Dear editor,
David G. Adler, Ph.D., is a noted author who lectures nationally and internationally on U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Presidential power.
“One of more remarkable features of President Donald Trump’s ongoing, yet unfulfilled, effort in first 100 days of his second term in office to transform American democracy into an autocracy is its ahistoric path, one that represents a radical departure from work and vision of Framers of Constitution.
“Framers’ institutionalization and constitutional confinement of Presidency represented their response to royal prerogative of English Monarchy which, as James I declared, inhered in King by virtue of his royalty and not his office. American system of government was designed in part to overcome personalization of executive power.
“In their replacement of personal rule with rule of law, Framers rejected historical admiration of executive and claims of personal authority that, at least since Middle Ages, in one form or another, had conceived of executive rights as innate; they were derived not from the office but, it could be said, from “blood and bone of the man.” Executive power was personal, not juridical. For its part, Constitutional Convention sought to transform personal rule into a matter of law and to subordinate Presidency to Constitutional commands and prescriptions.
“Trump’s extraordinary concentration of power in Presidency, grounded in his acts of usurpation and Congressional abdication, has left in its wake a long list of casualties, including separation of powers, checks and balances, and enumeration of powers. Given his diminution of constitutional restraints imposed on President, what Thomas Jefferson lamented as conversion of Constitution into “a thing of wax,” it seems evident that in historical terms, United States is marching steadily backward.
“After 100 days, this is condition of Trump presidency: an overgrown office swollen with powers subject to few limitations. In fine, Trump admires personalization of power that Framers rejected. A citizen, therefore, cannot logically choose both Trump theory of Presidency and that of Framers.
“… we are allowed to wonder whether Congress will remain a viable institution or whether Trump’s practice of aggrandizing Legislative power, as seen in his usurpation of fundamental Congressional powers — lawmaking, appropriations and appointment, for example — will continue without interruption, leading to establishment of autocracy. Retreat and abdication of power and responsibility by GOP majority in both houses of Congress has left Judiciary as lone Constitutional restraint on Trump presidency.
“To date, federal courts have checked most of 100 or so executive orders issued by Trump, but his defiance of court rulings, including Supreme Court’s order that he “facilitate” return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvador prison, raises question of whether he will comply with a ruling by highest court in land. … Trump’s admission of power to retrieve Garcia demonstrates a chilling willingness to remove from United States those whom he dislikes, without due process of law.
“Without authority to enforce its rulings seeking to uphold rule of law and constrain President Trump by terms of Constitution, it is not clear whether courts can hold line in face of his assertions of unbridled executive power. Congress, of course, has authority to restrain illegal and unconstitutional Presidential actions, but Trump has been able to seize power so brazenly only because GOP majorities in both House and Senate have lacked courage and foresight to defend its Constitutional position.
“Trump has embraced a conception of executive power that is at war with aims and purposes of those who wrote Constitution. Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, has articulated Trump theory of Presidency. Because “president is elected by whole American people,” he embodies “the whole will of democracy,” and it is for him to impose that will on government.”
-Henry Tideman, Oregon
