An 1810 amendment that would strip citizenship from anyone accepting a foreign title of nobility was ratified by 12 of the required states at the time. This "Nobility Amendment" highlights the profound founding-era concern about aristocratic corruption and foreign interference.

The late 19th-century movement for international arbitration was heavily associated with female activists. Opponents successfully cast diplomacy as a "feminized" weakness, arguing that war was necessary to reassert masculine virtues and authority in American politics and counter women's growing influence.

Grant was a brilliant Civil War general because his skills perfectly matched the desperate need for military commanders. However, he was a mediocre president because he meshed poorly with the political environment of the White House. This highlights that leadership skills are not universally transferable; context is everything.

The Constitution lacks an "immigration clause." The Supreme Court established this authority as an "inherent power" derived from national sovereignty, not specific text. This plenary power, created by judicial interpretation, is assigned to Congress.

Janet Napolitano argues that recent Supreme Court doctrines presume a level of legislative clarity and capability that doesn't exist in modern politics. By expecting Congress to legislate with extreme precision on all major issues, the Court ignores institutional dysfunction and creates a standard the legislative branch cannot meet.

The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.

In politics, the perception of strength and decisiveness can be more electorally powerful than being correct but appearing weak or compromising. This principle explains why a political party might maintain a hardline stance that is unpopular, as the image of strength itself resonates more with voters than the nuance of being “right.”

Historian Anne Applebaum observes that significant US constitutional amendments often follow profound national traumas like the Revolution or the Civil War. This suggests that without a similar large-scale crisis, mustering the collective will to address deep-seated issues like systemic corruption is historically difficult, as there is no single moment of reckoning.

Using a shipbuilding analogy, Oliver Libby argues that a nation's stability—its ability to right itself after being pushed to extremes—is not guaranteed. This "righting moment" requires constant effort from its citizens, challenging the passive patriotism that assumes the country will always be okay.