By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
I grew up in the coal and steel country of southwestern Pennsylvania, where authority was real and visible. Union bosses, mine foremen, sheriffs—they ran things, and you knew it. I didn’t question strong leadership. I was drawn to it.
Then I spent 30 years in the U.S. Army Reserve—serving in Vietnam, Kuwait, and Bosnia—and learned something the bosses back home never taught me: Legitimate authority has limits.
Those limits are written in the Constitution. My oath was to support and defend it—not a president, not a party.
I took that oath in 1969. This November, I want to know what the people seeking our votes believe theirs requires.
For much of my life, I was comfortable with strong central authority. My politics ran center-left, and I generally trusted Washington to address problems states could not—or would not—resolve.
I still believe the federal government has essential responsibilities. But I have moved toward a greater appreciation of the balance between federal and state power. Neither level deserves a blank check. Neither should be able to disregard the Constitution simply because its leaders claim a worthy purpose.
That is not a conversion to “states’ rights” at any cost. It is a recognition that divided power protects us from unchecked power.
Donald Trump’s second term has made that distinction urgent.
This month, the Justice Department asked a federal court to stop California from counting mail ballots from people the administration claims may be noncitizens. California officials say Washington gave them 48 hours to review roughly 20,000 names without providing evidence to substantiate those claims. An allegation is not proof that a voter is ineligible.
In Alaska, the department is seeking to block certification of the Senate election if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses narrowly enough that votes for another candidate with a similar name might explain the result. Asked about the lawsuit, Trump said, “I’m the one that said do it.”
A president directing federal intervention in an election affecting his party’s Senate majority deserves scrutiny—not a presumption that his political interests and the public interest are identical.
Then, on October 23, a federal appeals court upheld an injunction against Trump’s takeover of California’s National Guard during last year’s Los Angeles protests. The court concluded California was likely to prove he had exceeded his legal authority.
As a retired Army officer, I understand the importance of a chain of command. I also understand that command authority operates within the law.
Washington has legitimate responsibilities in protecting elections and enforcing federal law. But invoking those responsibilities does not establish that every intervention is lawful. The administration must demonstrate its authority and support its claims with evidence.
Our constitutional system divides power. Congress legislates and appropriates money. States administer elections within a framework that also gives Congress substantial authority. The president does not acquire the powers of every other institution simply by winning an election.
Courts can check executive overreach. But they cannot substitute for a Congress willing to exercise its own authority.
That is why these midterms matter.
The president is not on the ballot. The people responsible for scrutinizing his administration, controlling appropriations, and defending Congress’s constitutional role are.
Before voting, ask congressional candidates a few plain questions.
Will you investigate executive misconduct even when the president belongs to your party?
Will you defend Congress’s authority when the White House disregards it?
Will you respect the lawful responsibilities of states—and apply the same constitutional standards when the other party holds the presidency?
A principle that changes with the president’s party is not a principle. It is a convenience.
We need strong leadership. I believed that when I put on the uniform, and I believe it now. But strength without accountability is not constitutional leadership.
So, vote. Help a neighbor get to the polls. Organize, speak, and assemble peacefully. Do not let exhaustion become withdrawal.
I took an oath to the Constitution. So did the president. So did the members of Congress asking to keep their jobs.
This November, we should vote as though those words mean something—and expect the people we elect to govern that way.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel and former federal civil servant who writes about civic education, public accountability and national security. He lives in Fredericksburg.
