🎧 LISTEN TO THIS ARTICLE ON THE SUBSTACK APP
The incoming Democrat and Democratic Socialist majorities in the House and Senate are heading to Washington riding high after their midterm gains. They seem determined to turn every lever of Congress against the Trump administration and the Americans who rejected their vision. But winning seats doesn’t give them a free hand. The Constitution still stands in their way.
Overriding a presidential veto takes a two-thirds vote in each chamber, not simply a Senate majority. That is a serious obstacle to the sweeping agenda they hope to enact. Separation of Powers puts limits on them, too. Congress can demand documents and testimony, but its authority over the Executive and Judicial Branches is not unlimited. Subpoenas can create disruption and grab headlines. Enforcing them against another branch can mean a lengthy constitutional fight rather than a quick political victory. Investigations may deliver plenty of theater without delivering the results their sponsors promise.
Attorney General Todd Blanche has already signaled that the Justice Department sees these preemptive threats for what they are: an abuse of oversight:
Democrats have told administration officials and private companies to lawyer up before establishing evidence of wrongdoing.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has backed impeachment articles against War Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Senator Elissa Slotkin has suggested that young people should think twice about serving in a Trump administration that could face future investigations.
Representative Robert Garcia has told officials to prepare their legal defenses.
Call it oversight if you like, but the message is hard to miss: work with this administration, and you could pay for it later. That threatens to chill public service and discourage investment under the shadow of endless investigations.
Blanche was right to say enough is enough. Yes, the incoming majority can issue subpoenas. But a subpoena doesn’t erase the Executive Branch’s constitutional responsibilities or the Judiciary’s independence. Separation of powers exists for a reason. No branch gets to turn its oversight authority into an unrestricted license to punish its political opponents.
More importantly, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has already offered a glimpse of another target on the radical Left’s wish list. He has expressed openness to the National Popular Vote Compact. Under that agreement, participating states would award their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner once enough states join to control an Electoral College majority.
Shapiro argues that the popular vote is how the people make their voices heard. But critics see the compact as an end-run around the Constitution, and that concern deserves more than a shrug. It would shift the contest toward the national vote total and away from the state-by-state competition that gives smaller and swing states their leverage. The Electoral College pushes candidates to assemble coalitions across states instead of simply running up their totals wherever votes are easiest to find, e.g. glow-in-the-dark blue urban centers. Changing that system through an interstate agreement, rather than a constitutional amendment, would fundamentally change how presidential elections work.
The incoming Congress may cheer the effort on. Cheering, however, isn’t the same as having the power to make it happen.
Expect the new majorities to make plenty of noise. They will hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and threaten investigations against people who served in or worked with the Trump administration. But noise and lasting results are two different things. The Executive Branch still has its own constitutional authority. The Judiciary does not answer to a congressional majority. And congressional demands directed at private citizens and companies still need a legitimate legislative purpose; political hostility alone is not enough. Those limits may require legal fights to enforce, but they do not disappear because a committee chair wants a headline.
Legislation faces another hurdle: if the President vetoes it, overriding that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers. That also makes talk of packing the Supreme Court a much harder sell without control of the White House. Expanding the Court requires legislation the President can veto, while filling any new seats requires presidential nominations and Senate confirmation. The new majorities can disrupt, investigate, and dominate the news. They cannot simply vote the Constitution out of their way.
For Republicans, the next two years call for a clear plan, not another round of empty slogans.
Give the radical Left enough proverbial rope to expose the weaknesses in its own agenda. When the new majorities push policies on immigration, energy, crime, or spending, Republicans need to show Americans exactly what those policies would mean in everyday life. If those policies cause damage, document it, explain it, and stop apologizing for pointing it out. And that message has to reach beyond the usual audience, especially younger Americans who have spent years hearing the same assumptions reinforced in classrooms and across the media. Reaching them takes more than a catchy line on television.
The party needs sharp, strategic thinkers who can make a clear argument and back it up. It also needs to clear out the deadwood: the spendthrift old guard and the consultants who keep getting paid while the party keeps repeating its mistakes. Above all, Republicans must use every lawful tool still available to limit the damage during the new majorities’ two-year window.
Getting those things right would do more than help Republicans survive the next two years. It would give them a concrete record to support a larger argument: the Electoral College remains an important safeguard for the Republic. Voters who see congressional majorities overreach may better understand why the Founders built checks on simple majority rule into the constitutional system. Republicans need to connect that argument to what people actually experience, not assume that a lecture about the Founders will do the job.
If concentrated political power produces dysfunction, show the connection. If an investigation becomes an exercise in intimidation, make that case with evidence. With discipline, Republicans could turn what looks like a triumphant midterm moment for the radical Left into a demonstration of its limits.
The rope is already in the new majorities’ hands. The rest of the country will be watching what they do with it. They may control the gavels and the hearing rooms, but they don’t control the White House or the veto pen. Nor can they make the presidential nominations needed to reshape the Supreme Court.
Their ambitions may be sweeping. Their authority is not. The Constitution they want to work around still sets the boundaries, and Republicans should make sure the public understands exactly why those boundaries matter.
