It's not about WHAT he does, it's about HOW he does it
It's NOT about Trump's goals , it's about HOW he's doing it. Government must operate within the Constitution and the Rule of Law at all times or we have no choice but to resist and advocate for change
Certain people keep asking me why I am against things like blocking immigration, using executive orders in order to redirect the allocation of congressionally appropriated funds or the creation of programs that require funds that have not been appropriated by Congress, not to mention issues such as interpretation of the law by the Executive Branch. The answer is "I'm not against any of those things, per se".
While I have strong feelings about some of these items (and many others), my stance has always been the same. It's not about what you do, it's about how you do it. The very foundation of our entire system of government is anchored in the US Constitution and the rule of law, as well as deep respect for the balance of powers, which were imbued in the Constitution by the founding fathers.
If a president wishes to enact a policy, it must be in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law. If the Courts find that this has not been done, their edicts must be adhered to by the Executive Branch. If the Congress enacts legislation that is found by the Courts to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, then the Legislative Branch must adhere to the Courts findings. If the president attempts to obviate the balance of powers through executive order, that action must undergo Judicial review before it is enacted. No branch of government should be able to take actions to reduce or inhibit the constitutionally vested powers in the other two branches.
Where we, as a nation, keep getting into trouble is when one branch of government (or it’s head) chooses to ignore the Constitution and/or the rule of law. Similarly, when one branch of government overtly takes any action to change the balance of the constitutionally prescribed powers, which were imbued in the Constitution, there can only be one outcome — in the absence of passing a Constitutional amendment that allows them to do so, these actions are unallowable. It is illegal for the Executive Branch to interpret the law. That is the purveyance of the Courts. It is equally illegal for one branch of government to usurp powers constitutionally granted to either of the other two branches.
And yet, it’s happening under the Trump administration. There are a lot of examples to pick from during the very few months of president Trump’s second term. Here is one case in point that addresses one of these circumstances:
Deep within the House’s budget reconciliation bill, which is now pending in the Senate, is a legislative provision that targets the federal judiciary. Section 70302, titled “Restriction on Enforcement,” would undermine federal judges’ authority to enforce court orders by limiting their ability to hold government officials in contempt, a key tool for compelling compliance with court orders.
Obviously, this portion of the larger bill, represents a dramatic assault on the rule of law. But it’s not just this one glaring case. So far this year, more than 190 court rulings have temporarily or permanently halted administration actions. Numerous judges have found that the administration violated court orders and at least one judge has found probable cause to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for “willful disobedience.”
Similarly, "President Donald Trump’s second term in office has characteristically intoned that his administration believes it can act with impunity when it comes to the law and to the U.S. Constitution. In a recent interview, President Trump responded to a question as to whether he had to uphold the Constitution with, “I don’t know.” In the more than 150 executive orders (EOs) that President Trump has issued during the first four months of this term, he frequently asserts that he is acting under authority granted him by Article II of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is intended to limit the powers of the presidency, not provide nearly limitless authority as President Trump is contending. The Constitution does not give a president the power to violate the Constitution, create or change congressional statutes, or override U.S. Supreme Court decisions"
During the second Trump administration, many judges, who were appointed by five different presidents, including Donald Trump himself, have ruled against these kinds of overreaching actions. Some examples include ending constitutional birthright citizenship, targeting opponents with politically motivated investigations, freezing funding that Congress had approved for projects, and cutting off funding due to political disagreements -- all of which are expressly prohibited by the Constitution and/or the rule of law. While some are egregious and, others, perhaps less so, they carry a common thread. In each case, one branch of government is accused of actions which are either unconstitutional or unlawful.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government must provide individuals targeted by Trump's executive order, which invoked the "Alien Enemies Act", the right of due process to provide them with an opportunity to challenge their removals through the legal process. The Alien Enemies Act requires a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” “by any foreign nation or government” for invocation. And the Executive Branch will be hard-pressed to demonstrate that such a precedent is reasonable here. In all of these actions, the president (the Executive Branch) has illegally "interpreted the law" in an attempt to bend it's implied scope to include, for example, apprehension and deportation of both illegal immigrants as well as American Citizens. Many people would, perhaps rightfully argue that something has to be done to resolve this problem. I won’t take a position, here, on the issue of identification and removal of illegals. That’s not the point. The important thing is whether the Executive Branch acted both unconstitutionally and illegally in taking this broad step.
Had the president insisted that any of these actions be taken within the well-documented constraints of the Constitution and/or the Rule of Law, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We might agree or disagree with such policies -- but Americans, both liberal and conservative, could not have made strong arguments against the eventual result, had the Trump administration acted within the powers granted to it by the Constitution and standing law.
Currently, there are 296 active cases, including 7 suits by the Trump administration challenging state law, as reported by Lawfaremedia.org (link below). Nearly all of these lawsuits involve a plaintiff claim that the government has violated the Constitution or the rule of law or, alternatively, that the Federal government is attempting to exert influence over the States.
And this is the difference between the Trump Administration and prior admins, both Republican and Democratic. The Trump admin very frequently goes rogue and, when that happens, they almost immediately hit numerous constitutional and legal trip-wires. In some of these cases, we have and continue to face myriad Constitutional crises. And all of this entropy has occurred as a direct result of this administration's patent disregard for the Constitution and the laws of the land.
My issue, and the issue that is a common thread among many historians, legal scholars, corporate leaders, and government branches/agencies, who have voiced concerns over his actions, is NOT about the goals he is attempting to achieve. Rather, it's about HOW he has chosen to go about achieving those goals. In the absence of a steadfast comittment by the Federal government to operate within the Constitution and the Rule of Law at all times, Americans have no choice but to resist and advocate for change. Because, unchecked, we slip very rapidly into a vortex from which there is no return — and our unique American form of democracy will go with it.