If you prefer to listen, click here for the spoken edition. If you prefer to read, the dispatch continues below.
Congress still possesses every constitutional power necessary to restrain an ambitious president. The more pressing question is whether it still remembers that one of its constitutional duties is to do so.
For most of American history, presidents expected Congress to resist them.
They did not always welcome that resistance. They complained about it, campaigned against it, negotiated around it, and occasionally attempted to intimidate it. Yet they understood that resistance was part of the constitutional landscape. The Framers did not intend Congress to make a president's job easier. They intended it to make the exercise of power more difficult.
Somewhere along the way, that expectation changed.
Increasingly, the question ceased to be whether Congress would challenge a president of its own party. Today, the more pressing question is whether Congress still remembers that one of its constitutional duties is to challenge a president when the Constitution requires it.
The framers had little interest in efficient government. Having just fought a revolution against concentrated executive authority, they deliberately constructed a system that would frustrate ambition. Legislative deliberation was intended to be slow. Debate was expected to be contentious. Delay was not considered a defect but a safeguard. James Madison famously observed that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The American constitutional system depended upon each branch defending its own constitutional prerogatives.
Congress was therefore expected to say no—not reflexively, but whenever the public interest demanded it.
That expectation was never rooted in partisanship. It was rooted in institutional identity.
Members of Congress were not elected merely to support or oppose a president. They were elected to represent their constituents, exercise independent judgment, and protect the constitutional role of the legislative branch. Their loyalty was owed first to the office they held and the Constitution they swore to uphold, not to the occupant of the White House.
For much of American history, that distinction remained plainly visible.
Presidents from both parties encountered congressional resistance from members of their own party. Franklin Roosevelt fought conservative Democrats. Ronald Reagan frequently negotiated with skeptical Republicans. Even presidents enjoying broad public support understood that congressional approval was something to be earned rather than assumed.
Disagreement was not viewed as betrayal.
It was viewed as governing.
Over time, however, the incentives surrounding Congress began to change.
Political careers became increasingly tied to party loyalty. Competitive primary elections often posed a greater threat than general elections. Fundraising became a permanent activity rather than an occasional necessity.
At the same time, cable news rewarded confrontation over deliberation. Social media elevated ideological certainty while treating compromise as weakness. Members increasingly became media personalities as much as legislators, their success measured not only by laws enacted but by television appearances, viral clips, and partisan approval.
Gradually, defending the institution became less politically valuable than defending the team.
This transformation did not occur overnight, nor was it the work of any single president. It reflected decades of political, technological, and cultural change. Yet it fundamentally altered the relationship between Congress and the presidency.
The institutional question increasingly gave way to the partisan one.
Instead of asking, "What does Congress require?"
Members increasingly asked, "What does our side require?"
That subtle shift carried profound constitutional consequences.
Donald Trump did not create this evolution.
He exposed it.
His presidency remains a stress test for institutions that had already begun redefining their responsibilities. The issue was rarely whether Congress possessed the constitutional authority to act. The Constitution continues to provide every significant legislative check it always had. Congress retains the power to investigate, legislate, appropriate funds, confirm nominees, conduct oversight, and, when necessary, impeach executive officials.
The tools never disappeared. The willingness to use them, however, became less certain.
Recent confirmation battles provide an illustration. Constitutionally, the Senate's role is not to ratify presidential preferences automatically. It exists to provide independent advice and consent. Senators are expected to examine qualifications, assess the nominee’s judgment, and determine whether that nominee can serve the broader interests of the Republic.
Increasingly, however, that constitutional responsibility risks being overshadowed by a simpler political calculation.
Will members support the president of their own party?
Once that becomes the primary question, the constitutional one quietly recedes into the background.
The same pattern has appeared beyond nominations. Congress possesses significant authority over spending, war powers, executive oversight, and administrative accountability. Yet repeatedly, debates that once revolved around institutional authority increasingly revolve around partisan alignment. Constitutional responsibilities are filtered through electoral incentives.
None of this means Congress is powerless.
Quite the opposite.
Congress remains the most powerful branch when it chooses to exercise its authority. It writes the laws. It controls appropriations. It establishes agencies. It can investigate executive conduct. It can alter jurisdiction. It confirms appointments. It possesses powers that no president can exercise alone.
The Constitution’s architecture remains intact.
What has become less certain is whether Congress continues to view itself first as a coequal branch of government or as an extension of a president who happens to share its party label.
That distinction may ultimately define this era.
It is tempting to conclude that the modern presidency has become too powerful to restrain. Certainly, executive authority has expanded over many decades, and recent presidents of both parties have contributed to that trend. But constitutional authority is only half the equation. Powers that exist only on paper become ineffective when those entrusted with exercising them voluntarily set them aside.
This is why today's constitutional debate cannot focus exclusively on the presidency.
The presidency can expand only to the extent that other institutions permit it.
The framers expected presidents to seek more authority. That was predictable. They also expected Congress to defend its own. That was the balancing mechanism upon which the constitutional system depended.
When one side continues pressing outward while the other gradually ceases pushing back, the balance inevitably changes.
History may eventually remember this period less for presidents who tested constitutional boundaries than for a legislature increasingly reluctant to enforce them.
That is not a criticism of one party alone. It is a warning to every future Congress, regardless of which party controls it. Constitutional powers survive only when institutions are willing to exercise them. Once legislators begin defining success primarily as helping or hindering a president rather than protecting the prerogatives of Congress itself, the separation of powers becomes less a governing principle than a historical aspiration.
The Constitution never required Congress to say yes.
It expected Congress to know when to say no.
— Dunneagin
Keep reading: Limiting the Presidency: We Have the Tools, But Will We?
📬 To receive each new essay by email the day it publishes, subscribe to Civics Unhinged .
☕ Reader editions and collected volumes—including Volumes 1, 2, 3, and The Liar’s Guide to Autocracy —are available on the Fourthwall bookshelf .
If this week’s dispatch aligned with your reading, forward it to an un-unhinged colleague who still keeps an eye on the clockwork.
Reader and listener correspondence is always welcome at dunneagin@dunneagin.net. Questions, observations, or a note on how you first stumbled into the chronicle are particularly appreciated.
_ A note on the shelf: Every Tuesday dispatch compiles toward a permanent, physical record. We print what the screen forgets._