Un plan d'essai et son introduction

Plan. I. Polarisation has weakened Congress as a check: when the same party controls both branches, Congress tends to follow the President, as the passage of Public Law 119-21 by the narrowest margins showed. II. The courts have taken over the role of counterweight: in 2026 a conservative Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs and upheld birthright citizenship. III. But a system that relies on judges alone is fragile: rulings come months after the measures, and the Court's own legitimacy is contested; elections, starting with the midterms, remain the ultimate check.

Introduction (environ 120 mots) : ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition'', wrote James Madison in 1788, explaining that liberty would be protected not by the virtue of leaders but by the rivalry of institutions. Two years into Donald Trump's second term, that design is being tested as never before. The President has governed largely by executive order, on tariffs, climate and even citizenship, with the support of a Republican Congress. Yet in 2026 the Supreme Court ruled against him on two flagship measures. The question is therefore not whether checks and balances survive, but which of them still work. This essay will argue that the courts have replaced a polarised Congress as the main counterweight, a shift that protects the system in the short term but strains it in the long term.

Ce qui fait la note : une citation du domaine public exacte et pertinente, une problématique reformulée (not whether… but which), une thèse nuancée annoncée clairement.