democracy – THE ENGLISH CODE

If A Sitting President Can Deny or Delay the Outcome of an Election …

Something has changed in America, and pretending otherwise is no longer safe. If a sitting president can deny, delay, or obfuscate the outcome of an election, then democracy itself is in jeopardy. And if one political team claims the right to question or refuse legitimate election results, then the opposing side logically inherits the same right. That is not a threat —it is a consequence. Just like in a football game, there has to be an level playing field with the same rules for both teams in order for the true winner to gain the moral highground to take the reigns of government in a democracy.

If Team Trump were to deny, delay, or obfuscate the procedures or results of the 2026 midterm elections, then Team Democracy would face a choice: accept a broken democracy, or prepare a constitutional, collective response. The publishing of said constitutional, collective response should be created now, well ahead of the midterms, so there is no chance of getting caught flat-footed in November.

One possibility is for the Democratic Governors Association — or a similar alliance of state leaders — to announce today that they are standing together to defend free and fair American elections. An Article Five–style pledge — “you come for one, you come for all” — would signal unity and strength. The purpose would be to prevent foul play and its resulting mayhem in November.

Let me lay out the logic plainly. Many Americans believe the country is already in a political war — a conflict not of weapons but of institutions, trust, and power. Democracy, once a radical idea, depends on citizens choosing representatives who argue and negotiate within agreed rules. Authoritarian systems do not operate that way.

The Founders wrote about “self-evident truths” for a reason. Evidence literally means from what is seen; video hides in the word evidence. And today’s polls reveal most Americans feel they have seen enough. With the midterms approaching, the question is not whether citizens should reject results they don’t like; they should not, of course. Elections carried out by longstanding rules, with broad participation and lawful procedures, must be accepted regardless of outcome. Americans have done this before. Many disliked prior results, but the system held because people respected the process.

The fear today is totally different: that elections may be contested not through law but through power. If attempts are made to delay or undermine the midterms, states should be prepared to respond lawfully and collectively. Governors could announce that, in the event of clear election interference, they would enact their emergency powers to protect their citizens and institutions — including reconsidering how and to whom federal tax dollars are paid and managed until constitutional order is restored.

This would not be a declaration of separation, nor the creation of a new country. It would be a conditional safeguard ; a contingency plan meant to preserve constitutional norms if they are threatened.

Such a stance might resonate with many Americans across the political spectrum. Distrust of federal power is not new; it has appeared in movements from the Tea Party to modern progressive coalitions. The idea of states asserting greater autonomy has deep roots in American history.

And here is the strategic point: if citizens know there is a peaceful, organized, constitutional backup plan, attempts to manipulate elections lose much of their power. Deterrence works when the consequences are clear and there is a feeling of reassurance. History shows that would-be strongmen respect strength. Institutions survive only when people are willing to defend them collectively.

This is not a call for chaos or refusal to accept legitimate outcomes. It is a call to prepare calmly, lawfully, and transparently ,so that no leader, from any party, can undermine the rules that make democracy possible.

Because if a sitting president can deny or delay the outcome of an election, then democracy itself is already in checkmate; and Americans of every political belief should refuse to accept that future.

Common Sense 1776, Revisited for 2026

Joseph Aronesty (2026)
Inspired by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776)

Introduction

In January of 1776, a short pamphlet began circulating through the American colonies. It was written not for scholars or statesmen, but for ordinary citizens. Its purpose was simple and radical: to explain, in plain language, why submission to concentrated power was neither natural nor necessary.

The pamphlet was Common Sense, and its author, Thomas Paine, did not argue that King George III was uniquely wicked. Instead, he made a far more unsettling claim—that monarchy itself was a flawed system, and that placing excessive authority in any single individual inevitably corrupted both ruler and ruled.

Nearly two and a half centuries later, the outward forms of power have changed, but the underlying dynamics have not. Titles evolve. Justifications adapt. The language of authority modernizes. Yet the temptation toward autocratic rule—and the willingness of people to accept it—remains a constant of political life.

What follows is not a historical reenactment, nor an argument about personalities. It is a modern restatement of Paine’s central insight: that free societies do not lose their liberty all at once, but by failing to recognize familiar dangers in unfamiliar forms.

Paine wrote to awaken his contemporaries to patterns they were already living through. The purpose here is the same.

On the Nature of Concentrated Power

There is a persistent belief among free people that power, once granted, will restrain itself. Human history offers no support for this belief.

Power does not seek balance. It seeks continuance, expansion, and ultimately immunity from challenge. Democracy dies not because of a moral failing of individuals so much as a predictable feature of absolute authority once it is detached from regular accountability. The problem is not that one person becomes all-powerful, but that many people slowly grow accustomed to absolute power.

The defenders of concentrated power often argue that a strong executive is necessary to protect the nation. Yet history repeatedly shows the opposite: such power rarely protects a people from danger, but very often protects the autocrats from the people.

Personal rule—whether it wears a crown, a uniform, or the language of popular mandate—rests on a simple inversion of responsibility. Citizens are told that judgment is a burden best surrendered. Loyalty is redefined as obedience. Dissent is reframed as weakness, or worse, betrayal.

This is how liberty erodes without being formally abolished. No proclamation announces it. No constitution need be rewritten at first. The shift occurs in tone, in expectation, in what citizens come to tolerate in the name of order. A free people does not wake one morning to discover itself unfree; it arrives there by degrees, persuaded that exceptional power is both necessary and temporary.

At this stage, the question is no longer whether power has overreached, but whether the public has forgotten why limits existed in the first place.

Those who argue that “this time is different” must answer a hard question: different from what? From human nature? From history? From every prior instance in which concentrated power promised stability and delivered submission?

A government of laws depends on citizens who understand that strength lies not in domination, but in restraint. When restraint is abandoned—when power is admired for its force rather than its limits—the transition away from self-government has already begun, whether it is acknowledged or not.

On Why Free People Surrender Their Judgment

The loss of liberty rarely begins with force. It begins with a sense of relief.

Democratic self-government is demanding. It requires attention, disagreement, patience, and the humility to accept that no single voice—including one’s own—is sufficient. In uncertain times, this burden feels heavy. When a confident figure offers certainty in place of complexity, many experience not alarm, but comfort.

This is the first seduction of personal rule within a democracy. People do not abandon freedom because they despise it, but because they are persuaded that freedom has become impractical. They are told that debate is weakness, that disagreement is disorder, and that unity requires obedience. The promise is simple: trust me, and you may rest.

What is surrendered first is not rights, but personal judgment.

Fear plays a central role, but not always in obvious ways. It is not merely fear of enemies, foreign or domestic, but fear of instability, fear of social conflict, fear of economic uncertainty. A population anxious about its footing becomes willing to trade liberty for reassurance, even when said reassurance is largely performative and offers no real relief.

Those who resist this trade are often caricatured as dangerous, radical, unrealistic and disloyal the leader’s cause. In this way, caution and protest are recast as cowardice, and submission as strength.

The most effective autocrats do not demand admiration; they cultivate dependency. They position themselves as indispensable solutions to problems they continuously emphasize and rarely resolve. Each new crisis reinforces the narrative that only extraordinary authority can preserve order, and that ordinary checks are luxuries of a calmer time.

None of this requires the suspension of elections or the abandonment of constitutional language. The words remain. The habits change.

The final psychological shift occurs when people come to believe that resistance is futile—that the trajectory is inevitable, and that adapting is wiser than objecting. At that moment, power no longer needs to coerce. It is sustained by resignation.

And so, a free society depends not on perfect leaders, but on citizens who retain the nerve to think, to question, and to withstand the discomfort of disagreement. When that nerve is lost—when convenience replaces vigilance—no external enemy is required. The erosion is complete from within.

On How Institutions Are Emptied Without Being Overthrown

Free societies often imagine that tyranny arrives by spectacle—tanks in streets, constitutions burned, courts shuttered. In reality, institutions are more commonly hollowed than destroyed.

The outward forms remain. Elections are held. Legislatures convene. Courts issue opinions. Yet their authority is gradually diminished, not by decree, but by disregard. When power is personalized, institutions are tolerated only so long as they comply. When they resist, they are portrayed as illegitimate, corrupt, or obstructive.

Another method of hollowing out a democracy is selective obedience. Rules are praised when they benefit the powerful and dismissed when they restrain them. Enforcement becomes inconsistent. Precedent is ignored. Over time, citizens learn that law is not a standard, but a tool—applied unevenly and explained afterward.

Once this lesson is absorbed, trust in government collapses. Faith in institutions declines, while faith in the authoritarian rises. The public, weary of complexity, begins to see institutions as theater and the individual leader as the only “real” actor.

At this point, institutional failure is not an accident; it becomes evidence used to justify further consolidation of power. The damage itself becomes the argument.

On the Myth That This Is Inevitable

Perhaps the most paralyzing belief in any republic is the belief that decline is unavoidable.

When citizens are repeatedly told that norms are obsolete, that restraint is naïve, and that past standards cannot survive modern pressures, they may come to accept erosion as adaptation. What was once alarming becomes familiar. What was once resisted becomes expected.

Yet history shows that inevitability is often an illusion created by momentum and fatigue. Systems do not collapse because collapse is natural, but because enough people conclude that resistance is useless. The belief that “nothing can be done” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who benefit from concentrated power rely on resignation. It discourages participation without provoking opposition. It replaces outrage with detachment, and engagement with cynicism. A disengaged citizenry is far easier to manage than an angry one.

The most dangerous phrase in a free society is not “this must be done,” but “this cannot be stopped.”

On the Duty of the Citizen in a Free Society

Thomas Paine understood that liberty is not sustained by declarations alone. It is sustained by citizens willing to accept the inconvenience of freedom.

Self-government demands more than periodic consent and voting, It requires continuous attention, the courage to dissent, and the refusal to confuse comfort with stability. It asks citizens to tolerate disagreement and to defend principles even when doing so is socially costly.

Liberty does not depend on optimism, but on memory—the memory that concentrated power has always justified itself as necessary, temporary, and benevolent. A government of the people is a historical exception, not the rule. It survives only so long as citizens remember that order imposed without consent is not democracy, but quiet submission.

A free people need not be perfect. But they must remain awake.

The moment citizens surrender their judgment in exchange for reassurances, they trade a difficult freedom for an easy dependence. History offers many names for this arrangement. None of them describe a democratic republic.

Relevant Prior Post

A Call for a Union of Governors to Protect Citizens from Federal Overreach

If A Sitting President Can Deny or Delay the Outcome of an Election, Democracy is in Jeopardy

Something has changed in America, and pretending otherwise is no longer safe. If a sitting president can deny, delay, or obstruct the outcome of an election, then democracy itself is in jeopardy. And if one political team claims the right to question or refuse legitimate election results, then the opposing side logically inherits the same right. That is not a threat —it is a consequence.

If Team Trump were to deny, delay, or obfuscate the procedures or results of the 2026 midterm elections, then Team Democracy would face a choice: accept a broken system, or prepare a constitutional, collective response. The publishing of said conditional response should be made well ahead of the midterms.

One possibility is clear. The Democratic Governors Association — or a similar alliance of state leaders — could announce ahead of time that they will stand together to defend free and fair elections. An Article Five–style pledge — “you come for one, you come for all” — would signal unity and deterrence. The purpose would not be confrontation but prevention.

Let me lay out the logic plainly.

Many Americans believe the country is already in a political war — a conflict not of weapons but of institutions, trust, and power. Democracy, once a radical idea, depended on citizens choosing representatives who argued and negotiated within agreed rules. Authoritarian systems do not operate that way.

The Founders wrote about “self-evident truths” for a reason. Evidence comes from what we see. And many Americans feel they have seen enough. With the midterms approaching, the question is not whether citizens should reject legitimate results; they should not. Elections carried out by longstanding rules, with broad participation and lawful procedures, must be accepted regardless of outcome. Americans have done this before. Many disliked prior results, but the system held because people respected the process.

The fear today is different: that future elections may be contested not through law but through power. If attempts are made to delay or undermine the midterms, states should be prepared to respond lawfully and collectively. Governors could announce that, in the event of clear election interference, they would explore emergency powers to protect their citizens and institutions — including reconsidering how and to whom federal tax dollars are paid and managed until constitutional order is restored.

This is not a call for chaos or refusal to accept legitimate outcomes. It is a call to prepare calmly, lawfully, and transparently, so that no leader, from any party, can undermine the rules that make democracy possible.

A Call for a Union of Governors to Protect Citizens from Federal Overreach

And Continued Resistance

Across the country, people are watching federal power being used in ways that feel increasingly detached from constitutional limits: aggressive immigration enforcement without clear judicial oversight, sweeping tariffs imposed without Congressional approval, and rhetoric that treats political opposition not as fellow citizens, but as enemies.

When force replaces our Constitution, and subdues representation, democracy fails — not all at once, but quietly, via normalization, pressure and time.

This post is not about left versus right. We really are all in this together now. It is about whether our constitutional government will continue to function as it was originally crafted to do.

Waiting for elections may not be enough

Elections matter — but we are seeing blatant attempts to affect the midterms just like they do in Russia and other fascist countries around the world. We need to be fully prepared well ahead of the midterms to survive this. So all tools and strategies need to be on the table. Hoping for the best while preparing for the worst applies when all is at stake, and it is.

Further, elections are not the only safeguards the Constitution provides. The American system of governance was designed with the safeguard of shared sovereignty. States are not subsidiaries of the federal executive. Governors are not required to enforce federal actions that violate their citizens’ constitutional rights. In fact, they have a sworn duty to protect their citizens’ rights.

When executive power exceeds constitutional bounds, the states were meant to act as a stabilizing force, not as silent accomplices.

We have seen the Trump administration is willing to openly lie to the public. January 6^th is being framed as a peaceful protest, and peaceful protestors are being called radicals and shot dead.

What will happen if the midterm results are framed as phony or rigged, and our purchased Supreme Court majority rules for the administration? We cannot wait for elections with this administration in power. Just as he has done all his life, Donald Trump cheats in public and buys off the heat. He shows no respect for our Constitution and is even on record saying he would like to end the Constitution.

Two peaceful, constitutional pressure points

There are two areas where unlawful federal overreach is very visible — and where lawful, non-violent resistance can restore balance quickly.

1. Immigration enforcement without warrants

Border security at the border is popular with most Americans. But federal agents do not have unlimited authority inside states. When arrests or detentions occur by masked men without proper judicial warrants, state governors are within their rights to refuse cooperation and even arrest said ICE agents. This is not obstruction of justice; it is constitutional compliance. Communities are safer when fear is not used as policy. Public safety improves when law enforcement operates transparently and lawfully. It is a governors sworn duty to protect his citizens.

2. Tariffs imposed without Congressional approval

The Constitution gives Congress — not the executive — the power to levy taxes and tariffs. When tariffs are imposed unilaterally, they function as a hidden national sales tax, raising prices for everyone while bypassing representation.

Sovereign state governors can decline to collect tariffs through their ports until Congress approves them as per the Constitution. Prices would fall on goods coming through their ports. One would think that could be good for those state’s citizens.

Citizens in these states would feel the difference with lower prices in real time, and red state citizens would get jealous very quickly. The tariff scam would be exposed in a way that Fox News can’t spin away. Note: As of February 21, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s tariffs were illegal, as if we needed a SCOTUS to decide that. It is clear in the Constitution. And this 150-day exception, we should have no respect for that. After 150 days, Trump can restart the 150 days again. Yep. And he will. So I give no respect for that workaround to tax the public, which is what tariffs are.

Refusing to collect tariffs is plan with teeth. It would get popular so quickly Trump couldn’t stop it and be the party pooper. Will he go to physical war about this money? I doubt it. But if he does, he won’t have public support and it would mean a physical war is happening at midterms anyway. So it’s better to initiate real resistance now. Talk in back rooms, but spring it suddenly.

And like Republicans, worry later about the legality of it all. The Constitution and the public are on our side on tariffs. If Supreme Court justices say no, we can say they are aiding an insurrectionist, hence disqualified to serve hence rule in our states; and it will be true. This is also pocketbook economics citizens in all states will appreciate. It’s populism in an FDR way; and he became a populist because he knew he was up against domestic enemies as well as foreign enemies, just as we are today.

Why this matters right now

Authoritarian systems thrive when people feel powerless and divided. Our enemies abroad has gotten influence here, and they want our population just as subdued as theirs are. Why? Because phones connect the world now, and people all over the world believe their eyes. The existence of well-functiong democracies, where people have a say in how they are governed, taxed and rewarded, makes it harder for autocrats to survive, as they want as little as possible to flow to the people; their prime goal being wealth for the ruling class.

Democracy survives this challenge only when its citizens insist — peacefully, lawfully, and in great numbers — that power flows from the Constitution, not from loyalty to any single leader.

Russia and Hungary do have elections, but their results do not matter. Democratic backsliding rarely ends at the ballot box. Democracy will prevail only when institutions and key agents in our government refuse to participate in illegal, unconstitutional actions. And that includes these tariffs which Trump has lied about. Citizens in all states know tariffs are a tax by now.

The goal is de-escalation, not conflict

This is a call for governors to reclaim their sworn duty to protect their citizens from federal overreach and create some constitutional equilibrium as the founders of our nation intended. This is not a call for violence.
It is not a call for chaos. But if our enemies are going this route anyway, we need to prepare ahead of time.

If the unlawful ICE actions stop, street tensions will drop. After the unapproved tariffs stop and the savings passed on to consumers, prices will fall and financial anger will cool. When constitutional law replaces fear, democracy will begin to regain its footing.

America does not need a “strongman” or king. It was formed to get away from that way of governance. It just needs the Constitution to be enforced as written. State power to balance federal overreach is built in to the constitution to protect the consitution. So now, well before midterms, is the time for that governors union.

Why a union of aligned governors is critical right now

Imagine if Tim Walz announced he would no longer allow ICE agents to enter his state, nor be quartered in the state, if they came without warrants to arrest specific people. He would need the power to enforce said action if Trump sent ICE without warrants anyway. But Minnesota is just one state. They were over-powered and outnumbered. If the federal government knew 50% of the states, many of which surround Washington DC, were in a mutual self-defense union much like NATO, Trump would have cause to re-think military actions against Minnesota. There is real strength in unified numbers.

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin, 1776, as the Constitution was being crafted.

What governors can do today

Blue state governors and any others inclined to resist the debasement of our Constitutional can call each other and form a union. I like to call said union States United, dedicated to protect the member states from federal overreach. Announce said union. The announcement of its creation will be an instantaneous comfort to Americans in all states, blue and red. As we stand today, most US citizens feel there is no one in government to protect them from federal government overreach. Their plan is working because Democrats refuse to call this a war, and are going to gamble our entire existence on the results of an election run by a man who does not admit he lost 2020, which makes him a 3rd term president, looking for four, in his own fantasy. And that’s the only place this man lives folks.

What citizens can do today

Write your governor, online and on paper, and ask where they stand on warrantless federal enforcement. Ask them to form a union with other like minded governors, much like NATO, so that an attack on one is an attack on all.
Ask why your governor why he is collecting tariffs that Congress has not approved and if he will consider refusing to collect tariffs until they are approved by Congress as per the Constitution.
Ask your governor if he believes he has a duty to protect his state’s citizens from the dangers and costs of Trump’s unconstitutional executive actions
Make it clear you will not support your governor is he does nothing to stop tariffs and warrantless arrests.
Continue to protest peacefully.
Share this plea on social media. Get this plea to citizens and governors going viral.

About the author: Joseph Aronesty was a classmate to Donald Trump at Wharton in 1968 and worked in his orbit from 1986-99 in Atlantic City NJ. He has been warning Americans about the danger Trump poses for our country since 2016.