Trump and the Constitution: Two views

Michael Sozan: Trump’s unconstitutional actions threaten democracy

President Trump is pursuing a path that is actively destabilizing the guardrails of our Constitution. Unless he changes course, our nation — the world’s oldest continuing democracy — risks a crisis where the president is no longer beholden to the rule of law. Americans will suffer the consequences.

America’s Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to place political power in the hands of the people. They granted each of the government’s three branches — legislative, executive and judicial — specific powers, providing checks and balances for one another. This structure sets parameters so presidents cannot act like kings and instead must faithfully carry out the laws passed by Congress and interpreted by the judges.

Every president has tested constitutional boundaries. However, the Trump administration has taken far-reaching, unprecedented actions to try to create an unchecked presidency while stifling dissent and implementing a largely unpopular policy agenda that harms everyday Americans.

Echoing statements from authoritarians around the world, Trump proclaimed three weeks into his presidency, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” More recently, when asked if he is obligated to uphold the Constitution, Trump shockingly replied, “I don’t know.”

Keen to bend the Constitution toward its will, the Trump administration is undercutting Congress’s prerogatives left and right. For example, the administration has attempted to undermine independent agencies despite Congress deliberately establishing these agencies to help protect Americans’ health, safety and prosperity, free from undue political pressure. The administration has also refused to spend congressionally directed taxpayer funds and has dismantled agencies without the required congressional approval.

Another step involves the administration’s unconstitutional attacks on perceived opponents, including universities, law firms, labor unions, former government officials, and media outlets, many of whom are alleged to be too “woke.” These actions infringe on the First Amendment right to free speech, the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and due process, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Misusing governmental authority to punish one’s opponents stacks the political deck in favor of the president and strikes fear into people who want to exercise one of their most cherished liberties: free expression.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect is that in some instances, the administration is failing to fully comply with valid court orders, damaging the judiciary’s crucial responsibility to constrain a runaway president. Dozens of judges across the country have halted many of Trump’s executive orders, often because they violate core constitutional provisions that protect people from government overreach. This includes the administration’s attempts to deport immigrants without a proper hearing, deny Americans birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, and usurp the constitutional power of Congress and the states to set election-related rules.

Even the Supreme Court — currently controlled by conservative justices — ordered the administration to stop depriving immigrants of due process and instead give them their constitutional habeas corpus rights before deportation. Still, the administration has failed to follow the high court’s order to facilitate the return of an immigrant erroneously sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison and is now considering trying to suspend habeas corpus.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a conservative Ronald Reagan appointee on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, has expressed worries about a constitutional “crisis,” writing that he hopes it is “not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.”

Americans share his alarm. Almost six in 10 adults say they think Trump has “gone too far” in using presidential power to achieve his goals. Nearly seven in 10 adults say they think a president should follow Supreme Court rulings — even in the event a president thinks a ruling prevents him from protecting the country from a terrorist attack.

America’s nearly 250-year-old democracy has always been an experiment. And it’s an experiment that is still unrealized — not yet fully responsive to “we the people.”

An unanswerable, king-like president — of any political party — thwarts that foundational goal laid out in our Constitution. Now, it’s up to the courts, Congress and civil society, including everyday Americans, to exercise collective responsibility and protect the constitutional separation of powers, ensuring presidents remain accountable to us all.

Editor’s note: Michael Sozan is a senior fellow for Democracy Policy at the Center for American Progress. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.

Barry W. Poulson: Trump is upholding the constitution by calling out its weaknesses

When asked in May whether he needed to uphold the Constitution of the United States, President Trump responded, “I don’t know.” 

That answer seemed to shock many, but perhaps it shouldn’t have. Rather than signaling disregard, Trump’s response reflected a rare, if blunt, honesty about the serious constitutional flaws that have allowed our federal government to grow unbounded and fiscally reckless. To question whether one can fully uphold something so deeply compromised is not a betrayal. Instead, it is a challenge to do better.

It is easy to argue that Trump must preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, no matter what. That oath is solemn, and it matters. So does the substance of the document he and every president and other government officials have sworn to uphold. However, the Constitution has been eroded over time, particularly since the 1930s, when the Supreme Court lowered the standard of judicial scrutiny for economic liberties. Since then, Congress has been permitted to justify nearly any economic legislation with the vaguest link to public welfare. The result has been the dramatic expansion of federal power and the weakening of constitutional checks and balances.

One of the Constitution’s most dangerous omissions is the lack of constraints on the federal government’s ability to tax, spend and borrow. For much of U.S. history, an informal culture of fiscal prudence kept these powers in check. Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that no generation should burden the next with debt is a sentiment that guided policy. Specifically, debt was acceptable during wartime, but it was expected to be paid down in peacetime.

States have acted where the federal government has failed. In the 19th century, when states defaulted on canal and infrastructure debt, they responded by adding balanced budget provisions to their constitutions. In the 20th century, citizens again took matters into their own hands. California’s Proposition 13 launched a national tax revolt, and Colorado’s TABOR amendment imposed strict limits on government growth. These reforms were citizen-led, constitutional in nature, and driven by the realization that unchecked government leads to unsustainable fiscal paths.

Today, the federal government is hurtling toward a debt crisis. Statutory fiscal rules passed by Congress have been routinely waived or ignored by both parties. The “Big Beautiful Bill” recently approved by the House — championed by Trump — recognizes the expanded role of government but also underscores the need for structural reform. Without clear constitutional boundaries, any administration —  Republican or Democratic — will face the temptation to spend without restraint.

This is why Trump’s seemingly offhand remark deserves a deeper reading. When he said, “I don’t know,” he wasn’t rejecting the Constitution. He was expressing concern about a document that no longer functions as an effective barrier against government overreach. He was holding up a mirror, not lighting a match.

Other countries, such as Switzerland, have amended their constitutions to impose fiscal discipline, and it has been effective. Balanced budgets and sustainable debt are achievable when rules are constitutional and binding.

The U.S. has tried for a century to pass such an amendment. Despite repeated attempts, Congress has failed to muster the two-thirds’ vote needed to move it forward.

Fortunately, the Founders anticipated this. Article V of the Constitution empowers citizens and states, as well as Congress, to propose amendments. By the late 1970s, two-thirds of the states had submitted applications for an Article V convention to propose a fiscal responsibility amendment. Congress ignored its ministerial duty to count those applications.

Now, private organizations and state legislators are once again pressing for action, including legal petitions to require Congress to fulfill its constitutional role.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had created, he replied, “A republic — if you can keep it.” Keeping it today means more than defending the Constitution as it exists; it means improving it when its failures are apparent. Citizens and states must act where Congress will not.

Trump’s critics see his comment as a disavowal of the Constitution. I see it as a provocation to fix what’s broken and a call for Americans to do what the Constitution itself empowers them to do. That is not a failure to preserve, protect or defend the Constitution. It is one of the most faithful expressions of that oath in modern times.

Editor’s note: Barry Poulson is on the board of directors of the Prosperity for US Foundation. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.