Lexington, Concord, and the Battle to Keep Government in Check
Two hundred and fifty years ago, American colonists chose to stand against tyranny. When British troops marched into the Massachusetts countryside to seize weapons and supplies, they met armed resistance from colonists who refused to tolerate further violations of their rights. The Battles of Lexington and Concord ignited the American Revolution and set the country on the path to independence.
But why did these individuals—many proud of their British heritage—risk their lives to oppose their own king and his parliament? Because they believed that their government had become tyrannical, threatening the rights they were entitled to as British citizens. Today, the people of the United States face a similar challenge: the steady over-centralization of power, driven by a fading understanding of why our founders fought so hard to prevent it in the first place.
The American Revolution rested on a fundamental belief in individual and inalienable rights. When a distant monarch and an unrepresentative Parliament sought to rule the 13 Colonies without their consent and violate their most fundamental rights, colonists recognized this as tyranny.
Determined to prevent the return of tyrannical government, the founders designed a system that would check government power. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” With this in mind, the founders created a republic with checks and balances to keep the government accountable.
This system rested on a crucial contradiction. The new government held the people as its “fountain of power,” yet individual rights required protection from government overreach—whether from an elite minority or an impassioned majority. Madison warned of “oppressive combinations of a majority” and argued that government must prioritize justice above all. In this structure, Congress represents state and public interests, the president enforces laws, and the judiciary safeguards both individuals and the Constitution.
The judiciary’s role became clear in Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” By holding the government accountable to the Constitution, the courts protect both individual rights and the integrity of the system itself.
Today, this system faces an existential threat. Many now argue that the will of the majority should override both the judiciary and the Constitution. After his reelection, President Donald J. Trump claimed “an unprecedented and powerful mandate” to remake the government. His administration has pursued sweeping changes, relying on an expansive view of executive power that builds on 21st-century precedents.
As courts block key executive actions, the administration has escalated its attacks through a public campaign against judges and the judiciary itself. When presidential advisor Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) pursued a “constitutionally dubious course of action,” legal challenges quickly followed. Musk raged on his social media platform X: “What is the point of having democratic elections if unelected activist ‘judges’ can override the clear will of the people?”
This argument directly contradicts that of the Constitution’s architects. The founders intended the system to constrain majorities and protect fundamental rights. Yet many Republican officials and members of the administration now echo Musk’s rhetoric, portraying the judiciary as an illegitimate obstacle to the president’s popular mandate rather than a constitutional safeguard.
The administration has increasingly tested its ability to defy court rulings and suspend due process. The most visible examples include efforts to summarily deport international students who engaged in pro-Palestine activism and the refusal to comply with a court order temporarily halting deportations of immigrants accused of gang activities. That the targets are unlikely to elicit broad public sympathy is no accident. But if Americans and our leaders allow these unchecked assertions of power, the primary victims will ultimately be us and our constitutional system of government.
This pattern is neither new nor unique to the United States. Latin America offers numerous cautionary tales of leaders who claimed that a popular mandate justified defying constitutional limits. No example is more notorious than Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez. From the outset of his presidency, Chávez insisted his electoral victories made him the ultimate authority, above the constitution itself. He rejected judicial checks until he stacked Venezuela’s Supreme Court with loyalists. The suffering and instability that now define Venezuela are the legacy of his behavior.
When elected leaders refuse to acknowledge limits on their power, they assert the right to trample American rights in the name of popular tyranny. Leaders of all political stripes must affirm that the means of governance matter as much as the ends. No election result grants anyone the authority to defy the Constitution or the rule of law.