One of the most shocking aspects of the Trump presidential campaign is the way the billionaire keeps promising to do things that are likely beyond the limits of presidential authority set by the Constitution of the United States.
Trump promises use of raw power, like tearing up treaties, torturing terrorists, threatening Muslims – all are huge applause lines at Trump rallies. Would Trump be doing the Democrats one better? President Obama has overstretched the limits of his authority as president, and so did George W. Bush before him, and Bill Clinton before him, and George H. W. Bush before him. Each president takes the presidency further from the rule of law.
“The most likely change might not involve out-and-out authoritarianism as much as a coarsening of acceptable US political behavior. Trump proposals that seem startling now – such as killing terrorists’ spouses – might be less so after years of a Trump administration.”
“What would be activated would be a normalization of certain kinds of things… The law might not change but the attitude would,” says Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, and author of “The New Imperial Presidency.” And this would affect the rule of law, namely the way the Constitution is implemented, even if not one word changes. And that’s already happening through judicial reinterpretation, presidential executive order, and legislative activism. Trump, apparently would take it further.
While Trump’s talk of targeting the wives and children of terrorists isn’t likely to happen, the rhetoric represents the attitude of many of Trump’s followers toward the rule of law. Trump also talks about waterboarding terrorists, “or worse,” which would be a violation of criminal law. But the enthusiasm his comments engender among his followers suggests that if they could they would take matters into their own hands, or at least pressure their leader to do so.
For years, GOP lawmakers [have] been accusing Mr. Obama of abusing his office and bypassing the will of Congress, and now their party’s presumptive presidential nominee is promising to go even farther.
What if the existing checks on presidential power, both legislative and judicial don’t work? After all, the job of White House counsel isn’t primarily to point out the limits of presidential authority. It’s to figure out legal justifications for things presidents already want to do.
“The Constitution does not enforce itself.” Enforcement could “depend on the domestic political and international security situation facing the nation at that moment.” During World War II for instance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, decided that it would be OK to imprison Japanese-Americans in internment camps. He did it by an executive order. And most US citizens accepted that violation of the Constitution due to the crisis they believed they faced.
“Since 9/11 the presidency has changed,” argues Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government at American University in Washington. “President George W. Bush pioneered sweeping surveillance powers, some of which have since been enacted into law. Obama has intensified a nominally secret drone war that includes the extra-judicial killing of American citizens deemed to be terrorists. The next president will inherit that war intact. This increase in presidential security power will be an issue whoever wins the presidency,” says Edelson. “It’s not specific to Trump or presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.”
The rule of law is being undermined by the rule of the mob. Under Trump, America could become “a place where a majority has voted to restrict the personal rights of a minority, or minorities.”
The Constitution is increasingly fragile these days. Will its principles be repudiated? Many Americans are simulating the frustrations of the German people on the eve of World War II as Hitler rose to power and overthrew the German Constitution. History repeats itself. Will it happen again?
The United States “shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government.” See Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, page 451.