Most people of a certain age are familiar with the Twilight Zone to some degree or another. Younger people may be more familiar with science fiction programs like Black Mirror. But there is something uniquely different about The Twilight Zone that is relevant to the future of democracy in America. That difference comes from a 1952 Supreme Court decision and an opinion of Justice Robert Jackson.

Having nothing to do with science fiction or the supernatural, the “zone of twilight,” referred to a specific condition related to the checks and balances of our federal government. 

According to the National Constitution Center, ” During the Korean War, President Harry Truman ordered his administration to seize most of the nation’s steel mills, to prevent labor strikes from shutting down mills that were producing a crucial national security material. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, also known as the Steel Seizure Case, a 6-3 Supreme Court said that the Truman administration’s seizure of the steel mills was unconstitutional.”

The opinion that established the twilight zone, involved a condition which creates uncertainty among the branches of government. This ambiguity is created by a silence in Congress.

Jackson postulated that with respect to the checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches, there exists (3) states of authorization.

At the top, is a condition where the Congress is fully aligned with the President. The Presidents actions are not opposed, nor is Congress silently in opposition or support. There is vocal and open support for the President’s agenda, with Congressional support that is transparent.

At the bottom, is a condition of open opposition. This happens when Congress opposes the President, refuses to pass legislation according to the President’s desires, and possibly threatens the President with impeachment. That kind of contention exists in this bottom tier of check and balance.

The middle section, that mid-tier is considered the zone of twilight or The Twilight Zone. That is when Congress is silent, and the public, as well as the courts, are essentially awaiting Congressional approval or disapproval.

This explains a certain kind of tensions that seems to never go away in our political life. More people are noticing that at the highest levels and with grave decisions like war making or peace treaties and International trade deals, both major American political parties seem aligned. For example, no person in Congress is especially eager or vocal about creating peace with Iran – which at the moment of this writing – has created worldwide concern about a nuclear outbreak.

While Congress members are constantly on social media publishing tweets or releasing video statements, if you listen carefully, they never really say much. Their voices are being heard, but in the end, it feels like silence. That is because I believe there are additional tiers or zones like twilight to consider in terms of ambiguity in legal authority.

For example, there exists additional legal theory related to a 2010 University of Memphis Law Review paper called, “Youngstown’s Fourth Tier: Is There A Zone of Insight Beyond the Zone of Twilight?” In this paper, it is argued that there is a “zone of insight” when it comes to how the Supreme Court must rule on cases related to Executive authority in the absence of a Congressional check. If the President is sued, and Congress is not a party to the matter, the Supreme Court exists in the zone of insight, they say.

I believe that we have to name another tier. The “X Tier,” is sadly probably appropriate given the modern context of the letter X. This relates to a condition where Congress is making lots of noise but is still effectively silent.

The rationale for doing this is to maintain the support of a political base that would otherwise oppose the administration or regime in charge, while secretly working with them in the background. In the end, this means political parties lie to their own constituents about a lot of things, and then make a literal show of it online to convince the American people that they are actually in opposition.

This is confounded by the fact that most Americans, if pressed, could not articulate clearly what kinds of consequences and changes should be made in our society. Congress is abusing those people, by not giving them an answer. Instead, you get politicians “ask questions” of departments in the government like ICE, as if they only have the same kind of access as we do.

Defining the state in which Congress loudly makes no salient points of opposition will allow the people to recognize that it is time to find new ways to exercise civic authority over the government from within the system we have.

There are also a lot of additional layers to the fundamental question of balancing authority in our democratic system. If you look at what’s been going on recently in Los Angeles, it demonstrates a sort of twilight zone effect where the people do not know if LAPD, ICE, or now National Guards or Marines are in charge of law enforcement. It complicated jurisdictional oversight and multi-department management by being done so sloppily.

The city of Los Angeles, and the state of California was a combination of secretly complicit with Donald Trump and on the other hand inept at stopping him from doing what he was doing. I think that breakdown was a clear example of this other kind of zone of twilight, when you realize that the zone of twilight references an ambiguity in the responsibility for lawmaking and enforcement.

Something most people don’t realize, even though they know it deep down, is that “the courts” are a passive branch of our government. Legislators legislate, meaning, they write and pass laws. The President in the Executive does that, and vetos laws, among other things like being commander in chief. But the courts are there for those who use them. They require a plaintiff and a defendant, though. So a lot of people have said (about their acquiescence to Trump) that “the courts” will defend us against whatever negative effects he is after. That’s not necessarily true.

People who use the courts will stop him. If there are only individual efforts, of specific victims, and if those efforts are focused only on a few sensational cases, the general movement Trump is enacting will proceed.

Beyond this political moment, it is important to recognize the American system is composed of layers of legal structures called cities, states, and the federal government. Within each of those there are branches of government which serve as checks and balances. While democratic norms and rights are being demolished, there is still a rigid enough system to keep us in place for now.

But you must recognize the impact of Twilight Zone episodes in our political life. They can be big things, or small things. They end up playing a cover up function in a lot of cases meaning stories come out that are Twilight Zone like, with a lack of resolution. Then we move on. A new story like that comes up and it’s almost like the past episodes never finish so in our society there are just multiple unfinished episodes that never end.

Luigi Mangione was/is a case like this, in that his celebrity became known as a result of sensationalizing constitutional breakdowns where different branches of government and law enforcement all sacrificed their accountability and responsibility.

He was given no due process and that is actually the biggest “insult” as he put it, in the entire case. The result is that justice will not get served, a lot of questions will remain unanswered, and often additional culprits or conspirators are left unfound as a result.

Some of these American Twilight Zone episodes are much more boring and dumb. For example, a recent sensation was wrapped up around Senator Alex Padilla from California after he was momentarily arrested.

The story went viral, and you may have even heard about it. In fact, you may know the story well. The way the story was positioned, it was as if he were assaulted for asking a question.

However, the Twilight Zone effect here, is that if you watch back on the video of this incident, he poses no question. Yet the incident is reported that he was assaulted for asking a question. Is the story true? No. he was not assaulted for asking a question. He could not be assaulted for asking a question if he asked no question. There had to be some other rationale. It could have been that he was arrested for saying something, but that was not the claim.

Though this is not exactly a conflict directly between the Executive and Legislative branches, it is evidence that an opposition should be seeing what I see, and calling it out. Nobody mentioned it. Not even the so-called free press which reported on it. We all saw the same video.

I just called out the most basic error, and asked what was really going on. Yet there is a loud almost deafening kind of silence around the incident, so there is no room for my question, which in turn violates the first amendment rights I have. It is consequentially also very bad for the public to have me be censored in this kind of Twilight Zone fashion.

Because in the Padilla case, he is actually obstructing justice while posing as a freedom fighter. He is fake opposition to Trump, on Gavin Newsom’s side. The guy looks like he is trying to angle for Gavin Newsom’s role as governor when Newsom runs for President in 2028. 

At the end of the day, this gridlock is imposed from the Congressional silence on this administration and how they are conducting themselves with boots on the ground. It is not going well, but we are still somehow stuck in the Twilight Zone.

More people do appear to be waking up from it, however it was not just a liberal or conservative phenomenon. People on the left wing are noticing more people on the right wing coming to new realizations, including remorse for their former support of Donald Trump.

I hope that people who consider themselves liberal, or Democrats, are willing to also eat a giant heaping of humble pie. This phenomenon of being stuck in the Twilight Zone is a pretty Cold War thing, and has been going on for so long that both parties are to blame.

Another aspect of Twilight Zone type nonsense is the idea that we have (2) parties when they function as a uniparty. It is stuck in a mode where there is no consensus on whether we actually have 2 parties, if those 2 parties are really a uniparty, and if so – that means we have 1 party.

If you only have (1) party in the nation, you really have no party because it eventually devolves into the philosophy of whoever assumes dictatorial control of that singular party mindset.

This is the kind of world that is often portrayed in episodes of the Twilight Zone. Another theme is that those who speak out about what makes no sense or seems inhumane are treated with disdain. That also holds true today. If we want to escape the American Twilight Zone, The People are going to have to look deep inside and change.

Rather than looking for a political party to provide an answer and gifts, you will have to work for it – as you escape the Twilight Zone.