Profiles in Constitutional Courage and Cowardice Edition #9
When Constitutional Duty Collides with Partisan Pressure
Editor’s note: At moments when democratic institutions are under strain, the choices of individuals and organizations reveal the true strength of the American rule of law. Some summon the courage to uphold constitutional values in the face of pressure or threats. Others, fearing retaliation or seeking short-term gain, choose complicity and silence.
Issue One’s monthly series, Profiles in Constitutional Courage and Cowardice, seeks to document both. Inspired by generations of Americans who met the test of democracy with conscience and conviction, this series highlights civic bravery — public officials, business leaders, and institutions that refuse to bow to intimidation — and contrasts it with instances of capitulation and complicity that erode the norms and guardrails of a free society.
Our democratic rule of law is not guaranteed. It depends on people willing to defend it when power is abused and to model the kind of integrity our system requires to survive. It requires us to stand up for each other and to band together in the face of unlawfulness.
These profiles are a reminder that courage is contagious, but so too is cowardice. What we choose makes all the difference.
Public service has never been about blind loyalty. The oath sworn by every elected official is not to a president, a political party, or an ideology, but to the Constitution of the United States. At a time when partisan allegiance too often eclipses institutional responsibility, the true measure of public leadership is whether those entrusted with power are willing to place the country, constitutional principles, and democratic norms above political expediency. This month, we recognize public officials who have met the standard and those who have not.
These profiles are not an endorsement of a particular candidate or official. They are intended to inform the public about how public officials approach their constitutional responsibilities and the institutions they are sworn to serve.
Courage Profile: Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Constitutional courage is often tested not by pressure from political opponents, but by pressure from one’s own party and president. At a time when bipartisan cooperation has become politically risky, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick has repeatedly chosen principle and governance over partisan conformity.
Congressman Fitzpatrick has become a rare voice in Congress. He has consistently chosen to work across the aisle at a time when polarization and party loyalty has become the norm rather than the exception. Congressman Fitzpatrick has demonstrated courage in an institution that too often cedes its Article I authorities to an expansive executive branch while remaining willing to find common ground with colleagues across the political spectrum.
In today’s political environment, bipartisan cooperation often carries significant political risk. Members who work across the aisle can face pressure from party leaders, ideological activists, and even the White House. Yet the Constitution created Congress as a co-equal branch of government—not as an extension of any president or political party. Members of Congress swear an oath to the Constitution, and fulfilling that oath requires members who are willing to exercise independent judgment, work across party lines, and place their constitutional responsibilities above partisan loyalty.
Congressman Fitzpatrick has demonstrated this commitment and independence through his legislative record. While the 119th Congress is nearing its close, he has consistently chosen to work with colleagues regardless of political affiliation. In the process, measures he has led, such as the Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act, have not only received unanimous support throughout the committee process but have also advanced on the House floor.
The Pennsylvania congressman has also been a leader in the effort to strengthen accountability and ethical standards in Congress. From joining progressives and conservatives to introduce the Restore Trust in Congress Act, legislation repeatedly endorsed by Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus, to leading the Public Service Accountability Act, which would strengthen standards of integrity and accountability across all three branches of the federal government, Congressman Fitzpatrick has consistently chosen governing over partisan conformity.
Our democracy depends on members of Congress who remain loyal to constitutional principles rather than to party leaders or the president. By putting his oath and commitment to effective governance ahead of partisan pressure, Congressman Fitzpatrick has demonstrated the kind of leadership our constitutional system needs.
Cowardice Profile: Todd Blanche and Jay Clayton
It takes courage to speak truth to power. It takes principle to uphold the Constitution even when doing so comes at a political cost.
This past month, two nominees for some of the nation’s most consequential positions failed to demonstrate that commitment. At a time when democratic norms continue to face extraordinary pressure, Americans deserve public officials who place the Constitution, the rule of law, and the country above personal loyalty to the president who nominated them.
One of the most patriotic acts in a democracy is accepting the peaceful transfer of power and respecting the outcome of free and fair elections. Public confidence in elections depends on leaders who are willing to acknowledge certified election results, even when those results are politically inconvenient. Election officials, courts, and independent experts have repeatedly described the 2020 presidential election as one of the most scrutinized, audited, and litigated elections in American history. For nominees entrusted with enforcing the law and protecting our national security, acknowledging that reality should not be controversial.
Yet both Todd Blanche, nominated to be Attorney General and now serving as Acting Attorney General, and Jay Clayton, confirmed on July 28 as Director of National Intelligence, declined during their confirmation hearings to clearly acknowledge that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Their unwillingness to answer a straightforward question suggested that loyalty to the president had taken precedence over fidelity to constitutional principles.
Todd Blanche’s abdication is particularly concerning. The Attorney General serves as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and is entrusted with preserving the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice. That responsibility requires an unwavering commitment to facts, evidence, and the rule of law, free from political interference or presidential pressure.
Refusing to affirm a certified and long-settled election result raises legitimate concerns about whether the Department of Justice can remain independent when confronted with demands that conflict with the law. Those concerns are reinforced by Blanche’s previous conduct, including his defense of President Trump’s legal interests and actions that have fueled questions about the department’s independence from partisan influence. At a moment when concerns about executive overreach continue to grow, the country needs an Attorney General willing to defend the Constitution, even when doing so means disagreeing with the president.
The same concerns extend to Jay Clayton’s leadership of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence is responsible for coordinating the nation’s intelligence community and protecting the United States from foreign threats, including foreign efforts to interfere in American elections. That mission depends upon credibility, independence, and a willingness to present intelligence objectively, regardless of political consequences.
Foreign adversaries seek to exploit political division and undermine confidence in American elections. A Director of National Intelligence who cannot publicly acknowledge the outcome of a certified presidential election risks weakening the credibility and independent judgment necessary to confront those very threats. Intelligence must inform policymakers based on facts, not political preference. When intelligence leaders appear unwilling to contradict a president’s preferred narrative, public trust in those institutions inevitably suffers.
Reasonable people may disagree about policy, elections, or presidential administrations. They may even disagree about individual nominees. What should never be subject to partisan negotiation, however, is a public official’s willingness to defend constitutional government. The institutions entrusted with enforcing our laws and protecting our national security depend upon leaders whose first allegiance is to the Constitution.
When nominees for two of the nation’s most important offices cannot affirm a basic fact about American democracy because doing so may conflict with a president’s political narrative, it raises profound questions about their ability to faithfully execute the responsibilities of their office. Our constitutional system requires courage, independence, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. Those are the qualities the American people should demand from every public servant, blue, red or anything in between.
We the citizens have to act together to change the incentives that strongly favor partisanship over service to country and adherence to the oath of office. The "rules" for politics, elections and how we are governed have been made by those in elected office, as written into the Constitution. But in the last few decades, the power to make the rules and the incentive to make rules that favor themselves have overtaken those in elected office. Our only choice is to revise the Constitution by drafting "Citizen Rules" to define how we want to be governed. I find most citizens want to be governed by elected officials who run for office to serve the country rather than be served as a privileged class. We want officials from both or all parties to work together from the analysis of national problems and their cause to the drafting of policies to provide solutions that work for the country, not just for their party's base voters and donors.
I've drafted a set of suggested "Citizen Rules" to be enacted by the people via a "Limited" Constitutional Convention, that would be called by the State Legislatures with authority to act limited only to either approving the draft Amendments to implement the "Citizen Rules", or rejecting the Amendments. If approved, the Amendments would be sent to the States for ratification.
While this process totally bypasses Congress and the Administration, it requires the support of 2/3 of the states to call for the "Limited" Constitutional Convention, or 34 states. In many of these states, a citizen initiative placed on the ballot can even bypass the State Legislature. If approved for ratification, 3/4 of the State Legislatures must approve the Amendments.
As citizens, we have greater influence on our State Legislatures than we do on Congress. I have taught the "Citizen Rules" to over 450 people in Adult Lifelong Learning programs in 5 counties in Southwest Ohio, both "Red" and "Blue" counties. The level of support is consistently above 95%.
You can review an overview of the proposals and the implementation plan at www.citizenrules.org. The details are in the book "American Turning Point: Repairing and Restoring Our Constitutional Republic", available on Amazon.
While the Continental Congress enacted our Declaration of Independence, it was the citizens at the time who joined together to win our Independence. It's time again for citizens to take the lead to repair and restore the principles inherent in our Founding Documents.