power than they should, the other branches have usually stepped in to stop them.

For example, during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Congress investigated President Richard Nixon, and the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over tapes that provided evidence of wrongdoing. Nixon later resigned before he could be impeached. This is one example of how the checks and balances system worked to protect democracy.

The Supreme Court has also played a key role in maintaining the balance of power. In the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Court established the principle of judicial review. This means that the Court has the power to decide whether laws and actions follow the Constitution. This decision made the judicial branch an equal partner in government, able to limit the actions of Congress and the President when necessary.

Why It Still Matters Today

The three branches of government are not just a history lesson—they are still part of everyday life in the United States. When Congress passes laws, when the President signs executive orders, or when the Supreme Court makes a decision, they are all using their constitutional powers. And when one branch pushes too far, the others can respond.

For example, if the President tries to enforce a law that Congress never passed, the courts can block it. If Congress tries to pass a law that goes against the Constitution, the Supreme Court can strike it down. If the courts go too far in one direction, Congress can pass new laws or even propose amendments to the Constitution.

This system helps keep the government honest and accountable. It reminds leaders that their power comes from the people and that the Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Conclusion

The United States has three branches of government because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect freedom and prevent tyranny. By creating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and by giving each one different powers and responsibilities, they built a system based on the separation of powers. Through checks and balances, each branch has the ability to limit the others, ensuring that no single person or group can take over the government.

As explained in the Federalist Papers, especially Nos. 47 and 51, the Founders believed that power must be divided to keep it under control. The Constitution was carefully designed to do just that, and over the years, this system has proven strong and flexible. It continues to guide the country today, reminding Americans that freedom must be protected not just with words, but with structure.

However, since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, he has quickly tried to consolidate all federal power in the executive branch. He has usurped the power of the legislative branch by attempting to create law through Executive Orders and Memoranda. Unfortunately, Congress has not pushed back and reclaimed the power granted to them in Article 1 of the Constitution. In addition, Trump has defied the judicial branch by ignoring court orders and calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against him.

In part 2 of this post, I’ll look at the way Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by trying to consolidate all government power in the Executive, and I’ll discuss the danger the country faces when Congress refuses to exercise their Constitutionally-granted power. Our democracy is at risk, and so far, Congress has not raised a finger to stop Donald Trump’s overreach. More on that next time.

After Kilmar Abrego Gargia was sent to CECOT, a modern-day concentration camp in El Salvador, his family filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for violating an earlier court decision that granted him an order forbidding his deportation. The posture of the DOJ initially was to admit that an error had been made in sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and to work quietly behind the scenes to remedy that error and bring him back to the United States. But once the White House became more deeply involved in the case, that all changed.

According to an article in the Atlantic by Nick Miroff, once the case became front page news, the White House–and by extension, the DOJ–hardened their stance, referring to Abrego Garcia as a gang member, a criminal, and a human trafficker, despite a paucity of evidence to back up their contentions. They also began claiming that sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was not a mistake but was done purposely because he was considered so dangerous. The DOJ fired the attorney who had admitted in court filings that a “clerical error” led to Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States, and then the Administration went on the offensive, proudly stating that the father of three children from Maryland would never again step foot on American soil.

Why the sudden change in posture? Here’s what Nick Miroff wrote in the Atlantic:

“But as criticism of the administration over its mishandling of the case spread, White House officials took over the response and began striking a far more strident tone in their public statements. They swiftly turned an admission of bureaucratic error into a political opportunity—a chance to flex executive authority and test the judicial branch’s ability to restrain presidential power. Abrego Garcia’s deportation became far more than just the case of one man; it developed into a measure of whether Donald Trump’s administration can send people—citizens or not—to foreign prisons without due process.”

In other words, Abrego Garcia has become a pawn in Trump’s attempt to consolidate power from the judiciary. The Abrego Garcia case is just one piece of the Trump Administration’s effort to empower the executive at the expense of the other branches of government. To date, Congress has capitulated, allowing Trump to legislate via executive order without pushback. But the judiciary has largely stood up to Trump’s attempts, often finding his behavior to be lawless and unconstitutional.

In response, Trump and officials from his administration have called for the impeachment of judges who disagree with their efforts, and they have defied court orders; sometimes through legal trickery, other times directly and blatantly. But on Friday, April 25, Administration efforts to threaten and subvert the judiciary were ratcheted up when the FBI arrested a circuit court judge in Wisconsin for allegedly resisting ICE efforts to arrest an undocumented immigrant.

Following the arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel took to X to brag about the arrest. He wrote:

“Just NOW, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week.

“We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest.

“Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.

“We will have more to share soon. Excellent work @FBIMilwaukee”

A short time later, Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on Fox News where she referred to Judge Hannah Dugan as “deranged,” but she did not provide any evidence of wrongdoing on Dugan’s part. Instead, Bondi focused on the message Dugan’s arrest should send to other judges:

“I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today—if you are harboring a fugitive—we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.”

Bondi’s statements were reminiscent of those uttered in 1942 by Adolf Hitler in a speech in the Reichstag, when he said:

“I expect the German legal profession to understand that the nation is not here for them but they are here for the nation. From now on, I shall intervene in these cases and remove from office those judges who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.”

In both cases, both Bondi and Hitler were giving notice to the judiciary that any attempt to thwart the ruling administration’s agenda would be met with retribution. As both said, either directly or indirectly, the judiciary exists to support the ruling Administration, not to stand in it’s way.

Of course, this is not how things work in our Constitutional democracy. We are a nation of laws, and the rule of law must supersede the whims of one man and his administration. The Constitution and the laws of this nation are what guide us, not the wishes of Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, or anyone else in their orbit.

The arrest of Judge Dugan is outrageous on many levels. In fact, the arrest of a judge is highly unusual. It appears that Judge Dugan was arrested without first bringing her case to a grand jury, and it’s unclear if FBI agents even had a warrant for Dugan’s arrest. Bringing a case to the grand jury and/or having a judge sign an arrest warrant is not mandatory, but in a case like this, it is unusual that the DOJ and FBI didn’t go that route.

In the rare case where a judge or other elected official is arrested, particularly in a case where the judge is not a flight risk, the arrest is handled quietly and behind the scenes. Often—as was the case when Donald Trump was arrested in both New York and Georgia—the judge is given the opportunity to turn themselves in to authorities at a predetermined time without the trauma and fanfare of a surprise arrest, particularly at their place of employment, as happened with Judge Dugan.

It is highly unusual for the FBI director to announce the arrest in a braggadocio fashion, basically giving testimony of wrongdoing rather than simply stating the charges. This is wrong for at least two reasons.

First, it tends to taint the jury pool when the head of the FBI makes accusations against a defendant in the media. In our system of justice, Dugan is considered innocent until proven guilty, and law enforcement officials—particularly the FBI Director—should not be going on social media to litigate their case.

Second, DOJ regulations prevent employees, including the FBI Director, from discussing pending cases. Even so, Patel wasn’t the only one who violated this rule. AG Pam Bondi also took to X to announce the arrest and to pronounce “No one is above the law.” It apparently doesn’t bother her that her boss is a felon 34 times over.

Many people—including myself—have accused Trump of acting as an authoritarian. Arresting judges is just another page out of the authoritarian’s playbook. The Trump Administration is not trying to hide their efforts or their goals. They continue to push to consolidate power in the presidency, making meaningless the Constitutional imperative of separation of powers, as well as our system of checks and balances. Trump does not want to be hamstrung by the Constitution nor slowed down by having to work with the other branches. He truly is acting like a king or dictator, expecting his words to become law and his every action to be found acceptable, if not legal.

Like Abrego Garcia, Judge Dugan is just a pawn in this game Trump is playing. He wants all of us to live in fear of the possibility of being the next one arrested and jailed. He wants a compliant populous that neither protests nor otherwise pushes back against his illegal acts.

As citizens, we all want dangerous criminals locked up. If they happen to be undocumented, they should be deported. If they happen to be a judge, they should be held to account. But there are proper ways to do these things. Donald Trump was elected in a free and fair election. He deserves to carry out his agenda. But he must abide by the Constitution and our laws. He cannot use power reserved for the other branches to implement his agenda. He must work with the other branches, allowing the legislative to create the laws and the judiciary to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws.

I can’t tell you with any certainty if Judge Dugan did anything illegal or not. What I do know is that the Trump Administration is using her arrest to send a message to other judges and elected officials. If you get in the way of the Trump agenda, you could be next.