Debunking Claims of a Constitutional Crisis Amid Trump’s Return to Power

Debunking Claims of a Constitutional Crisis Amid Trump’s Return to Power

Critics of Donald Trump’s return to the presidency quickly shout about a looming constitutional crisis. They assert that the administration will defy court rulings, overthrow established constitutional structures, and govern through executive orders. The New York Times editorial board recently alleged that various actions by Trump openly exceed his legal authority, claiming that he and his supporters are working to undermine those who would hold his power in check. Furthermore, nearly 1,000 law professors signed a letter stating that Trump’s recent actions exceed both constitutional and statutory limits.

However, accusations of a constitutional crisis seem exaggerated, if not entirely unfounded. Opponents would present a stronger case if their claims were not so transparently driven by political bias. Many of these same authority figures failed to issue warnings about constitutional dangers when President Joe Biden, acting without congressional authorization, canceled about $400 billion in federal student debt. Many view this decision as a blatant power grab, vastly different from cutting inefficiencies that some entrepreneurs, such as Elon Musk, might advocate.

Furthermore, these critics remained silent when the Biden administration invoked emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic to implement significant restrictions. The measures included shutting down the economy, suspending travel freedoms, mandating vaccinations, and even closing places of worship, educational institutions, and political gatherings.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Several of the same commentators who now cry a constitutional crisis previously endorsed court packing after the Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate race preferences in college admissions. They actively promoted unfounded allegations regarding Russian collusion, supported using legal prosecutions as a means to remove Trump from the 2024 race, and backed attempts to disqualify him from the ballot—all indicative of a selective interpretation of constitutional crises, which seem to occur only during Republican administrations.

However, let’s attempt to disregard partisan motives behind these criticisms. Trump’s early months in office do not amount to a bona fide constitutional crisis. Instead, he is reinvigorating the executive branch after a presidency that had become increasingly controlled by an entourage of aides surrounding an aging leader.

In The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton articulated the necessity for concentrated executive power within a singular office. He argued that decisive action often requires the characteristics of one individual to ensure energy in governance. This, he posited, defines good government as we see it.

While an abuse of presidential power certainly poses risks of a constitutional crisis, a thorough examination of historical context reveals that the current objections to Trump’s executive actions do not mirror the significant constitutional crises faced in America’s past.

The first major constitutional crisis arose under the leadership of George Washington, who maintained neutrality during the European conflicts triggered by the French Revolution. The Constitution, however, did not explicitly designate foreign relations control to the president. In defense of Washington’s actions, Hamilton championed the concept of a unitary executive, asserting that all powers of an executive nature not expressly delegated to Congress are inherently vested in the presidency.

During this time, Thomas Jefferson, serving as Secretary of State, and James Madison, a prominent advocate for the Constitution’s ratification, accused Washington of trying to amass monarchical power. They consequently established the first political party, which evolved into the Democratic Party.

Another notable crisis occurred during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. Jackson pledged to eliminate the Bank of the United States, which had already received congressional approval on two occasions and had been upheld for its constitutionality by the Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland. Nevertheless, Jackson unilaterally vetoed the rechartering of the bank and removed federal funds from it, causing widespread financial turmoil.

The most severe constitutional crisis in American history undoubtedly related to the Civil War. When 11 states seceded from the Union in a desperate bid to preserve slavery, President Abraham Lincoln invoked emergency measures without congressional input. He raised an army, financed military operations, imposed a blockade of Confederate ports, and detained sympathizers—actions he justified under his commander-in-chief authority.

Though Lincoln sought and later secured congressional approval for many of his actions, historical accounts often depict him as a wartime dictator.

A more recent crisis that certainly qualifies was generated by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which led to an extensive expansion of federal authority during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court acted to uphold a constitutional framework of limited federal powers, halting several initiatives in FDR’s initial New Deal efforts.

After winning resoundingly in the 1936 election, FDR attempted to expand the Supreme Court by adding justices, labeling the Court a super-legislature. Although Congress ultimately rejected his court-packing scheme, this episode was a serious challenge to judicial independence. However, the Court later shifted its stance and upheld many of FDR’s New Deal programs.

Critics often link Trump’s enhancement of presidential power with the Watergate scandal under Richard Nixon. However, significant differences distinguish the early actions of Trump’s administration from those of Nixon’s. Trump is advancing an agenda endorsed by voters in the 2024 election, aiming to streamline governance by reducing federal spending, cutting the workforce, and regulating effectively. In stark contrast, Watergate arose from illicit actions taken by Nixon’s re-election campaign and subsequent obstruction of justice.

Contemporary critics—including district court judges—often misinterpret the underlying principles of these historical comparisons. Recently, one judge ruled Trump lacked the authority to dismiss the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, stating that an American president is not a royal figure, and that the power to remove federal officers is not absolute.

Such interpretations miss crucial trends in recent Supreme Court rulings, which strongly support Trump’s constitutional argument for authority over appointments and removals within regulatory agencies. The administration is openly challenging statutes that attempt to limit presidential power over independent regulatory bodies, such as the NLRB and the Federal Election Commission.

These agencies wield significant influence over many areas of American life, including stock markets, political campaigning, and labor regulations. By shielding key officials from presidential removal, Congress undermines the authority vested in the presidency by Article II of the Constitution. Rather than striving for kingship, Trump seeks to restore constitutional authority vested in all presidents.

Historical precedents affirming the president’s removal power abound, notably the Supreme Court decision in Myers v. United States. Written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, this opinion underscored the executive powers granted to the president based on an interpretation of Article II, alongside the accepted practices that have emerged since the Constitution’s inception.

Current arguments from critics, like Judge Beryl A. Howell, lean on a more tenuous precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. Delivered shortly after Myers, this ruling supported the for-cause removal protections in place for members of the Federal Trade Commission, suggesting they operate quasi-legislatively. However, the core executive function involved in law enforcement appears to have been overlooked in those arguments.

In challenging Humphrey’s Executor, the Trump administration follows a trend toward affirming presidential powers underscored by recent Supreme Court decisions. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, and subsequent rulings in Selia Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellin, reflect a growing acknowledgment of executive power. This trend ultimately culminated in the Biden administration’s decision to fire a commissioner whose position was protected by a for-cause removal statute deemed unconstitutional.

Though Humphrey’s Executor continues to exist, recent rulings trend toward rights of control that bolster presidential authority. Furthermore, Justice Kagan’s dissent in Selia Law highlighted the difficulties presidents face in regulating multi-member commissions, suggesting an inherent challenge in maintaining oversight.

In requesting the Supreme Court to revisit Humphrey’s Executor, Trump is not asserting a royal claim to power. Instead, he seeks to affirm actions that uphold the rule of law.

Robert Delahunty, co-author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court, is a Washington Fellow of the Claremont Center for the American Way of Life.