I hope that most Americans — conservative, liberal, MAGA, independent — believe the Constitution is supposed to be the one thing every elected official must obey. It’s the rulebook. It’s the guardrail. It’s the promise that no matter who’s in power, the government still belongs to the people. But here’s the truth I can’t sugarcoat: both parties play politics, but only one party has shown a consistent pattern of treating the Constitution itself as optional whenever it becomes inconvenient. This isn’t about left vs. right. This is about whether the United States still functions as a constitutional republic. To understand the danger, we have to look at how each branch has drifted — and how the Constitution’s original design left us vulnerable to exactly this kind of breakdown.

The Constitution Was Not Designed for Political Parties. The framers imagined a system where each branch would defend its own power. Congress would guard its authority. The president would faithfully execute the laws. The courts would act as neutral referees. They assumed institutional ambition would keep the system balanced. What they did not anticipate — and what they openly feared — was the rise of political parties. They believed parties (“factions”) would: distort the separation of powers, turn branches into extensions of party leadership, encourage loyalty to the party over loyalty to the Constitution, and make oversight impossible when one party controlled multiple branches. And that’s exactly what has happened. Once party loyalty overtakes constitutional duty, the system the founders built stops functioning as designed. The Constitution has no mechanism to force a branch to do its job. It survives only when people in power choose to honor their oath. That’s the structural weakness behind the crisis we’re living through now.

Loyalty to a Leader Replaces Loyalty to the Oath, like what we are witnessing today. Congress is supposed to be the people’s branch. It writes the laws, checks the president, and protects the country from abuses of power. But in recent years, we’ve seen something dangerous: members of one party refusing to uphold their constitutional duties because doing so might anger their political base or their party leadership. That includes: refusing to certify lawful election, results, blocking oversight for political protection, treating constitutional processes as “attacks,” and prioritizing loyalty to a leader over loyalty to the oath they swore. This is not normal partisanship. This is Congress stepping away from its constitutional role. We have historical parallels like the Fall of the Roman Republic. Rome didn’t collapse overnight. Senators simply stopped defending the republic when doing so meant crossing powerful leaders. They stayed silent, looked the other way, or justified abuses because it benefited their faction. The result was slow erosion — until one day the republic was gone. When elected officials treat their oath as optional, history shows the system doesn’t survive for long.

We are seeing when Power Becomes the Goal Instead of the Responsibility. Every president tests the limits of executive power. But there’s a difference between pushing boundaries and rejecting boundaries. When leaders pressure officials to overturn lawful processes, ignore oversight, treat agencies as personal instruments, refuse to accept constitutional limits, they’re not just breaking norms. They’re breaking the system the founders built. Andrew Jackson famously ignored a Supreme Court ruling he disliked, just like what we are seeing now. The message was clear: presidential will outranked constitutional limits. That moment didn’t destroy the republic, but it weakened the separation of powers — and it set a precedent future leaders could exploit. When presidents treat the Constitution as negotiable, the republic becomes vulnerable.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the stabilizing force — the branch that protects the Constitution when everyone else fails. But when the Court issues rulings that contradict long‑standing precedent, weaken checks on government power, expand immunity beyond anything the founders imagined, and appear driven by ideology rather than constitutional principle, it sends a dangerous message: the Constitution is no longer a stable foundation.
From 1905 to 1937, the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down worker‑protection laws not because they violated the Constitution, but because the justices personally believed government shouldn’t regulate business. The era began with Lochner v. New York, in which the Court overturned a law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour workweek. The Court claimed it violated a “freedom of contract” — a right that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. During this period, the Court blocked minimum‑wage laws, child‑labor protections, and workplace‑safety rules. Not because the Constitution required it, but because the justices preferred a certain ideology. The Lochner Era is a warning: when the Court stops following the Constitution and starts following its own beliefs, the entire system becomes unstable. That is what we are seeing today.


The DOJ is supposed to be independent — loyal to the Constitution, not to any president. But history shows how easily it can be twisted. When Nixon ordered the DOJ to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, two top officials resigned rather than violate the Constitution. Nixon eventually found someone willing to do it. That moment revealed the danger: a president who controls the DOJ controls the enforcement of the law itself. And when the DOJ becomes a political weapon, as Trump is doing, allies become untouchable, critics become targets, oversight becomes meaningless, and the rule of law becomes selective. A president who can use the DOJ to protect friends and punish enemies is not constrained by the Constitution. They’re constrained only by their own ambitions. That is not how a republic survives. That is how corruption grips a nation.

Democrats have absolutely played hardball politics. They’ve stretched the rules. They’ve made decisions I disagree with. But — in my view — they have not systematically rejected constitutional limits themselves. What I see from the Republican Party is different: a pattern of behavior that treats constitutional obligations as optional and constitutional limits as obstacles. That includes rejecting certified election outcomes, undermining the peaceful transfer of power, attacking constitutional oversight as illegitimate, treating the DOJ as a political shield, and elevating loyalty to a leader above loyalty to the Constitution. These are not normal political disagreements. These are actions that echo the historical patterns that weakened other republics.

Republics don’t fall because of one event. They fall because of a pattern. Leaders ignore constitutional limits. Legislators refuse to hold them accountable. Courts tilt toward ideology. Law‑enforcement becomes political. Citizens lose faith in the system. We are living through that pattern right now. The Constitution is not self‑executing. It survives only when people in power choose to obey it. And when one party consistently chooses not to, the entire republic is at risk.

We now have had another “No King” protest in which millions of our neighbors have attended all around the country. Not just in blue states, but in red ones too. I am proud to be among those who chose to protest because the Constitution and our Republic are important to them. They see, as I see, the dismantling of our Republic because we have a political party that no longer believes in the very document that they swore an oath to protect. When I see the hatred and anger of the right that has divided the nation because of fear, racism, bigotry, and the threat of violence, I know that I can not stay silent.