The Greatest Exit, How George Washington Created America
George Washington created a new understanding of political leadership by voluntarily giving up power and putting the interest of the country above his own.
I am reading The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding by Joseph J. Ellis and a passage about George Washington struck me, because it contrasts so sharply with the current President, Donald Trump, who recently boasted of his plans to run for a third term in 2028, which the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not allow. George Washington was a man who surrendered power for the good of the country. Mr. Trump is not the same kind of leader.
George Washington was not a perfect man. He owned slaves and undoubtedly understood the tragic irony of fighting for liberty while simultaneously denying it to enslaved African-Americans. After the war for independence was over, Washington petitioned for the return of slaves who escaped Mount Vernon and fought for the British. Washington sought to “obtain them again.” But after a meeting on the matter with the British General Guy Carleton who told Washington the people who escaped had already been evacuated and could not be returned, Washington gave up the petition, not wanting his ultimate legacy to be that of a small-minded slaveowner.
The framers of the Constitution did not want there to be term-limits in the presidency (or in Congress … or in the Supreme Court!). For Congress and the President, the thinking was that term-limits would remove the incentive for an elected representative to seek approval from the community for their actions. We call this the lame-duck problem today, where a second-term president is no longer required to consider his own future electoral chances and starts doing things contrary to his party’s short-term political interests and/or the people and their representatives stop looking to the president for leadership, since everyone knows he’ll be gone from office soon and cannot come back. The people move on from lame ducks; that’s what happens with term-limits, it forces people to look ahead to the next thing.
But before the 22nd Amendment existed to limit a President to only two terms in office, George Washington established a norm kept by every American president until F.D.R. in the 20th century, where a U.S. President only served two terms at most as a matter of gentlemanly behavior. Presidents are not kings and having the same executive for longer than eight years just looks bad for the idea of elected representation. There is a saying in the law, the appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself. If someone looks like a king, even if they in truth are not a king, it still looks bad.
Washington set a precedent for walking away from power after the American Revolution. At this point in time in history, Washington was a legendary figure due to his leadership in the war for independence. History would suggest that a man with the world in his hands would take over and attempt to remake society in his own image, the same way, as Ellis puts it, men like “Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and a host of African dictators” have tried to do.
On December 23, 1783, Washington retired from public life. He said: “Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the greater theater of action, and bidding farewell to the august body under whom I have long acted, I offer here my commission and take leave of all the employment of public life.” Ellis calls this “the greatest exit, and perhaps the most consequential moment, in American history.” Thomas Jefferson was awed by Washington’s “moderation and character” and said Washington “probably prevented the revolution from being closed as most others have been, by a subversion of the liberty it was intended to establish.”
On September 19, 1796, Washington’s farewell address was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper, the Daily American Advertiser. Washington did not deliver his farewell address publicly. According to Ellis, Washington created “a new definition of political leadership, rooted in the ability to surrender rather than exercise power.” And he did so in the fashion of his time, which elevated the written word above in person oration and which looked down on populist appeals.
A leader can either try to unite people or divide them. President Washington argued in his farewell address that unity is the American way: “Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”
Washington was not a perfect man, but he was a prudent leader. And his willingness to put his country above his own interests gave America a chance to succeed as a republic. In ancient Athens, Socrates asked whether it was possible for natural right to become political right. In the American founding, Washington proved that such a government could in fact exist in real life, as long as there are powerful leaders willing to put universal principles above private profit and their country before their party.
When Washington and the states are in conflict, the ultimate winner is not always certain (The Conversation article) March 6, 2026
This article on federalism was published in The Conversation on March 6, 2026.
An article on federalism was published in The Conversation on March 6, 2026, please check it out!
Defend all the lawyers
Tyrants want to “kill all the lawyers,” but lovers of liberty know better—because lawyers defend democracy, we need to protect the profession and the rule of law from those who seek to destroy it.
Yulia Navalnaya’s January 16, 2026 essay in The Washington Post, “Dictators are coming for the lawyers,” is a very timely piece worthy of the deepest considerations by those who value personal liberty, equal protection, and the right of self-government.
Navalnaya’s essay recalls a line from act IV, scene II of Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II, which goes: “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” This line is uttered by Jack Cade, a book burner, as he plans a coup. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens interprets this line to mean “that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.”
Navalnaya did not name President Trump in her essay as one of the dictators targeting lawyers, but Mr. Trump has taken steps in that direction. In March 2025, President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders targeting specific lawyers and law firms solely because they worked on cases that went against his politics. So far courts have not been favorable to these attacks, but Congress needs to step up and check the Trump Administration’s attempt to silence lawyers simply because their work upsets the President personally.
If we want to protect the Constitution, the first thing we need to do is defend all the lawyers.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s personal attacks are beneath the office she holds
Ad hominem attacks are beneath the dignity of the office of the United States Attorney General.
Perry Stein and Jeremy Roebuck wrote in The Washington Post, “Pam Bondi lashes out as lawmakers press her on Epstein, cases against Trump foes” (Feb. 11, 2026).
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee epitomizes the logical fallacy of ad hominem, which occurs when a speaker attacks a person’s character instead of their argument. American government requires comity to function properly and ad hominem insults are inconsistent with that principle of cooperation. The Attorney General may operate in a partisan environment, but rough-and-tumble politics is no excuse for turning the formal and deliberative process of Congress into a name-calling match. Her behavior was beneath the office she holds.
The President is not a king
The President of the United States is not a king.
On January 30, 2026, George F. Will wrote an essay in The Washington Post arguing that the Supreme Court can and should rein Trump in.
The "unitary executive theory" imagines a unilateral President who acts on whim and without regard for laws or judicial rulings. Reasonable minds may disagree and still be reasonable, but it is unreasonable to claim that the framers fought and won the Revolutionary War only to shortly thereafter shackle themselves anew with an un-checked executive. The Constitution establishes a republic with separated powers and a system of checks and balances. George F. Will is absolutely correct to argue that the Supreme Court should rein Trump in. The President is not a king.
Stages of a typical criminal case
While there is no such thing as a “typical” criminal case, there are some stages of a criminal case that students of the law should know. This post covers a criminal case from the crime to the end of punishment.
There is no such thing as a “typical” criminal case. Describing the pathway of a criminal case is difficult, because there are many factors at play, including whether the crime is investigated and prosecuted, as well as whether there is a plea deal, pre-trial detention, etc. That said, we can identify a few stages of a criminal case to give a sense of how criminal process works in general.
The stages of a criminal case may include the following steps.
Crime
Investigation
Arrest
Probable cause hearing (within 48 hours of arrest)
Bail determination (bond must be high enough to guarantee appearance; no bail if defendant poses a flight or safety risk)
Preliminary hearing (to determine whether enough evidence exists for trial)
Indictment (“Information” process or grand jury process, depending on jurisdiction)
Arraignment (how does the defendant plea?—e.g., not guilty, not guilty by reason of a defense, nolo contendere, or guilty)
Pre-trial hearing (motions to settle issues such as double jeopardy, right to a speedy trial, venue, discovery, and/or any exhibit or witness evidentiary issues)
Trial
Verdict
Sentencing
Appeal
Final judgment
Corrections (e.g., fine, probation, community service, jail, or prison)