28 Jan 2026 - 14:23 CST 

There are moments in public life when the most important change is not a policy, but a temperature.

Since the year opened, the country’s civic fever has not been confined to one city or one controversy. It has moved the way inflammation moves: pressure building beneath the surface, then a sudden spike: an operation, an arrest, a contested death, a court order, a protest line, a new memo, a new reassignment; followed by the brief, uneasy lull that comes when everyone realizes the body cannot keep surging forever.

Minnesota has become one of the places where that fever is easiest to read because the record has been so public and so quickly evolving. Reporting in recent days describes a federal posture that hardened, then began to soften - not out of philosophical conversion, but under the weight of scrutiny, litigation, and the ordinary friction of a system that still contains other centers of authority besides the executive branch. In Reuters’ account, leadership changes and internal warnings followed visible escalation, including a federal judge summoning a senior ICE official in a contempt-related dispute, and a demotion or stripping of title from a commander whose public statements had embodied the earlier posture.

The pattern is familiar enough to be misunderstood.

Some will call it a victory for decency. Others will call it mere theater. The founders would have warned us away from both reflexes. They knew that tone could change without accountability changing. They also knew that accountability often begins with something as small as a forced pause; because pauses are where records are preserved, jurisdiction is asserted, and the first serious questions are finally asked aloud.

That is where Josiah Bartlett becomes useful, not because he can be turned into a ventriloquist for modern arguments, but because his life trained him to distrust panic and to treat “improvement” as something proved by outcomes.

Bartlett came to public service through medicine. He learned, early, what many political men never learn: that crisis invites confident remedies that can kill the patient. In Kingston, when diphtheria swept through and ordinary treatments leaned toward bleeding and starvation, he chose a different approach (cooling, observation, adjustment) and his reputation grew because he treated dogma as less important than whether the patient lived. That habit - measurement over bravado, restraint over spectacle - follows a man into politics even when the subject is no longer fever, but force.

He was not a theatrical figure in Congress. He was described as diligent, attentive to detail, and influential more by labor than by speech. Yet he was also, in the decisive hour, unmistakably clear. New Hampshire, called first in the roll, gave the first “aye” for independence through Bartlett. He understood that a republic requires firmness at the right moment. The question is what sort of firmness.

What would a physician-statesman notice in our present moment?

He would notice that the administration’s apparent shift - pulling back, changing assignments, speaking more carefully - arrived only after the system began producing hard consequences: disputed deaths, clashes over jurisdiction, court involvement, and public documentation that refused to stay private. He would not be shocked by that. He would recognize it the way a doctor recognizes a body’s forced correction when stress becomes unsustainable.

But he would also insist on the difference between symptom relief and cure.

A softened rhetorical posture is not, by itself, a constitutional recovery. It may simply be a reduction of visible swelling while the underlying condition continues to advance. In medicine, Bartlett would have said: do not confuse a quieter patient with a healed patient. In public life, the analog is plain: do not confuse calmer press statements with restored limits.

This is why the dispute about warrants and home entry matters so much, and why it cannot be treated as a technical quarrel for lawyers alone. Recent reporting has described internal guidance and arguments around the use of administrative paperwork (documents generated within the executive branch) as a basis for entry or arrest in ways that critics say press against the Fourth Amendment’s demand for judicial warrants at the home. Even where courts ultimately sort the legality in particular cases, the civic diagnosis is already available: when the executive branch grows comfortable treating its own paperwork as functionally equivalent to a judge’s order, it begins to certify itself.

Bartlett would have understood that habit instinctively. He practiced in a world where false confidence could become lethal. The more urgently you feel the need to act, the more disciplined you must become about proof.

So, if he were writing a missive in this hour, he would not ask first whether the administration has become more “reasonable.” He would ask whether the system has become more examinable.

Are investigations proceeding in a way that preserves evidence and permits independent review? Are jurisdictional disputes being resolved by law, or by power? Are courts being obeyed promptly, or treated as obstacles to be managed? Are the standards for entry, arrest, detention, and force being clarified publicly so that citizens can know what the government claims it may do?

Those are the vital signs. Without them, “de-escalation” is only a mood.

And Bartlett, who called the Declaration “the greatest state paper ever conceived by the mind of man,” would have reminded us why: the American claim was never merely that we would be strong. It was that we would be bound.

Bound means that power can be made to stop. Bound means that the home is not entered by confidence alone. Bound means that when blood is shed under contested facts, the public does not have to beg for the right to see the record. Bound means that courts are not props, and that oversight is not conditional on the executive branch’s willingness to cooperate.

This is why the current “turn” in posture - whatever its sincerity - should be recorded soberly, not celebrated as virtue and not dismissed as nothing. A good physician does not mock improvement. But neither does he stop treatment because the fever broke for an afternoon.

If pressure from courts, states, and public scrutiny has forced a recalibration, that is evidence that the constitutional immune system is still functioning. The task is to strengthen that system, not to relax because the patient looks less agitated.

Bartlett’s deepest counsel, I suspect, would be painfully unfashionable: slow down and document.

Not because urgency is imaginary, but because urgency is the condition under which republics make their worst mistakes; mistakes that become habits, and habits that become “normal.”

He would tell us that the country can survive anger, and it can survive sharp disagreement. What it cannot survive is a long season in which force is used under disputed facts and then insulated from examination because that is how a people learns, gradually, to accept the replacement of law with administrative will.

In medicine, you do not restore health by shouting at the body. You restore it by insisting on the disciplines that make recovery possible: clear measures, clean procedures, accountability to reality, and a refusal to confuse temporary relief with repair.

For citizens now, that means insisting, calmly and relentlessly, on the old basics. Not slogans. Not vengeance. Not denial.

Records. Warrants that mean what they say. Courts that are obeyed. Evidence that is preserved. Accountability that does not depend on whether officials feel like granting it.

Bartlett would recognize that as the only kind of cure a republic ever gets.

27 Jan 2026 - 7:36 CST

The last forty-eight hours have introduced a change in tone from Washington that would have been unthinkable only a week ago.

After weeks of escalation in Minnesota - public threats, mass deployments, and an enforcement posture that seemed to invite confrontation - the administration has begun to speak differently. Senior figures have been reassigned. Federal leadership has acknowledged conversations with state and local officials that emphasize de-escalation. Some agents are being pulled back. And the rhetoric that once leaned heavily on domination and inevitability has been replaced, at least publicly, with language of coordination and review.

It is tempting to call this a reversal.

But the founders were trained to distrust reversals that arrive only after blood, backlash, and scrutiny.
They understood that power rarely abandons a posture because it has discovered restraint. More often, it adjusts because restraint has been imposed by courts, by public outrage, by institutional friction, or by the simple recognition that bravado has begun to cost more than it delivers.

Elbridge Gerry was particularly clear-eyed about this pattern. He did not assume that officials acted in bad faith. He assumed something more ordinary and more dangerous: that authority, once exercised without clear limits, grows accustomed to itself. His insistence on explicit restraints, on written guarantees, on external checks, on structures that forced justification, came from the belief that tone is never a substitute for accountability.

That is the lens through which this moment should be read.

A softened posture toward Minnesota does not, by itself, answer the questions raised by Minneapolis. It does not resolve the disputed facts surrounding Alex Pretti’s death. It does not clarify who controls a scene when federal force is used against a citizen. It does not explain how warrants are understood, or how administrative authority is being interpreted inside the home. And it does not, on its own, establish whether the system is correcting itself or merely changing faces.

The founding generation was not hostile to correction. They welcomed it. But they measured correction differently than we often do now. They did not ask whether leaders sounded more reasonable. They asked whether power had become more answerable.

Gerry warned that rights are not secured by moments of moderation, but by habits of restraint. A government that learns to speak carefully without being constrained structurally has not been tamed; it has been coached. That distinction mattered to him because he had lived through its earlier forms - imperial authorities who occasionally softened their language while continuing to expand their reach.

So, the question this shift raises is not whether the temperature has dropped. It is whether the rules have reasserted themselves. If investigations proceed independently and without obstruction, that will be evidence of correction. If evidence is preserved and jurisdiction respected, that will be evidence of correction. If the legal standards governing entry, detention, and force are clarified publicly and enforced consistently, that will be evidence of correction.

If, however, today’s changes amount only to a rearrangement - new overseers, quieter language, the same unresolved authorities - then what we are witnessing is not restraint, but recalibration.

The founders were not impressed by recalibration. They were impressed by submission to limits.

Gerry would have cautioned against mistaking relief for repair. Relief is emotional. Repair is procedural. Relief fades quickly. Repair leaves a record.

A republic does not preserve itself by applauding every retreat as virtue. It preserves itself by insisting that retreats become precedents by making sure that when power steps back, it does not step back only until the noise passes.

So, I record this moment without celebration and without cynicism.

A change in tone is welcome if it signals a return to discipline. A change in posture is meaningful only if it results in accountability that can survive the next crisis.

The test is not whether this administration has learned to speak more carefully. The test is whether the system has re-learned how to say no.

That is the difference between a temporary pause and a constitutional correction.

26 Jan 2026 - 9:32 CST

After spending the morning reviewing some of the posts being shared online by some of my Masonic brethren, I felt compelled to put some thoughts down for my both my own personal reflection and record as well as to promote further debate and discussion.

Rather than respond in the heat of the moment, I want to slow the room for a moment and speak from a place we share; not as partisans, and not as spectators, but as men shaped by older disciplines.

Both the founding generation and the Masonic tradition understood something that is easy to forget in an age of instant reaction: how authority is spoken about trains how it will be exercised. Words are not commentary alone. They are instruction.

The founders were not naïve about disorder or violence. Many of them faced mobs, riots, arson, and armed resistance firsthand. They believed firmly in enforcement and the rule of law. But they were equally clear that legitimacy depends on restraint, especially when those entrusted with power speak publicly. James Madison warned that power rarely announces itself as tyranny; it arrives as necessity, grows comfortable with itself, and slowly teaches people to accept what would once have unsettled them.

That is why republican government was designed to sound procedural rather than triumphant. Authority, in their view, was meant to explain itself, not savor itself. Force, when necessary, was to be justified reluctantly and constrained carefully, not promised in advance with bravado. A republic can survive harsh facts; it struggles to survive a harsh governing tone.

Freemasonry reaches the same conclusion by a different road. The Old Charges do not ask us to withdraw from civic life; they ask us to enter it governed. A Mason’s obligations do not pause outside the lodge. They follow him into public speech, into comment sections, and into the moments when anger or certainty tempts excess. Temperance is not silence. It is the discipline to speak in a way that steadies rather than inflames.

When rhetoric about enforcement leans toward humiliation, domination, or the casual invocation of death, it becomes more than opinion. It becomes conduct. And conduct - especially when visible to others - is precisely what Masonry asks us to examine first in ourselves. The working tools were not given to admire power, but to measure it. The square tests our words. The level reminds us that authority does not elevate us above restraint. The plumb asks whether our public posture stands upright when examined in daylight.

None of this denies the reality that violence against officers is grave, or that force may be necessary in extreme circumstances. The question is not whether the law may act, but how we speak about that action. The founders feared people becoming accustomed to intimidation as governance. Masonry warns against the same habit, because power spoken without restraint rarely remains restrained in practice.

I offer this not as rebuke, and certainly not as political argument, but as a reminder I owe myself as much as anyone else. A Mason is taught to cool the room, not heat it. A citizen of a republic inherits the same obligation. If our principles guide us only when it is easy or emotionally satisfying, then they are not principles, they are preferences.

Both traditions - republican and Masonic - ask something harder of us: to model seriousness, restraint, and clarity when the moment invites spectacle. Order enforced without humility teaches fear. Order defended with discipline teaches legitimacy.

That distinction matters. It always has.

And it is worth remembering that our words, like our actions, are part of the work we leave behind.

26 Jan 2026 - 7:59 CST 

Two facts now sit on the public record in Minneapolis, and neither can be responsibly ignored.

First: on January 24, federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, during an immigration enforcement operation. Federal officials asserted self-defense and claimed he was armed. Video reviewed by major outlets shows Pretti holding a phone during critical moments, being pepper-sprayed, forced to the ground, and shot. The precise sequence of events remains disputed, but the evidentiary conflict itself is no longer hypothetical.

Second: state and local officials have publicly stated that federal agents restricted or delayed their access to the scene. That dispute over who controls evidence, jurisdiction, and investigation has become as consequential as the use of force itself.

These facts do not stand alone. They follow the January 7 killing of Renée Good, also a U.S. citizen, also in Minneapolis, also under contested claims of threat and justification. That case is now moving through litigation and raising broader questions about federal accountability, immunity, and oversight when lethal force is used in civil enforcement contexts.

Behind both incidents lies a structural issue that predates Minneapolis and will outlast it if left unresolved. Reporting has confirmed the existence of internal ICE guidance asserting authority to enter homes and make arrests using administrative paperwork - documents generated within the executive branch - rather than warrants signed by a neutral judge, where the agency believes a final order of removal exists.

Whether that authority is lawful in each instance is a question for courts. Whether it is healthy for a republic is a question for citizens.

This is where Elbridge Gerry becomes relevant; not as a mascot for a position, but as a diagnostic voice trained on precisely this kind of ambiguity.

Gerry’s objections during the ratification debates were not abstract. He was alarmed by systems in which power blurred its own boundaries - where executive authority could drift into legislative or judicial space, and where the absence of explicit restraints invited officials to treat internal certification as sufficient proof of legitimacy. He warned repeatedly that liberty is most endangered not by declared tyranny, but by undefined power exercised as routine.

Read through that lens, Minneapolis is not only a tragedy. It is a test.

When an agency’s own paperwork begins to function as a substitute for judicial warrants, the distinction between permission and proof erodes. Entry into the home - a place the Constitution treats as uniquely protected - shifts from judicial authorization to administrative confidence. That shift does not require malice to be dangerous. It requires only habit.

Gerry understood that rights do not survive on goodwill. They survive on structure. He described declarations of rights as “guards… intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government,” precisely because he assumed future officials would face incentives to act first and justify later.

His second concern follows naturally from the first. Gerry was deeply skeptical of force that grows without clear civilian restraint. At the Constitutional Convention, he objected to language normalizing standing military power in peacetime, warning that security rhetoric has a way of becoming justification for domestic domination. His fear was not disorder. It was power becoming comfortable with itself.

That perspective does not reject enforcement. It demands something harder: enforcement that remains legible, reviewable, and subordinate to law.

If Gerry were observing the present moment, he would not reach first for denunciation. He would reach for records. He would insist that disputed facts be tested openly, that evidence be preserved, that warrants be warrants, and that no agency be allowed to mark its own homework when lethal force is involved.

A republic can absorb anger. It cannot absorb the steady narrowing of scrutiny.

So, the work before citizens now is not theatrical. It is procedural. Demand transparent, independent investigation of the Pretti shooting, with public accounting of evidence and jurisdictional authority.

Demand clarity, legal, not rhetorical, about what constitutes a valid warrant, who signs it, and under what circumstances administrative documents can justify home entry.

Demand accountability in the Good case, including clear articulation of the standards governing federal use of force and the limits of immunity.

These demands do not presume guilt. They presume seriousness.

Gerry’s relevance is not that he would have taken a side. It is that he understood how republics erode: not all at once, but through tolerable shortcuts that accumulate into a governing style.

A nation that preserves order by teaching itself to live without enforceable limits eventually discovers that liberty was the limit it quietly abandoned.

Gerry would remind us of what his generation learned the hard way: rights are not secure because officials mean well. They are secure only when officials are required - by law, by structure, and by public insistence - to prove that they have acted lawfully.

25 Jan 2026 - 9:48 CST

Rather than begin with the loudest claim, I begin with the most fragile thing a republic possesses: the ordinary citizen’s expectation that the home is still a boundary, that arrest is still answerable to a neutral judge, and that the state - precisely when it is most confident in its necessity - still submits itself to procedures it did not write for its own convenience.

This morning’s news out of Minneapolis forces those expectations into the open.

A U.S. citizen, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed during a federal immigration operation. Federal officials say he approached agents with a handgun; bystander video reviewed by major outlets shows him holding a phone, assisting others, and being shot after he was pepper‑sprayed and pinned down. State and local officials report being denied access to the scene by federal agents. The death comes weeks after another U.S. citizen, Renée Good, was killed by an ICE agent during a separate Minneapolis encounter, further sharpening the question that always follows a contested use of force: not simply whether officials claim authority, but whether the public is permitted to examine its exercise.

A republic can survive anger. It cannot survive the conversion of scrutiny into obstruction.

That is why the newly reported Fourth‑Amendment dispute matters as more than a technical argument. The Associated Press has reported on an internal ICE memorandum authorizing officers to enter homes and make arrests using administrative paperwork, rather than a warrant signed by a judge, where the agency believes a final order of removal exists. Separately, a U.S. Senate oversight letter describes a whistleblower disclosure alleging a secret policy to treat those administrative forms as sufficient for home entry, despite longstanding Fourth‑Amendment doctrine that treats the home as the place where judicial oversight is most exacting.

Even if one sets aside the strongest rhetoric on either side, the structural problem remains: when executive agencies begin to treat their own documents as functionally equivalent to judicial warrants, the distinction between “permission” and “proof” collapses. The Fourth Amendment was written precisely to prevent that collapse. It assumes that the state, left alone, will be tempted to certify itself.

The same pattern - speed treated as virtue, process treated as nuisance - appears in the due‑process disputes now surrounding deportation and detention. Critics argue that expanded fast‑track removals and a detention system that makes it difficult to obtain counsel or bond are creating outcomes that function as punishment without the full moral work of adjudication. Courts have already intervened in some areas, temporarily blocking attempted expansions of rapid deportation policies on due‑process grounds and entertaining challenges to other removal authorities. Whatever one’s policy preferences, the constitutional question is not exotic: when liberty and family unity are on the line, what procedures does the state owe before it acts?

A state that becomes comfortable acting first and explaining later does not merely risk error. It trains itself to prefer error.

At this point it is tempting, especially online, to rush from procedure to apocalypse. The founding generation gives us a better discipline.

They believed, emphatically, in enforcement and order. They were not anarchists. Many of them had seen riots, mobs, and violent intimidation. John Adams’s public life is a sustained argument that a free society depends on law being more than a slogan: “a government of laws, and not of men.” In other words: the legitimacy of power is measured by its willingness to be constrained by forms that prevent discretion from becoming dominance.

Yet they also insisted that when government becomes systematically arbitrary; when it displays, over time, a design to reduce people under “absolute despotism” - the people retain an ultimate right to resist. The Declaration’s standard is not the anger of a day, but the evidence of a pattern: “a long train of abuses and usurpations” pursuing a single object. Locke had made the same point earlier: not every abuse warrants resistance, but a sustained pattern that reveals a design changes the moral calculus.

Even then, the founders’ own logic makes armed revolt a threshold, not a reflex.

First, the justification is cumulative, not instantaneous. It rests on records: repeated injuries, failed petitions, closed avenues of remedy.

Second, it presumes that ordinary lawful remedies have been attempted or foreclosed. The Declaration itself speaks of “patient sufferance” before necessity.

Third, even where writers like Hamilton and Jefferson acknowledged an “original right of self‑defense,” they treated it as a last resource when representatives betray constituents and when constitutional remedies fail to restrain usurpation.

What follows for our present moment is both sobering and practical.

If the Minneapolis shootings are investigated transparently, if disputed claims are tested against evidence, if accountability mechanisms function, then the republic is doing what it was built to do - even in pain.

But if scrutiny is systematically blocked; if administrative paperwork is treated as a substitute for a judge; if removals are accelerated in ways that deny meaningful hearing; if the home is approached as a convenience rather than a constitutional line; then the country is not merely enforcing immigration law. It is rehearsing a broader idea: that rights exist until the executive branch decides they do not.

That is the habit the founders feared.

And that is why careful language matters. It is possible, at once, to demand lawful enforcement and to insist that lawfulness includes warrants that mean what they say, procedures that are not performative, and due process that is not treated as a discretionary courtesy. It is possible to condemn rioting and also condemn unaccountable state violence. A republic does not have to choose between order and liberty; it must refuse to separate them.

On the specific claim about violence: in the reporting available at the time of this writing, my own research confirms multiple civilians have been killed in Minneapolis in encounters with federal immigration agents this month; I have not found confirmed reporting of law‑enforcement deaths connected to these incidents. If that changes, the record should be corrected immediately; because the discipline of proof is not a weapon for one side, but the civic hygiene without which every argument becomes propaganda.

So the work now is not to inflame. It is to preserve the record.

Demand transparent investigations into each shooting.

Demand clarity about what counts as a warrant, and who signs it.

Demand that removal procedures provide genuine opportunity to be heard, and that detention does not become a mechanism of coercion-by-delay.

And demand these things in the old republican way: with evidence, with patience, and with a refusal to let fear - whether of disorder or of outsiders - become the excuse by which the state relearns lawlessness.

Because the founders’ warning was never merely that tyranny might arrive. It was that a frightened people might invite it piecemeal by allowing “temporary” shortcuts to harden into permanent habits.