College Takes

College Takes provides a platform for young people to express their concerns about democracy, advocate for reform, and hone their writing skills. The views expressed by authors are their own and do not reflect the views of DODO (which does not advocate for any specific reform).

Are you a student? Pitch an idea or contribute content by emailing us at info@doctorsofdemocracy.org.

In this edition of College Takes, Georgina Tenny reflects on freedom, power, and the proper role of the constitution. Tenny is an International Relations and Political Science (Honours) student at Flinders University, Australia. She is a fellow with The Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C., studying at George Mason University and interning on Capitol Hill. Cross posted on Flinders University's website.

Reflections on Constitutional Constraints: Lessons from Washington, Through a Woman’s Eyes.

Georgina Tenny

February 10, 2026

My first month in the United States has forced me to rethink the relationship between freedom, power, and constitutional limits, which are often described as "constitutional constraints."

My days move between classrooms and Capitol Hill, between studying theories of governance and observing government in action. Moving between these two worlds, one where power is analyzed and another where it is exercised. This has made it increasingly clear that democratic freedom depends not only on elections or participation, but on institutional design.

The tension between freedom and power was made particularly evident during a discussion hosted by my public policy class with Advancing American Freedom (AAF), a Washington-based policy organization focused on constitutional governance. The discussion explored a familiar premise in constitutional theory: government exists not only to exercise power, but to limit it, or, as some might put it, to promote a tradition of constitutional constraints.

AAF emphasizes what it calls "principled conservatism:" constitutional limits, separation of powers, and skepticism toward unchecked executive authority. Whether one agrees with this approach or not, it reflects a longstanding constitutional tradition that protects liberty through structure rather than intention alone.

Tenny at AAF's offices in Washington, D.C.

For many Australians, this way of thinking feels unfamiliar. Liberty often seems inherited. It is assumed rather than deliberately engineered. Public debate tends to focus on who holds power, rather than how that power is constrained once obtained.

Listening to the discussion, I was struck less by the American context than by how rarely similar questions are asked at home.

"Listening to the discussion, I was struck less by the American context than by how rarely similar questions are asked at home."

In this sense, Australia echoes the critique famously offered by Donald Horne in The Lucky Country: a society prosperous and stable not because of careful institutional design, but because of circumstance. This is one that risks complacency by failing to understand what sustains its success. The irony is that the term “lucky country” is now commonly used as praise, rather than the warning Horne intended.

The U.S. Constitution begins from the assumption that power must be constrained. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Power is divided among branches, balanced between states and the national government, and limited by a codified Bill of Rights. Constitutional change is intentionally difficult and requires broad consensus.

These assumptions stand in contrast to other democratic models. While Canada embeds rights in its Constitution and provides strong judicial oversight, the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution and relies largely on statutory and common law rights. Even with a written constitution, Australia depends heavily on statutory and common law protections, with few express constitutional rights.

" It is the Constitution, and judges exercising their constitutional role, that has most consistently constrained presidential power."

Constitutional constraints built into the U.S. Constitution are being actively tested by the current political environment. President after president has sought to expand executive authority, arguably no more visibly than the current president.

However, even as the U.S. Constitution is being pushed to its limits, it is the Constitution, and judges exercising their constitutional role, that has most consistently constrained presidential power. Courts have reviewed executive orders, limited the scope of executive action, and reinforced procedural boundaries. While judicial review itself was not envisaged by the Founders and was established later in Marbury v Madison (1803), it has become central to the operation of constitutional constraints.

It may surprise many Australians to learn that some powers denied to the U.S. President could, in theory, be exercised by a determined Australian Prime Minister, given Australia’s weaker separation of powers and limited constitutional rights framework means there are fewer constitutional constraints on their powers.

Given this reality, Australia’s comparatively thin constitutional limits and expanding administrative state should evoke concern. Australia remains one of the few liberal democracies without a constitutionally entrenched bill or charter of rights. Executive and legislative power are not strictly divided, and the system relies heavily on unwritten conventions to limit executive overreach. The 1975 Constitutional Crisis demonstrated how fragile those conventions can be, and recent events in the United States further underscore the risks of relying on norms rather than enforceable structure.

"As a young woman and aspiring leader, these questions matter personally. Weak institutional protections disproportionately affect those without entrenched power."

Democracy alone does not guarantee liberty; constitutional structure does. Without strong constitutional constraints, freedom can be eroded through both unchecked majorities and insulated bureaucracies. This is not a partisan argument; it is a structural one.

As a young woman and aspiring leader, these questions matter personally. Weak institutional protections disproportionately affect those without entrenched power. When rights depend on goodwill rather than enforceable limits, liberty becomes uneven and contingent.

My first month in Washington has deepened my understanding of freedom. Liberty depends not only on values or participation, but on durable institutions that constrain power over time. The most significant threats to democratic freedom are often internal: complacency, institutional erosion, and a failure to ask difficult constitutional questions.

Returning home, I carry renewed respect for what sustains democratic freedom:

Structure.

Restraint.

Accountability.

Conscience.

Inclusion.

Everything else is decoration.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse