In the September issue, the editors of America argued that President Trump’s reliance on executive orders manifests a disdain for the limits of presidential power. The ongoing constitutional crisis, the editors wrote, “demands responses both of opposition to specific imprudent, immoral or illegal actions and also of deeper structural reforms to restore the balance of power in American government.” Our readers had much to say in response. 

It’s going to take decades to dig ourselves out of the hole that man and his voters dug for us.

We can’t rely only on the courts, which begs the question: What other tools do we have? Building a [political] coalition is going to take a while, and the people in positions of power (the hierarchy) ignored the warning signs.
Gwen Murtha

While agreeing with the analysis of this editorial, I can’t help but wonder how we can reverse the rapid slide to the establishment of an authoritarian government. The Supreme Court has pretty much given Mr. Trump a free hand and seems almost as unconcerned about the Constitution, rule of law and separation of powers as is the Trump administration itself. Our freedoms are being rapidly eroded, and it seems that the conversion to an unfree, faux democracy like Hungary will be complete long before the midterm elections.
Anne Chapman

There are so few Republicans willing to buck Mr. Trump’s control because they fear being primaried or losing the election to a Democrat. So that brings us up once again to the issue of term limits. Too many of these lawmakers consider Congress to be a lifelong occupation. If they were only eligible to serve three or four terms, the power of the president over their decisions would be limited.
Ethel Sutherland

As a reviewer of faith and culture, America is in a good position to publish an aspirational model, a “renewed set of norms to maintain a system of limited and balanced power among the branches of government.” Call it “Project 2026.”
Charles Erlinger

I think the Supreme Court is doing a good job when it comes to keeping things constitutional. For the first time in a long time, most justices seem to be well prepared for the task at hand.

We must not forget, when Mr. Biden was in charge, the right cried “authoritarianism,” “crisis,” etc. This seems to be part and parcel of how American politics works.

Like him or not, we can’t deny that Mr. Trump is the most consequential president in modern U.S. history. A day doesn’t pass without some major breaking news. Catholics can be pleased with some policies (overturning Roe, seeking peace, defending religious freedom, protecting women/girls in their sports leagues, etc.) and disagree with others (I.V.F., the bombing of Iran, Gaza policies, etc.).
Bill Williams

Can the president modify the 14th Amendment merely by decree? The simple answer is no. The deeper question is whether the president’s decree ought to remain in effect during the slow, probably years-long legal process of trial, appellate review, and finally briefing and argument in the Supreme Court, assuming the court agrees to hear the case. The answer is still no.

It is abhorrent that a president can devise his own interpretation to the 14th Amendment and single-handedly decree whose kids get citizenship and whose do not. The 14th Amendment resolved that.
Joseph McGuire

I don’t believe taxpayer money should go to charity work. The Trump administration was able to shine a spotlight on the wasteful spending and immoral nature of many government programs. These programs should be funded with private donations. This would eliminate the rancor and division that come with publicly funding these programs, as Americans would not be forced to fund programs with which they disagree. 

Birthright citizenship (which has been abused) is a fascinating question that the Supreme Court will soon resolve. It is going through the standard legal process. Let’s wait and see.
Nora Alberti

This article appears in October 2025.