January 10, 2026
Founders Facepalm Edition
Checks and Balances Are Dead
Internet declares “Checks & Balances” on life support
TLDR: A fiery op-ed says party loyalty has gutted America’s safeguards, accusing leaders of dodging the 25th Amendment and Congress of napping. Commenters split between “the system’s broken” and “this is melodrama,” with memes and fact-checks sparring over whether institutions still have teeth.
An incendiary op-ed claims America’s famed “checks and balances” are toast, blasting party loyalty for neutering the 25th Amendment (the rule that lets the vice president and cabinet bench an unfit president). Commenters went nuclear. One camp shouted “use the 25th, or admit it’s theater”, accusing leaders of worshiping the party line over the Constitution. Another camp rolled their eyes, calling the piece doom cosplay and pointing out courts still exist and Congress hasn’t literally vanished. The article alleges a “rogue president” chasing perks, deploying troops, deporting citizens, bombing allies, and flirting with a third term—claims that set off a firestorm of fact-check wars and link battles over what’s proven vs. spicy rhetoric.
Drama peaked around whether Vice President Harris would ever trigger the 25th. Some insisted “she knew, she didn’t act,” while others said that’s pure fan fiction. Legal nerds jumped in, explaining the 25th requires the VP plus a cabinet majority, and impeachment is Congress’s job—then roasted Congress for “power nap” vibes. Memes exploded: Founding Fathers facepalm GIFs, “Checks & Balances—now with in-app purchases,” and “banana republic bingo” cards. The most brutal take: “Checks didn’t fail—they were pawned.” Even skeptics agreed on one thing: the system only works if people in it actually use it.
Key Points
- •The article argues that U.S. checks and balances are failing because officials prioritize party loyalty and self-preservation over institutional power.
- •It describes the 25th Amendment’s design to remove an unfit president but claims party dynamics hinder its practical use.
- •The article alleges the current president has engaged in unconstitutional and unlawful actions, including domestic and foreign policy overreach and seeking a third term.
- •It contrasts a theoretical bipartisan response to such conduct with claimed real-world partisan resistance and congressional passivity.
- •The article contends modern politicians value titles, status, and financial benefits over maintaining institutional power, with congressional leaders deferring authority to the president.