Promoting Democracy

July 10, 2025

Dueling Views on the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and Its Impact on Social Security

The Social Security Administration (SSA) and legal scholars have offered sharply differing perspectives on the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill. In an official communication, the SSA hails the legislation as a historic victory for seniors, emphasizing tax relief for nearly 90% of Social Security recipients. By contrast, in a commentary published by VERDICT: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia, Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the SSA’s messaging as a politicized distortion, arguing that it prioritizes presidential branding over transparency and fails to address the deeper structural challenges facing Social Security. These conflicting narratives raise important questions about policy substance, public trust, and the politicization of federal agencies.

VIEW ONE:

From the Social Security Administration:

June 10, 2025

A Constitutiional Crisis in Real Time: Lessons from the Past, Warnings for the Future*

by David Badertscher

Introduction

The post referenced below is an adapted excerpt from “The ‘Seizure of Power’ 2025: An Historical Reflection,” authored by Professor Matthew W. Finkin, Research Professor of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Originally delivered as a comprehensive lecture at Mander Hall in London on March 18, 2025, this version has been condensed and selectively edited for publication by Justia Verdict, where it appeared on June 5, 2025 .

In this incisive analysis, Professor Finkin draws a compelling historical parallel between actions undertaken by President Trump in 2025 and the early methods of consolidation used by the National Socialist regime in 1933. He examines significant developments such as the purging of civil servants, the creation of loyalty-driven structures like the Office of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and mounting judicial and institutional threats to underscore the risks surrounding democratic erosion in what he terms a possible “seizure of power.”

April 27, 2025

Dualist Democracy and the Trump Administration–Judicial Authority in Extraordinary Times

by David Badertscher

This posting consists of commentary on Roger Citron’s article, Judge Wilkinson’s Dualist Opinion in Abrego Garcio v. Noem: Judicial Review of Executive Action in a Transformative Time, amplified with information from additional sources related to Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy.

In his article, Roger Citron revisits Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy, presenting a timely analysis of how this framework sheds light on current constitutional tensions. Through a close reading of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s opinion in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Citron suggests we may be witnessing an effort at higher lawmaking—a constitutional transformation driven not just by legal arguments, but by political and public realignment.

Ackerman’s concept of dualist democracy, introduced in We the People: Foundations, distinguishes between two modes of governance (Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations 6–8 (1991),

February 10, 2025

The ABA Supports the Rule of Law

by David Badertscher

A message from William R. Bay, President of the American Bar Association, February 10, 2025:

It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.

We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law.The American Bar Association supports the rule of law. That means holding governments, including our own, accountable under law. We stand for a legal process that is orderly and fair. We have consistently urged the administrations of both parties to adhere to the rule of law. We stand in that familiar place again today. And we do not stand alone. Our courts stand for the rule of law as well.Just last week, in rejecting citizenship challenges, the U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said that the rule of law is, according to this administration, something to navigate around or simply ignore. “Nevertheless,” he said, “in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.” He is correct. The rule of law is a bright beacon for our country.In the last 21 days, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed alleging that the administration’s actions violate the rule of law and are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. The list grows longer every day.

October 29, 2024

ABA Election Resources Help Defend and Promote Democracy

by David Badertscher

A posting by American Bar Association President, William R. Ray.

“Voting is a civic right and responsibility. Everyone eligible to vote should exercise that right. This is our opportunity to have a say in how our government operates. The American Bar Association encourages all to take advantage of this opportunity. ”

For a more generalized statement about elections and voting from federal government perspective, see the White House statement, Elections and Voting.