this is not a drill, folks

Illiteracy is overwhelming us

Justice David Souter passed away last week, a public servant of a world seemingly lost. Appointed to the Supreme Court by the elder George Bush thirty-five years ago, Souter was a nationally unknown Republican who had only briefly served as a federal appellate judge before his nomination to the Court. He spent most of his professional life as a participants in the New Hampshire state legal system. Souter, once upon the Court, infuriated many Republicans by frequently voting with the Supreme Court’s liberals rather than as a predictably conservative voice to overturn many cases conservatives found vile. Souter retired at the relatively unheard age of 69 in 2009.

He will be remembered for a number of things but today David Souter’s stark warning, years before anyone heard of MAGA or the attempts to ignore the Constitution, resonates with my deeply-held concerns about civic illiteracy. Souter opined in 2012 that a public not knowing the contents of the Constitution, including the checks and balances within an exquisite system of shared power, might open the door to tyranny under a strongman. The appearance on public television where he issued these impassioned words certainly mentioned no one by name but resurfaced yesterday as a rare example of public passion.

That reminder in yesterday’s New York Times coincided with Chief Justice John Roberts observing that the rule of law appears endangered in the United States. He is also obliquely referring to threats against the physical safety of jurists, damning America’s civil and political cultures. The drumbeat of people arguing the Courts cannot stop any president offers a breathtaking return to precisely the monarchical mode we sought to escape two hundred fifty years ago. Homeland Security Secretary Noem’s assertion today that “due process” does not “guarantee a hearing” borders on nonsense. What due process, then, are they entitled to receive?

People are making statements that anyone with civic knowledge would shoot down in a heartbeat but the statements are so common as to wash over us all as a spring breeze. That breeze can herald a hurricane, however, rather than a gentle wind.

Do people understand what it would mean, as suggested last week, if the administration suspended habeas corpus? It would mean empowering the government to act without producing evidence of wrongdoing at all. Lincoln did it during the Civil War but we haven’t done it over policy disagreements. The official appeared to imply this suspension relating to immigration cases where the courts continue to block deportations inconsistent with the law but could it slide into a threat against someone who simply differs from an administration official on anything? It’s a slippery slope.

Breaking the law is bad but the burden of proof is on the government to prove the crime. We are talking about inverting the system to favor government without responsibility for proof of its charges,

The government may, of course, be correct but evidence of that is vital for credibility and trust. Criminals ought go to jail if the government convinces their peers of their guilt, not merely because of accusations, according to our Constitution.the Executive and the Judicial branches each play a pivotal role in this equation.

It’s hard to overstate how the sacrosanct balance within our Constitution affect any of us on a given day. Undermining that balance is more than a partisan exercise because it reflects a faltering, vulnerable system, much less hinting at more dire intentions.

This matters a great deal, whether anyone agrees with or despises any specific policy. We are all subject to rule of law under an intricate and time-tested Constitutional system which apportions responsibilities to and limits on the branches of government—and the people occupying seats within those branches on any given day.

We didn’t seek independence because we didn’t like Britain but because most colonists wanted to live in a participatory political system where their voices mattered for their own future. We as a people reject concentrations of power for personal aggrandizement to the exclusion of the general public.

Recent verbal attacks on judges are unheard of in this country. Their jobs, like those of public services in any office, exist for all of us because of the Constitution, the venerated document we embraced in 1787 after our representatives collectively negotiated its content. Judges issue decisions on specific policy questions based on whether actors are adhering to that document, not for any other reason; they are not partisans. Judges take the same oath as all other public servants from the White House, the Supreme Court or the Congress on down: that oath promises to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Judges are not seizing power: the Constitution requires and empowers them to offer interpretations. This is hardly new nor is it seizing political power; it’s their responsibility. The Constitution confirms that under its seven Articles.

When one of the branches of government ignores another branch, we run the risk of over-concentration of power in the hands of one branch. That is again not a partisan statement but a reality in our political system.

Too few people seem to read the Constitution to understand this. Both Souter and Roberts, both appointed by Republican presidents, are reminding us that ignoring the words and concepts of the Constitution is dangerous for our system and for us as individuals.

This is relevant for all of us because of implications for every aspect of our lives. Accusing judges of seizing power or having a partisan ambition in issuing decisions is fundamentally wrong. Ours is a slow, delicate system that moves these cases through the various levels of the judicial branch by design.

Do judges have personal views? Of course but we are wrong to assume that they are any less able to put their personal preferences aside as professionals. Or are we saying that we don’t trust the appointment system by both parties that put these people into office?

Fundamental tension between the Constitution and belittling judges (including potentially the Supreme Court) resulted from Supreme Court 2024 decision, under John Roberts, supporting the Chief Executive’s immunity for his (for her) official actions. Roberts’ concerns now appear aimed to tamp down behaviors many believe that decision empowered. One has to wonder whether Roberts now regrets the Court’s split ruling which so many rued at the time.

Justice Souter raised his concern about civil illiteracy almost a generation ago, indicating how long we have seen the danger develop. He foresaw too many citizens unable to recognize a figure determined to adopt an authoritarian path.

Roberts’ concerns yesterday confirm we as a society have only strayed further from grasping how our legal system allocates power. We have officials claiming that they alone how right to interpret the law en lieu of the branch for whom the Constitution assigns that role. A considerable portion of the public may feel bewildered because, after all, we don’t generally empower administrations so cavalier about revising how our branches of government operate.

Yet this is where we are today, according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a number of those judges empowered to interpret what the Constitution says about how the branches operate.

Ben Franklin, a wise observer of his neighbors, supposedly said following the creation our Constitutional system, “It’s a Republic if you can keep it”. Tragically, he identified the problem we are in, as Souter warned 13 years ago and Roberts alluded to this week.

So, how do we keep it? I offer a couple of basics any of us can do to begin reversing these trends. We need start immediately, understanding the erosion of our norms towards the current conditions has been sustained, thus will take persistence to reverse.

If we do nothing, however, things are guaranteed to continue deteriorating.

Advocate your family, your neighbors, your elected officials at all levels, and everyone else read the Constitution! Be open to conversation about that document. One does not have to be a Constitutional barrister to understand the words as it’s actually a remarkably accessible set of societal guidelines.

Pay attention to your elected officials’ votes. Do you agree with them or reject them? Votes are (still) transparent to us as constituents so pay attention. Don’t vote for a candidate, no matter who, if you don’t like what your representative is doing; stop assuming someone else will fix what you don’t like. You have a role in a dynamic relationship between the represented and the representing.

Call your representatives to alert them to your concerns. Not merely every two, four, or six years in the ballot box but by phone when you hear the official voice the intention of going against your preferences. They listen to enough of a groundswell on a vote, whether pro or con. You won’t win 100% of the time but you can make a difference.

You can register your views in other ways such as freedom of assembly to hear your representatives who hold town halls. Participation is something we seem to have outsourced to someone else, which I think is as bad as illiteracy.

I do not, repeat, do not advocate violence but encourage active engagement in a non-violent manner, regardless your views.

Illiteracy occurs by inaction, in attention, and lies. That’s our job, people. Don’t blame the media in any form but become involved.

I welcome your thoughts on this or any other column. Please feel free to circulate this if you find it valuable. I thank those who support my work financially through subscriptions so please consider $55 for an annual commitment or $8 monthly. I appreciate support, which includes expanding readership and engagement.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Ali Bianca, “Democrats grill Noem on Abrego Garcia and two deported U.S. children”, Politico.com, 14 May 2025, retrieved at https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/14/kristi-noem-deportation-abrego-garcia-00349649

Eduardo Cuevas and Josh Meyer, “Trump administration floats suspending habeas corpus. What’s that”? USAToday, 10 May 2025, retrieved at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/10/trump-stephen-miller-habeas-corpus-constitution/83554334007/?taid=681fdf24b2ef730001b9370b

“Former Supreme Court Justice Souter on the danger of America’s ‘pervasive civic ignorance”, YouTube.org, 17 September 2012.

Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman, “Key Facts from the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and how it affects presidential power”, PBS.org, 1 July 2024, retrieved at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/key-facts-from-the-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling-and-how-it-affects-presidential-power

Chris Perez, “‘No understanding of what the role of courts are’: Chief Justice Roberts says rule of law ‘endangered’ as he warns against ‘trashing the justices’ and savages ‘young people’ for ‘having no real sense’”, Law&Crime.com, 13 May 2025, retrieved at https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/no-understanding-of-what-the-role-of-courts-are-chief-justice-roberts-says-rule-of-law-is-endangered-as-he-warns-against-trashing-the-justices-and-savages-young-people-for-having-no/