Is Madison’s claim that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” still relevant?

The Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling in 2026 shows one ambitious branch is still capable of checking another when a case reaches it.

But the immunity ruling, the impoundment stand-off and DOGE’s rapid restructuring of the federal government tell a different story.

In the 2020s, ambition sometimes outruns the checks meant to counteract it, at least until the courts catch up.

The case for: these principles remain effective

• The judiciary struck down clear executive oversteps on both tariffs (2026) and birthright citizenship (2026), showing constitutional limits still bind presidents in practice, not just in theory.
• States retain genuine, contested but real autonomy on major policy questions such as cannabis and abortion.
• Even the worst recent breakdown in bipartisanship, the 2025 shutdown, still eventually produced a cross-party resolution rather than permanent deadlock.

The case against: these principles are under real strain

• The Trump v United States immunity ruling narrowed one of the most fundamental checks on presidential power: accountability under ordinary criminal law.
• Congress’s core Article I power of the purse has been persistently tested by impoundment disputes that remain only partially resolved by the courts.
• Bipartisanship, never constitutionally guaranteed in the first place, is arguably at its lowest point in modern American history.
• Executive action increasingly moves faster than the courts can check it, meaning limited government depends on litigation catching up rather than genuine prior restraint.

Reaching a judgement

Analysis: Taken together, the evidence suggests the Constitution’s structural principles have not failed. But they increasingly operate with a time lag: oversteps happen first, and correction through the courts follows only later, if at all.

Evaluation: Madison’s claim still holds in a formal sense, since the judiciary continues to check the other branches when cases reach it. But the sheer number of contested, ongoing disputes covered in this document suggests something else. Ambition is currently testing the system’s checks more aggressively than at almost any point in recent decades, making this a moment of real strain rather than confident stability.

Check your understanding 1. “The US Constitution’s principles are more effective on paper than in practice.” To what extent do you agree? You should: use specific evidence from at least two of the four principles covered in this document, address the counter-argument directly, and reach a supported judgement. 2. Which of the four principles in this document do you think is currently under the most strain? Justify your answer. You could: pick one principle and use the strongest example from its table to support your choice.

next –