The law versus the president

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s initiatives have produced a flood of legal actions, charging him with violating laws and the Constitution.  His challengers ask the courts to make sound legal interpretations in their favor, no matter the political orientation of the judges.

The complainants should be worried.  The Supreme Court may share Trump’s expansive view of the presidency, giving him legislative powers.

A second cause of concern is that the courts appear to have begun tipping the balance of power among the three branches of government in their favor.  The legislative power is rapidly fading, as members of Congress are more concerned with self-preservation than the national interest.

The Supreme Court seems to favor Trump.  Its decision in Trump v. U.S. authorized an almost unchecked presidency. Its recent orders allowing the president to control supposedly independent regulatory agencies highlight the Court majority’s agreement with Trump and support for the concept of the unitary presidency.

Look at its handling of Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.  Instead of making a clear statement on his tortured interpretation, the Court has hidden behind a procedural question to delay a ruling.  Despite clear language and its own solid precedent, it allows Trump to create uncertainty for millions of people.  Its slow response appears intentional.

Oddly enough, a Maine case may be the best indication of a runaway judiciary that, like the president, denies checks and balances that are essential to the American political system.  Here’s the story.

Years ago, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided a case pitting mortgage customers against the banks holding their mortgages.  The case related to the speed and ease with which foreclosures could take place.  The Court decided in favor of the customers.

Last year, a new case appeared in which the banks sought to reverse the earlier decision.  A judge now on the Court is a lawyer who represented the banks in the earlier proceeding.   She received some advice that she need not recuse herself and she didn’t.  Hers became the deciding vote in a 4-3 ruling that favored the banks.  Her former clients won.

The official judicial ethics committee found a conflict of interest.  The committee can take no further action; the decision is up to the Supreme Court.  It has done nothing, at least so far.

The Maine Legislature is considering a bill for a study on how to apply judicial ethics to the Supreme Court.  But the Court informed the legislative committee that even its consideration was unconstitutional, because a study could not lead to legislation.  The Court asserted that it alone has judicial power, and the Legislature cannot act.  Obviously, it would rule that any such action is unconstitutional.

Carry this assertion over to the federal level.  Congress can define court jurisdiction.  If Congress were to rein in the Supreme Court from its broad support of a dominant president, it probably would face a presidential veto, and the Court could rule its law as unconstitutional.  Without any appeal, the only reactions then available would either be adding justices or amending the Constitution.

In one of the wisest political acts of his presidency, Joe Biden vetoed the addition of scores of federal judges, all of whom would have been named by Trump.  Had he accepted that he was a one-term president, he might also have been willing to propose increasing the size of the Supreme Court to restore some balance.  Lincoln and FDR both did.

The president is radically changing the Constitution as it has evolved over the centuries.  Trump appears to believe that, in an emergency he declares, he is not bound by the Constitution, the laws or the courts. His position implies that “democracy” no longer works and should be replaced by a presidency of unlimited power.

Congress, when dominated by the president’s party, is proving to be a docile accomplice.  The U.S. now has achieved the goal that then Speaker Newt Gingrich sought in the 1990’s – parliamentary government in which party discipline translates into unified support of a party’s president and unified opposition to the other party.

The Supreme Court, with its jurisdiction under attack by the Trump administration, could educate the president on what the law is. That’s what the U.S. Court of International Trade did this week, when it overturned almost all of Trump’s tariffs.  However, the Supreme Court looks more likely to join the other branches in transforming the American political system. 

The people hold the power to settle the matter in the 2026 congressional elections.  Does the American voter want to replace constitutional checks and balances by presidential rule?   Can they elect a Congress that recovers its powers and restores the intended balance with the president and the Court? That may be the real choice next year.

 

Does Trump support the Constitution?

Gordon L. Weil

About 240 years ago, two major documents were committed to print.  Both were landmarks and both have been the object of interpretation and evolution.  

One is the U.S. Constitution. The other is Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21, a major classical work.  A recent New York Times commentary offered a compelling analysis of what they have in common.

Both must be taken literally: read the words, play the notes.  But much has changed since they were written.  Tastes have changed, the halls of Congress and concert halls have changed, and, above all, American presidents and orchestra conductors have changed.   Within the limits of what was written, there’s room for different interpretations and styles.

The Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, and Supreme Court rulings have all affected the terms and underlying assumptions of the Constitution.  The relative balance of powers between the state and federal governments and between the president and Congress have evolved.

The original drafters understood that the future interpretations of the Constitution inevitably would have to recognize the effects of changes that they could not envisage.  For them, the essence must be preserved: protecting people from the government as provided in the Bill of Rights, the balance of power and individual liberty.

Originalists, like Justice Clarence Thomas, believe that the terms of the Constitution must be interpreted as they were understood when it was written. They assume that the Framers’ thinking embodied almost godlike wisdom that could endure and could apply unchanged to any later turns of history.

An alternate view, probably held by the Framers themselves, would be that the principles were permanent, but just as the world evolved, so would the “living Constitution.”  The challenge for courts would not only be to recognize change, but how the Framers’ views would have evolved on how it should be applied in the new world.

In interpreting Mozart’s concerto, to play it loud or soft, fast or slow is the conductor’s job.  In American government, the job is shared by the three branches of the government.  Increasingly, however, the president has become the conductor of the music of the Constitution.  But, even if a president may alter the tempo and emphasis, they cannot change the tune.

When a person assumes the presidency, the Constitution prescribes the exact commitment they are taking – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  The Constitution requires every office holder down to the local elected official to make the same commitment.  It is an American loyalty oath for those exercising the public trust.

This commitment is necessary, because “absolute power corrupts.”   To avoid the public trust expresed in elections becoming the path to authoritarian rule, as happened in Germany in 1933, the commitment both reminds the new officeholder that they are bound by a written code and requires them to publicly acknowledge their acceptance.

When asked if he supported the Constitution, President Trump, a man who proclaims his own unusually good memory, forgot the commitment he undertook only 100 days earlier.  “I don’t know,” he said.  Really?  Or was he merely trying to give himself enough scope to be able the change the constitutional tune.

He finds one key requirement cannot be observed in pursuing his policy of mass deportation of illegal immigrants.  All persons, not only citizens, have the right to due process of law before the government takes action against them.  That means they must be able to answer the government’s charge and have the complaint and their defense judged by a neutral party.

Trump says that providing due process to the millions he wants to eject would be impossible.  He wants the Constitution to give absolute power to him, because he won a presidential election.  If due process for millions is impossible, then Trump’s policy, not the Constitution, must give way.  That’s the meaning of the obligation to protect and defend the founding document.

He counts on his electoral majority to carry the great weight.  Behind this view may be the “two-tier theory” of the law.  As the law applies to ordinary life, in matters from divorce to crime to contracts, nothing changes.  Most people see no change in their lives and will accept the other tier that gives the president powers unchecked by law.

Ultimately, the issue is likely to be determined by the Supreme Court, perhaps within a couple of months.  Trump claims the automatic right to citizenship at birth in the U.S., found in the Fourteenth Amendment, has limits, allowing mass deportation of “birthright” citizens.  In 1898, the Supreme Court said the right was unconditional.  The text and legislative history were clear.

If the Court ends up agreeing with Trump’s new interpretation, the Constitution would no longer protect people from the government of the day.   The music would end.