Category: Commentary Page 4 of 15

This is the home of grumpy opinions.

The Erosion of Decorum in Public Discourse

On September 5, 2025

The nature of public debate has undergone a dramatic change in recent years. Civility and reasoned discourse—once the hallmarks of political and social commentary—have given way to something closer to a verbal battleground.

Today’s public exchanges are increasingly defined by inflammatory rhetoric, personal attacks, and an abandonment of long-held norms of decorum.

From Respectful Dialogue to Profanity-Laced Exchanges

The decline is nowhere more evident than in the normalization of profanity. What was once limited to private conversations or edgy entertainment now spills freely across digital platforms.

Social media comment threads, online forums, and even professional publications regularly feature language that, not long ago, would have been considered unacceptable in public life. This shift reflects a broader cultural preference for emotional expression over reasoned argument.

Substack and the Temptation of Provocation

Even Substack, often positioned as a refuge for serious, long-form writing, has not been immune.

When I first joined the platform, I was drawn by its promise of thoughtful essays outside the noise of traditional media. Yet I’ve noticed a sharp increase in profanity, personal insults, and derogatory comments—paired with a noticeable decline in reasoned discussion.

False claims, easily disproven with a quick fact-check, are repeated and restacked with little regard for accuracy. The subscription model, rewarding engagement over editorial oversight, can inadvertently encourage more inflammatory tones in order to hold readers’ attention.

The Meme Problem

Memes have only accelerated this decline. And here, I’ll admit my own complicity: I’ve created and shared memes to make ironic or satirical points. But over time, irony can blur into sarcasm, and satire into insult.

Memes thrive on simplification and emotional impact. Complex policies collapse into pithy slogans and mocking images. They’re shareable, entertaining, and easy—but rarely conducive to real understanding.

The result? Substantive debate gets replaced by fast, shallow exchanges of oversimplified (and often misleading) talking points.

From Essays to Punchlines

Essays once demanded careful argument: claims supported by evidence, acknowledgment of counterpoints, and respect for nuance. Memes demand only a laugh—or a groan.

Worse, their viral nature ensures that inflammatory or misleading content spreads faster than any correction ever could.

This isn’t just an aesthetic concern. When communication prioritizes winning over understanding, democracy suffers. Citizens grow less equipped to grapple with complex issues, and leaders find it easier to appeal to emotion rather than present workable solutions.

Can We Reverse the Trend?

The trajectory is worrisome—but not irreversible.

Platforms could design features that reward thoughtful engagement instead of amplifying outrage.
Educational institutions could recommit to teaching critical thinking and civil debate.
Individuals can model better behavior, remembering that persuasion usually requires respect.

Still, if I’m honest, I’m not optimistic. Too many incentives—from clicks to cash—push the culture of discourse in the opposite direction.

Final Thoughts

The health of our public discourse is the health of democracy itself. As writers, readers, and citizens, we carry responsibility for raising the standard.

Our words shape not only our immediate conversations but also the norms of civic life for generations to come. The choice is ours: continue down the path of hostility and simplification—or rebuild the habits of respect and reason.

I hope we choose the latter. But hope, at this moment, feels fragile.

The Electoral College: Should America Go Popular?

By John Turley

On September 1, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

Few topics in American politics generate as much perennial debate as the Electoral College. Every four years, calls to abolish it resurface—often with renewed vigor when the electoral vote winner loses the popular vote, as happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. The proposal is to elect the president by a nationwide popular vote, just as we do governors and senators.

Why We Have an Electoral College

The Electoral College was a late-stage compromise at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The framers were balancing multiple tensions:

Large vs. small states
Slave vs. free states
Congress choosing the president vs. direct election

Delegates feared that direct election by popular vote would favor populous states, allow urban centers to dominate rural areas, and encourage demagogues to campaign purely on popular passions. At the same time, they worried about giving Congress too much control over the executive branch.

The system for selecting the president—via the Electoral College—was partly designed to prevent direct popular influence. Its original intent, according to historians, was to empower electors (seen as more knowledgeable) and to ensure thoughtful deliberation in choosing the president, guarding against the masses being swayed by charm rather than substance.

Some delegates—like James Madison, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris—supported direct popular election of the president, while others, like Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, explicitly voiced distrust in direct election of the president and believed ordinary voters lacked impartiality or sufficient knowledge.

Institutional and political bargaining ultimately shaped the final structure. Their solution: each state gets electors equal to its total number of representatives and senators. The addition of two electors for the senators ensures that the small states remain, on a population basis, overrepresented in the Electoral College.

State legislatures determine how electors are chosen (eventually, every state moved to popular election). Most states now award all their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner—“winner-take-all.”

The Electoral College thus emerged not as anyone’s ideal system, but as a possible, workable compromise that balanced competing regional interests, philosophical concerns about democracy, and the practical realities of governing a large, diverse republic in the 18th century.

Pros of Eliminating the Electoral College

Equal Weight for Every Vote

The most compelling argument for eliminating the Electoral College centers on democratic equality. Under the current electoral system, a vote in Wyoming carries roughly three times the weight of a vote in California when measured by electoral votes per capita. To put this in real numbers Wyoming has about 193,000 people per electoral vote while California has about 718,000. This mathematical reality means that some Americans’ voices count more than others in selecting their president, a principle that seems to contradict the foundational democratic ideal of “one person, one vote.”

A national popular vote would ensure that every American’s vote carries identical weight, regardless of geography. This approach would eliminate scenarios where candidates win the presidency while losing the popular vote. Such outcomes can undermine public confidence in democratic institutions and raise questions about the legitimacy of electoral results.

Reflects the Will of the Majority

In two of the last six elections (2000 and 2016), the candidate with fewer total popular votes became president. While the framers accepted the possibility of divergence between the popular and electoral results, many modern Americans view such outcomes as undermining democratic legitimacy.

Encourages Nationwide Campaigning

Because many states are firmly “red” or “blue,” campaigns focus their energy on a handful of battleground states that could go either way—like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Under a popular vote, candidates would have an incentive to compete everywhere, because every additional vote counts the same regardless of location.

Simplifies the Process

The Electoral College system confuses many Americans and can seem archaic in the 21st century. A direct popular vote is straightforward and immediately understandable: the candidate who receives the most votes wins. This simplicity could increase public trust and participation in the democratic process.

Eliminates “Faithless Electors”

Although rare, faithless electors—those who cast electoral votes against their state’s popular choice—are possible under the current system. A direct election would remove this constitutional quirk.

Cons of Eliminating the Electoral College

Federalism Concerns

The United States is a union of states as well as a single nation. The Electoral College reinforces the role of states in presidential elections, reflecting their status as sovereign entities in certain respects. Abolishing it could be seen as eroding federalism by further centralizing power.

Risk of Regional Dominance

Opponents argue that without the Electoral College, candidates could focus disproportionately on high-population regions—California, Texas, Florida, New York—while ignoring rural states and smaller communities. Whether this would happen in practice is debated, but the perception of neglect could deepen regional divides.

Potential for Narrow-Margin Crises

In a popular vote system, a razor-thin margin would require a nationwide recount. Under the Electoral College, disputes are typically contained within a state (e.g., Florida in 2000). A national recount would be a logistical and political nightmare.

Constitutional Hurdles

Abolishing the Electoral College requires a constitutional amendment—an extraordinarily high bar. That means approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Smaller states, which benefit from the Electoral College’s vote weighting, have little incentive to approve such a change.

Intermediate Options

Since abolishing the Electoral College outright is politically unlikely in the near term, reform advocates have proposed middle-ground solutions.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, but it only takes effect once states totaling at least 270 electoral votes join. As of 2025, 17 states plus D.C. (totaling 209 electoral votes) have joined. This approach sidesteps a constitutional amendment but relies on states’ willingness to cede control over their electoral votes. The compact could be implemented without amending the constitution and achieves the functional equivalent of a popular vote. However, it has not been legally tested and would likely face court challenges. To me, the greatest drawback is that states could withdraw at any time. I would envision that in a closely contested and contentious election states unhappy with the national outcome would likely withdraw from the compact.

Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes

Instead of winner-take-all, states could allocate electoral votes proportionally to the share of the statewide vote. Maine and Nebraska already use a variation of this system, awarding some votes by congressional district. Theoretically, this would reduce the impact of battleground states and increase the representation for minority views within states. But it could also increase the likelihood of no candidate reaching 270 electoral votes thereby sending the election into the House of Representatives. It still preserves the over representation of smaller states because it retains the two electors for senators.

If electors are awarded proportionally based on statewide voting, the popular vote may not be distributed in a manner to allow awarding of whole delegates. There’s no constitutional provision for awarding partial electors. This would be especially significant in states with only one or two representatives in the house.

If electors were awarded to the winners of each Congressional District this would encourage even more gerrymandering than we are currently seeing. Extreme gerrymandering could undermine any progress towards reflecting the popular vote, simply continuing the current mismatch of popular and electoral votes.

Gerrymandering is a political practice that involves manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to benefit a particular party or group. It is nothing new in American politics, originating in the early 19th century. The term “gerrymandering” was coined after an 1812 incident in Massachusetts, where Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing district lines to favor his party. One of the districts resembled a mythical salamander in shape, inspiring the portmanteau “Gerry-mander” in a satirical cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale that helped popularize the term. It’s interesting, that since gerrymandering favored the Democratic-Republican Party and the newspaper that published the cartoon supported the Federalist Party, it was made to look not like a cute salamander but more like an ominous dragon.

Bonus Electoral Votes for National Popular Vote Winner

A hybrid idea would keep the Electoral College but award a fixed number of bonus electors (say, 100) to the national popular vote winner. This would almost guarantee alignment between the popular and electoral results without abandoning the current structure. This option maintains a state-based system and reduces the chance of a split result. But it would also require a constitutional amendment and add complexity that many voters may find confusing.

Feasibility of Change

Reforming or abolishing the Electoral College faces three main obstacles:

Constitutional Entrenchment – Article II and the 12th Amendment are clear about elector allocation. Full abolition would require one of the most difficult political feats in American governance—a constitutional amendment.
State Incentives – Smaller states and swing states have outsized influence under the current system. They are unlikely to support reforms that dilute their power.
Partisan Dynamics – Since recent Electoral College/popular vote splits have benefited Republicans, Democrats tend to favor reform, while Republicans tend to defend the status quo. That dynamic could shift if the pattern changes.

Conclusion

The Electoral College is both a relic of 18th-century compromises and a living feature of America’s federal structure. Its defenders argue that it protects smaller states, contains electoral disputes, and reinforces the states’ role in national governance. Its critics counter that it violates the principle of “one person, one vote” and distorts campaign priorities.

Abolishing it in favor of a direct popular vote would likely make presidential elections more democratic in the literal sense, but it would also raise questions about federalism, campaign strategy, and the handling of close results. The Electoral College preserves federalism and geographic balance but can produce outcomes that seem to contradict majority will.

Intermediate options like the NPVIC or proportional allocation may offer ways to mitigate the College’s most controversial effects without uprooting the constitutional framework but also face significant hurdles for implementation.

Whether reform happens will depend not just on the merits of the arguments, but on the political incentives of the states and the parties. Until those incentives shift, the Electoral College is likely to remain—imperfect, contentious, and uniquely American.

The Constitutional Foundations

By John Turley

On August 27, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

Who Controls Elections?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the president should have broad authority to change how elections are conducted—particularly when it comes to abolishing mail-in voting and voting machines. As recently as August 2025, Trump pledged to issue an executive order banning mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, insisting that states must comply with his directive because, in his words, “States act merely as ‘agents’ for the Federal Government when it comes to counting and tabulating votes.… They are required to follow what the Federal Government, represented by the President of the United States, instructs them to do, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY”.

But this isn’t the first time he has suggested that he could control the election process. In March 2025, Trump issued a major executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” that aims to expand presidential control over the election process. The order attempts to direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent, bipartisan agency — to mandate that voters show a passport or other similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form. The executive order has been the subject of extensive litigation, and several federal judges have issued injunctions against various portions of it.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic during his first term, President Trump publicly suggested delaying the election. Constitutional scholars and members of Congress quickly pointed out he lacked such authority—the date of federal elections is set by statute, and only Congress could change it.

The U.S. Constitution provides a clear framework for who holds the authority to control elections, and it is not the president.

Article I, Section 4: Congressional and State Authority

The main constitutional authority over U.S. elections is found in Article I, Section 4, commonly called the “Elections Clause.” It states:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”

This language charges state legislatures with defining the details of congressional elections, including logistics and procedures. Importantly, Congress retains the power to override state laws and impose federal rules—such as standardized Election Days or regulations for voter registration and districting.

What does this mean for the president? The Constitution is clear: the president has no direct authority to determine the conduct of congressional elections or to unilaterally change the way federal elections are held. Presidential influence over elections is limited to signing or vetoing congressional legislation, not acting alone.

Article II and the 12th Amendment: Presidential Elections

Presidential elections are regulated by Article II, which created the Electoral College, and by the 12th Amendment .

Article II, Section 1 provides:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”

States arrange how their presidential electors are selected, subject to changes imposed by congressional law. The federal government, through Congress (not the president!), determines the timing of choosing electors and casting electoral votes. The 12th Amendment sets procedures for how electors meet and vote for both president and vice president.

Again, neither Article II nor the 12th Amendment gives the president authority to independently set election rules. At most, the president can recommend reforms, sign laws crafted by Congress, and advocate for certain policies.

Historical Examples of Limits on Presidential Power Over Elections

Even during national crises, presidents have not been able to unilaterally change election rules:

1864 Election (Lincoln): Despite the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln did not postpone or suspend the presidential election. Elections were carried out in the states, including special arrangements for soldiers to vote.
1944 Election (Roosevelt): In the midst of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt stood for re-election. Again, no effort was made by the president to change election laws.

Presidential Powers: What Can the Executive Branch Do?

The president’s responsibilities in elections are more limited than you might expect and are essentially ministerial and ceremonial, not regulatory.

The executive power in Article II invests the president with broad national leadership, command of the military, and responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This can include enforcing voting rights laws and overseeing federal agencies that support election integrity. However, the Constitution and decades of legal precedent restrict the president from directly controlling election rules.

The president cannot by executive order change state rules for voting methods (e.g., mail-in voting, voting machines).
The president cannot unilaterally suspend or postpone federal elections.
The president cannot direct states to alter their voter registration, polling locations, or other administrative details.
The president has no role in certifying state results. That function belongs to state officials, with Congress responsible for counting electoral votes.
The president can direct federal agencies like the Department of Justice to enforce federal election laws, protect voting rights, and intervene in cases of fraud or intimidation. The president does not have the authority to direct federal agencies to act in a manner contrary to the law.

When presidents have sought to influence election administration more directly, courts and Congress have reaffirmed the constitutional boundaries. For example, efforts to change the date of an election or prohibit certain voting methods without congressional action have consistently failed in the courts.

Congressional Power: The Real Check on Election Rules

While state legislatures remain the primary manager of elections, Congress retains the final word. The Supreme Court has confirmed that congressional law “preempts” conflicting state rules in matters of federal elections. When Congress acts—through laws like the Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act—states must comply, and the president’s role is simply to sign or veto those laws.

Congress has used its power over the years to:

Set a uniform national Election Day.
Establish protections for disabled voters and overseas citizens.
Mandate requirements around voter registration and accessibility.
Regulate campaign finance and transparency.

Checks, Balances, and Modern Tensions

Recent political debates have seen calls for presidents to take stronger action on election oversight, especially regarding the use of mail-in ballots or voting machines. However, these calls run up against clear constitutional limits: the president cannot rewrite the rules of elections without Congress or state legislatures.

Any presidential attempt to do so by executive order would face swift legal challenges and almost certainly be invalidated. The intent of the Framers was to divide election power between the states and Congress, with the president largely excluded from direct rule-making authority. This balance—central to federalism—protects elections from potential abuses of executive power and ensures that reforms require broad democratic consensus. While presidents can champion reforms and enforce federal laws supporting fair elections, they are constitutionally forbidden from unilaterally changing election rules.

Conclusion

The framework isn’t perfect—it can create confusion when state and federal authorities clash. But the basic principle remains: states run elections. Congress can regulate them within constitutional bounds, and presidents enforce the resulting laws.

For citizens, lawmakers, and presidents alike, respect for these boundaries secures the foundation of American democracy. The right to vote—and the integrity of how that vote is counted—is protected not by any single leader, but by enduring constitutional principles and the shared power of states and Congress.

Is Fairness a Moral Principle or Just a Feeling?

By John Turley

On August 25, 2025

In Commentary

We live in a culture obsessed with “fairness.” If something doesn’t go our way, we brand it “unfair.” If it does, we call it “fair.” But fairness is inherently subjective: what’s fair to you may feel wildly unfair to me.

When Fairness First Mattered

I first noticed this in my kids. Whenever I told them “No,” they’d cry, “That’s not fair!”— but could only shrug when I asked why. Most of us can’t define fairness any better than a six-year-old: it’s simply a catch-all for “I don’t like this.”

Lately, “unfair” has become a socially acceptable way to say “I disagree.” It even carries moral weight—as if fairness were an absolute like good or evil. But these concepts aren’t easy to pin down.

Is it fair that some people are born with musical talent, while others struggle to clap on beat? Is it fair that some are naturally athletic, while others can’t run a mile without seeing stars? (If it were up to me, I’d call it unfair, since I have neither musical nor athletic ability.)

The Real Inequities

Life is rife with natural inequalities. Those born with an advantage deem it “fair” they benefit; those born without cry “unfair” and demand special considerations. And while I sympathize, everyone roots for the underdog, handouts aren’t the same as opportunity.

The Grumpy Doc’s Take

Here’s what I tell my kids (and myself): There is no absolute fairness. You can’t craft a definition that pleases everyone. Things simply are the way they are:

Don’t like it? Roll up your sleeves and change it.
Like it? Work to preserve it.

To me, fairness is best understood as this: Everyone should have an equal opportunity to work for what they want. That doesn’t mean we all start in the same place. It does mean we should try to ensure that those who’ve been historically disadvantaged get an even chance—one that accounts for past inequities. And to those who insist you’ve never enjoyed special treatment: what’s your golf handicap?

Embrace the Inequalities

Do I know how to guarantee equal opportunity? No. Others who are far smarter than me will have to figure that out. Am I upset that they’re smarter than me? Not at all. If I were the smartest person around, we’d all be in trouble.

In the end, fairness isn’t a universal yardstick. It’s an invitation to participate: to work, compete, and strive. Because if life were perfectly fair, we’d never need to improve it.

Citizens United: A Supreme Court Decision That Reshaped American Politics

By John Turley

On August 20, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential and controversial rulings in modern political history: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5–4 decision dramatically altered the legal landscape of campaign finance, opening the door for unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and certain nonprofit organizations, potentially giving them disproportionate influence in election campaigning.

Hailed by some as a victory for free expression and condemned by others as unleashing a torrent of special interest cash into politics, Citizens United has continued to define the shape of campaign financing for the past 15 years.

The Origins of the Case

The lawsuit began with a film. In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization led by David Bossie, produced “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute documentary highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air the film on cable television through video-on-demand services within 30 days of the Democratic primary elections and planned to run promotional advertisements.

However, federal campaign finance law under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” within specific timeframes before elections.

Fearing civil and criminal penalties, Citizens United sought a court declaration that their film and promotional materials were exempt from these restrictions.

The organization argued that because the documentary didn’t explicitly tell viewers how to vote, it shouldn’t be classified as campaign advocacy subject to corporate spending limits. A federal district court disagreed, ruling unanimously that the film could only be interpreted as telling viewers that Clinton was “unfit for office” and encouraging them to vote against her.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

Citizens United appealed, and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed to hear the case, raising questions not just about this particular film, but about the broader constitutionality of limiting corporate and union election expenditures.

In their decision, the justices went far beyond the narrow question in the original case. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito, the Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The majority opinion overturned two significant precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). Justice Kennedy wrote that political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, warned that the decision represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government.”

The ruling did not lift limits on direct contributions to candidates; those caps remain in place. But it cleared the way for unlimited spending on independent political advocacy, so long as it is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

The majority decision made two key assumptions: that independent political spending wouldn’t lead to corruption because it would be transparent, and that it would remain truly separate from candidate campaigns. Both assumptions have proven incorrect in practice.

Transforming the Political Landscape

The decision’s impact has been dramatic and far-reaching. Outside spending in federal elections skyrocketed from $730 million at the time of the ruling to $4.5 billion in 2024. The ruling enabled the creation of “super PACs”—political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as they maintain nominal (sometimes fictional) independence from campaigns.

Each election cycle since 2010 has seen a new record in campaign spending, much of it “outside money”—funds raised and spent by organizations not directly affiliated with candidates or parties. The influence of wealthy donors has only grown, with some estimates suggesting that the vast majority of outside election funding comes from a small handful of deep-pocketed interests.

Perhaps more concerning to democracy advocates is the rise of “dark money” — political spending where the funding source remains secret. Dark money expenditures increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in the 2024 presidential election alone.

The 2024 election exemplified Citizens United‘s influence. Billionaire-backed super PACs helped close substantial fundraising gaps, with groups like those funded by Elon Musk taking on core campaign functions including voter outreach operations, while supposedly remaining independent. This concentration of political influence among ultra-wealthy donors represents a fusion of private wealth and political power unseen since the late 19th century.

Current Political Implications

Today, Citizens United remains deeply unpopular with the American public. A Washington Post – ABC News poll found that 80% of Americans opposed the Citizens United ruling, Including 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of independents.

The ruling has created what some campaign finance experts call a “corruption bomb” effect, where wealthy individuals can effectively buy political influence through seemingly independent expenditures. Recent legislative efforts, including the proposed Abolish Super PACs Act introduced in Congress, aim to restore some limits on political spending, though prospects for passage remain unlikely.

The Citizens United decision continues to shape American politics in 2025. Campaigns increasingly rely on outside groups to fund negative advertising, which can deepen political polarization. With no upper limit on independent expenditures, candidates may feel beholden to the interests of big-money backers who can tip the scales in tight races.

Supporters of the ruling argue that it promotes free speech, enabling more voices to be heard in the political arena. They contend that limiting corporate or union spending would amount to government censorship. Opponents counter that equating money with speech effectively drowns out the voices of ordinary voters who cannot match the spending power of corporations or billionaires.

Some reform advocates are pursuing constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United, though such efforts face steep political and procedural hurdles. Others push for enhanced disclosure laws to ensure voters know who is funding political messages.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, Citizens United‘s legacy continues to define the relationship between money and political power. It raises fundamental questions about whether democratic governance can function effectively when political speech is increasingly dominated by the ultra-wealthy. Should the First Amendment protect unlimited political spending by corporations and unions, or does such spending distort democracy by giving disproportionate influence to the wealthiest? The Court’s ruling in Citizens United has transformed the way American elections are fought and the consequences of that decision are still unfolding.

The U.S. Public Health Service: Guardians of America’s Health

By John Turley

On July 3, 2025

In Commentary, History, Medicine

The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) has quietly served as the backbone of the nation’s public health infrastructure for over two centuries. From its beginnings as a maritime medical service to its current role as a comprehensive public health organization, the USPHS has evolved to meet the changing medical challenges facing Americans and to protect and promote the health of the nation.

Origins and Early History

The U.S. Public Health Service traces back to 1798, when President John Adams signed “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” This legislation established the Marine Hospital Service and created a network of hospitals to care for the merchant sailors who served America’s growing maritime commerce. The act represented one of the first examples of federally mandated health insurance, as ship owners were required to pay 20 cents per month per sailor to fund medical care.

The Marine Hospital Service initially operated a series of hospitals in major port cities including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. These facilities served not only sick and injured sailors but also played a crucial role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases that could arrive on ships from foreign ports. This dual function of treatment and prevention would become a defining characteristic of the USPHS mission.

The transformation from the Marine Hospital Service to the modern Public Health Service began in the late 19th century. In 1889, the organization was restructured and placed under the supervision of Dr. John Maynard Woodworth as Supervising Surgeon—later Surgeon General—marking the beginning of its evolution into a more comprehensive public health agency. The name was officially changed to the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service in 1902, and finally to the U.S. Public Health Service in 1912, reflecting its expanded mandate beyond maritime health.

Evolution and Expansion

The early 20th century brought significant expansion to the USPHS mission. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act gave the service regulatory responsibilities, leading to the creation of what would eventually become the Food and Drug Administration. During World War I, the USPHS took on additional responsibilities for military health and epidemic control, establishing its role as a rapid response organization for national health emergencies.

The Great Depression and World War II further expanded the service’s scope. The Social Security Act of 1935 created new public health programs administered by the USPHS, while wartime demands led to increased focus on occupational health, environmental health hazards, and the health needs of defense workers. The post-war period saw the establishment of the National Institutes of Health—originally called the Laboratory of Hygiene—as part of the USPHS, cementing its role in medical research.

Major Functions and Modern Roles

Today’s U.S. Public Health Service operates as part of the Department of Health and Human Services and supports major agencies and functions. The service’s mission centers on protecting, promoting, and advancing the health and safety of the American people through several key areas.

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion are the core of USPHS activities. It works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to lead national efforts in the prevention and control of infectious and chronic diseases. From tracking disease outbreaks to promoting vaccination programs, the USPHS a part of America’s first line of defense against health threats.

Regulatory and Safety Functions represent other crucial areas. The USPHS coordinates with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and efficacy of medications, medical devices, and food products. It works with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry monitoring environmental health hazards. Other USPHS components are involved in regulating everything from clinical laboratories to health insurance portability.

Emergency Response and Preparedness has become increasingly important in recent decades. The USPHS maintains rapid response capabilities for natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and public health emergencies. This includes the deployment of Commissioned Corps officers to disaster zones and the maintenance of strategic national stockpiles of medical supplies.

Health Services for Underserved Populations continues the service’s historic mission of providing care where it’s most needed. The Health Resources and Services Administration oversees community health centers, rural health programs, and initiatives to address health disparities among vulnerable populations. The Indian Health Service is an important part of the USPHS, providing healthcare to often isolated communities.

The Commissioned Corps

One of the most distinctive features of the USPHS is its Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of over 6,000 public health professionals. Established in 1889, the Corps operates as one of the eight uniformed services of the United States, alongside the armed forces, NOAA Corps, and Coast Guard. Officers hold military-style ranks and wear uniforms, but their mission focuses entirely on public health rather than defense.

The Commissioned Corps provides a ready reserve of highly trained health professionals who can be rapidly deployed to address public health emergencies. From hurricane and disaster relief to pandemic assessment and treatment, Corps officers have served on the front lines of America’s health challenges, providing everything from direct patient care to epidemiological investigation and public health program management.

Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions

The U.S. Public Health Service continues to evolve in response to emerging health challenges. Climate change, antimicrobial resistance, mental health crises, and health equity concerns represent current priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated both the critical importance of robust public health infrastructure and the challenges of maintaining public trust in health authorities.

As America faces an increasingly complex health landscape, the USPHS mission of protecting and promoting the nation’s health remains as relevant as ever. From its origins serving sailors in port cities to its current role addressing global health threats, the U.S. Public Health Service continues its quiet but essential work of safeguarding American health, adapting its methods while maintaining its core commitment to serving the public good.

The service’s history shows that effective public health requires not just scientific expertise, but also the institutional ability to respond rapidly to emerging threats, the authority to implement necessary interventions, and the public trust to lead national health initiatives. As new challenges appear, the USPHS continues to build on its more than two-century legacy of service to the American people.

One Big Disgusting Bill

By John Turley

On July 2, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

An Existential threat to American Democracy

Now that the Senate has shamefully capitulated to Trump and passed the One Big Disgusting Bill, we’re starting to see another flurry of articles appropriately denouncing it. Unfortunately these articles continue to focus on taxes, Medicaid and SNAP. They largely ignore the most insidious aspect of this bill—its assault on judicial review.

I’ve discussed this bill in a recent post and won’t go in to detail here. This bill represents a flagrant attempt to bypass judicial review and undermine the separation of powers. Given that Congress has willingly abrogated all responsibilities and allowed Trump to rule single handedly, the courts remain our only recourse. But since the bought and paid for Supreme Court also seems to be giving away their authority, I’m not sure whether we have any hope left.

The only course is to remove all Republicans from office and impeach Trump. It also may be necessary to impeach members of the Supreme Court, particularly those who blatantly accept bribes.

Congress has essentially given Donald Trump a fast pass to dictatorship. I think this represents the American version of the Enabling Act of 1933 where the German Parliament gave Hitler absolute authority to rule without question.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I fear for our Republic.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison, Federalist No. 47 , 1788

The Origin of Juneteenth: America’s Second Independence Day

By John Turley

On June 16, 2025

In Commentary, History, Politics

The Juneteenth flag is red, white, and blue to reflect the American flag and includes a bursting star to symbolize freedom.

On June 19, 1865, an event that would forever change American history unfolded in Galveston, Texas. Union Major General Gordon Granger stood before a crowd and read General Order No. 3, announcing that “all slaves are free.” This proclamation marked the beginning of what we now celebrate as Juneteenth, America’s newest federal holiday and a day that celebrates the fulfillment of emancipation for all enslaved people in the United States.

Delayed Freedom

The story of Juneteenth begins with a troubling gap between law and reality. President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring freedom for enslaved people in states “…in rebellion against the United States”. However, enforcement depended on the advance of Union troops and In the Confederate state of Texas—remote and beyond Union control—the proclamation went unenforced for more than two years. Many slaveholders deliberately withheld information about emancipation, and the absence of Union forces meant that freedom remained out of reach for thousands.

Even after the Civil War effectively ended in April 1865 with Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, news of emancipation remained deliberately suppressed in Texas. Some enslavers continued to hold people in bondage through the spring planting season. It wasn’t until federal troops arrived in Galveston in sufficient force to ensure compliance that the promise of emancipation became reality for the last enslaved Americans.

Birth of a Celebration

The newly freed Texans didn’t wait for official recognition to begin celebrating their liberation. They called it Juneteenth, a combination of June and nineteenth and celebrations erupted spontaneously across Texas as communities gathered to commemorate their freedom with prayer, music, food, and fellowship. These early celebrations were deeply rooted in African American culture, featuring traditional foods and drinks, spirituals and folk songs, and the retelling of the freedom story to younger generations.

As African Americans moved from Texas to other parts of the country during the Great Migration, they carried Juneteenth traditions with them. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Juneteenth celebrations grew, often featuring parades, music, food, and family gatherings. The holiday’s popularity waned during the mid-20th century but experienced a resurgence during the Civil Rights Movement, as activists sought to reconnect with their heritage and the ongoing struggle for equality.

From Regional Tradition to National Recognition

For over a century, Juneteenth was primarily a regional and cultural celebration rather than an official holiday. Texas became the first state to make Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, other states followed gradually. The movement gained momentum in the 21st century as Americans increasingly recognized the need to acknowledge the full history of emancipation.

The nationwide racial justice protests of 2020 brought renewed attention to Juneteenth’s significance. On June 17, 2021, President Joe Biden signed legislation making Juneteenth a federal holiday, acknowledging it as both a celebration of freedom and a reminder of America’s ongoing journey toward equality.

A Day of Reflection and Celebration

Today, Juneteenth serves multiple purposes in American life. It’s a day of celebration, honoring the resilience and culture of African Americans. It’s also a day of education, reminding all Americans about the complexities of emancipation and the ongoing struggle for civil rights. Most importantly, it stands for hope—proof that progress, however delayed, is possible when people demand justice and equality. It honors the struggles and achievements of African Americans, reminding us of the enduring importance of freedom, perseverance, and hope in the face of adversity. As communities gather each year to celebrate Juneteenth, they continue the tradition of remembering the past while striving for a more inclusive and equitable future

Juneteenth stands as a testament to the truth that freedom delayed need not be freedom denied.

Juneteenth is not an official state holiday in West Virginia. In prior years, former governor Jim Justice issued a proclamation declaring Juneteenth a paid holiday for state employees. The current governor has made no such proclamation. Those who are planning the Juneteenth celebration in West Virginia have scheduled a Juneteenth parade for June 20th, West Virginia Day, which is an official state holiday.

Anti-Vax or Disease Supporter

By John Turley

On June 12, 2025

In Commentary, Medicine, Politics

Between June 9 and 11, 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—a body that has guided U.S. vaccine policy for about 60 years. He followed this by appointing eight new members, the minimum under the charter, including several known vaccine deniers.

In light of this, I have decided to repost an article I wrote over a year ago. (With new artwork.)

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

– Søren Kierkegaard

Saturday morning, I was reading in the newspaper about the resurgence of measles in West Virginia. I find it appalling that this disease should be returning, given that we have safe and effective vaccinations. What is next, polio, smallpox, or even plague? It is only through the unexpected veto by our [former] governor that the ill-advised bill passed by our legislature to make all vaccinations optional with a little more than a request by the parents, did not become law. [The current governor has issued an executive rendering vaccinations virtually optional for school children.]

Some people may wonder why vaccinations are important. There are two principal reasons to ensure that a large portion of the population is vaccinated against communicable diseases. The first is that it reduces the individual vulnerability to disease. The person who is vaccinated is protected. But there is also a second, sometimes not well-understood, reason. That is herd immunity.

Communicable diseases require a large susceptible population to spread. When a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated the disease does not have the core of potential victims to allow spreading. This means that the vaccinated are protecting the non-vaccinated. However, it does require a large portion of the population to be vaccinated. The idea is that herd immunity will protect those who are unable to be vaccinated either due to age, allergies, or other medical conditions that would prohibit vaccination. It is never going to protect a large proportion of the population who just choose not to be vaccinated. For example, about 90-95% of the population needs to be vaccinated against measles to provide herd immunity.

So why do people who otherwise can be vaccinated choose not to be?

There are, of course, those who have true religious objections to vaccination. There are others who object to vaccination on the basis of personal autonomy. They believe their right to refuse vaccination outweighs any consideration of the health concerns of the frail members of our community.

There are many who mistrust the medical system. There were some cases in the past where unethical studies were conducted on unsuspecting populations. Given the rigorous oversight of medical research now, this no longer happens. Information about research into vaccinations and their safety and efficacy can be found on websites for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization among others. (Website references are provided at the end of this post.)

What concerns me most are those who refuse to believe reputable medical authorities, government agencies, and mainline news services. They prefer to get their information from anonymous websites or from conspiracy theory websites that still give credence to the now-discredited 1999 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism. They completely ignore the fact that 10 of the 11 reported co-authors disavowed any part in the conclusions of the study. They also ignore the fact that the principal author was found guilty of fraud for personal gain as he was employed by the manufacturer of rival drugs. They also ignore the fact that he lost his medical license over his falsifications in this study. Yet, he is still cited in anti-vaccine literature as an expert source.

Equally disturbing is the fact that vaccine resistance has become a part of political identification. Certain reactionary political groups have, for some unfathomable reason, decided that refusing vaccination is a badge of their political allegiance. They seem to care more about maintaining their political purity than they care about science, public health, or even the welfare of their family and friends. Politicizing public health is dangerous for all of us. I’m not sure how we overcome this. It is easy to find the truth and verify it through fact-based studies, yet people refuse to do it. [See my post Choosing Not To Know.]

I encourage everyone to work hard to ensure that our political leaders do not remove vaccination mandates for school children. For those of us of my age, we already have immunity through vaccination or prior exposure to the disease. It is our grandchildren and their children and their children’s children who will suffer through the return of these deadly diseases.

Rather than “vaccine deniers,” they should be referred to as “disease supporters.”

SOURCES:

World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_1

CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html

WV DHHR: https://oeps.wv.gov/immunizations/Pages/default.aspx

Immunise.org: https://www.vaccineinformation.org/

Silencing the Gavel: How the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Will Undermine Judicial Review

By John Turley

On June 8, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

In late May 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a massive legislative package called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Touted by President Donald Trump and Republican leaders as a sweeping reform of tax policy, federal spending, and government regulation, the bill is now at the center of heated debate—not just over its fiscal and policy impacts, but also over its implications for the balance of power among the branches of government.

What the Bill Does—and Doesn’t Do

The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a reconciliation bill, meaning it can bypass the Senate’s usual 60-vote threshold and be passed with a simple majority. This process is designed to fast-track budgetary and tax legislation, but it also means the bill can only address certain policy areas directly related to the federal budget. At its core, the bill delivers major tax cuts, extends the Trump-era tax reductions, and makes permanent changes, principally reductions, to mandatory spending programs. It also includes provisions on agriculture, immigration, Medicaid, and technology, among other areas. The bill is viewed by critics as favoring the wealthy to the detriment of the poor.

Despite claims on social media, the bill does not give the president the power to delay or cancel elections. Multiple fact-checkers and legal experts have confirmed that such authority would violate the Constitution, which assigns election timing to Congress and state legislatures. The bill’s focus is on fiscal and regulatory reforms, not election administration.

While the bill ostensibly comes from Congress, it actually weakens Congress’s own institutional role in the separation of powers by removing one of the key mechanisms used by the judicial branch to enforce constitutional limits on executive power. If passed, this will be an unmitigated disaster for the Constitution and the country.

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin called it an unprecedented power grab: “Instead of providing support for the judicial branch, this Judiciary Committee bill seeks to strip the courts of their power to hold the administration in contempt when the President violates court orders”.

The Hidden Provision: Section 70302

Buried within the bill’s 1,000-plus pages is a provision—Section 70302—that has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars, civil rights groups, and even some lawmakers. The bill is not available for public examination, but it has been reported by the international news service Reuters that this section states that no federal court may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order unless the plaintiff posted a security bond when the order was issued.

Surety bonds are intended to protect the defendant in civil suits from incurring financial loss associated with legal expenses occurring from defending against frivolous or wrongful lawsuits. If the ruling is in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff must surrender the bond to cover the expenses of the defendant. For example, if I sue you for slander, I may have to post a cash bond and if the judge rules against me, the bond will be forfeited to cover your legal fees. If I win, the bond will be returned to me.

Historically, courts have often waived the bond requirement, especially when plaintiffs challenge government actions as unconstitutional. The rationale is that requiring a bond would make it prohibitively expensive for individuals or groups to seek judicial relief against unlawful government conduct. Section 70302 would change this, making it much harder for courts to enforce their rulings against the executive branch or other government actors unless the plaintiff can afford to post a bond. If this passes, it is conceivable that the administration may attempt to impose bonds of $1 million or more—effectively eliminating the ability of citizens to challenge government actions.

Why is It Important?

The federal judiciary is one of the three pillars of our constitutional government, and it plays a vital role in the balance of powers. It serves as an independent check on the executive and legislative branches, interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and safeguarding constitutional rights. Since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the judiciary has claimed the authority to strike down laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. This power of judicial review is foundational to the principle of checks and balances. The proposed legislation seeks to shift that balance. Among its most concerning provisions are efforts to limit judicial oversight of executive actions.

How This Shifts Power to the Executive

The practical effect of Section 70302 is to limit the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive branch accountable for violating court orders. If a judge issues an injunction to stop an unconstitutional or illegal government action, but no bond was posted when the injunction was granted, the court would be barred from using its contempt power to enforce compliance.

This provision applies retroactively, meaning it would render thousands of existing court orders unenforceable overnight. Critics argue that this creates a “catch me if you can” system, where the government can violate constitutional rights faster than courts can stop them. Legal experts warn that this undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers, which depend on the ability of courts to check executive overreach.

While the bill does not explicitly allow the executive branch to completely bypass legal challenges, it makes it much harder for courts to compel the executive to comply with their rulings. This functionally increases the executive’s authority to resist or delay judicial oversight.

Current Status of the Bill

As of early June 2025, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” has passed the House by a razor-thin margin (215-214) and is now before the Senate where Majority Leader John Thune has expressed hope that the bill could reach President Trump’s desk by the July 4 holiday, but the path forward is far from certain.

The Senate is expected to make significant modifications to the House version, and some provisions—including Section 70302—could be stripped out or revised. The reconciliation process limits what can be included in the final bill, and the Senate Parliamentarian may rule that certain provisions are not eligible for inclusion.

Why This Matters

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is not just about taxes and spending. It represents a bold attempt to reshape the relationship between the executive and judicial branches. By limiting courts’ ability to enforce their rulings, the bill tilts the balance of power toward the executive, making it easier for the president and his administration to ignore or delay compliance with court orders.

Critics argue that this threatens the rule of law and the constitutional system of checks and balances. Supporters, however, see it as a way to prevent frivolous lawsuits and give the executive more flexibility to implement its agenda and to move closer to the unitary executive theory.

Looking Ahead

As the Senate debates the bill, watch for the fate of Section 70302. The outcome will have lasting implications for the balance of power in Washington and for the ability of courts to hold the government accountable.

For now, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” remains a work in progress. Its final form—and its impact on American governance—will depend on the compromises and changes made in the Senate over the coming weeks.