4 days Ago
President Donald Trump is known for making outlandish statements. He loves to puzzle his friends and antagonize his critics. Sometimes, it is difficult to know if he is serious or just being extreme for the sake of stirring the pot.
But when an American president makes a statement, it matters. There are consequences. The nation and the world are watching and listening.
So both Democrats and Republicans have an obligation to call the president to account when he says something inappropriate. And he has. In a post on Truth Social in February, Trump said, “He who saves his country does not violate any law.
” As many have already pointed out, this quotation is attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, who crowned himself emperor of France in 1804. Emperors might not have to follow laws, but presidents do. After Democrats attacked him for the post, Trump posted it again, this time with a picture of Napoleon.
Trump also famously said that he “has an Article II, which allows (him) to do anything he pleases.” The statement is reminiscent of one made by President Richard Nixon: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” This was both wrong and dangerous when Nixon said it, and it is wrong and dangerous now that Trump has said it.
In fact, it is worse now, because Trump has connected his statement with Napoleon, who completely abandoned the law to become emperor. Let’s get this straight: Illegal or unconstitutional actions do not become legal or constitutional when a president does them, and Article II does not give our presidents the power to do whatever they please. This is not a matter of opinion.
It is a fact that our regime was designed to have a strong executive, but it was founded on the idea that there are three co-equal branches of government that check and balance one another. The laws and the Constitution apply differently to the president, but they do apply. The president cannot, for example, ignore rulings of the courts.
And he cannot violate laws passed by Congress. It is true that the U.S.
Supreme Court held last year in Trump v. United States that the president is immune from criminal prosecution when he engages in certain core presidential actions that Congress cannot regulate. This was a sweeping decision and has been subjected to serious (and justified) criticism by many legal scholars.
But even as it stands, it does not go so far as to say the president never acts illegally. The president cannot violate the Constitution with impunity whenever he believes (or his supporters believe) that in doing so he will “save the country.” What does that even mean? Do any two people have the same understanding of what “save the country” means? Could the president establish a state religion because he believes it would save the country? And what about the next time there is a Democrat in the White House? Could he or she impose sweeping gun regulations by executive order, including confiscating entire categories of weapons, just because he or she believes it would save the country? This is no laughing matter.
It is important to understand that once we establish the principle that the president can do whatever he wants, this principle will apply to Democrats as well as Republicans. And they have very different notions about what needs to be done to save the country. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I, for one, don’t want a president of any political party to have unlimited power. And speaking of saving the country, let’s look at where all of this is leading. President Trump has lately floated the idea of running for the presidency again in 2028, even though the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms.
His supporters have begun to chant “four more years.” Republicans used to be in love with the idea of term limits, but not so much lately. The Constitution is clear.
But some have suggested that in 2028, Vice President JD Vance could run for the presidency and Trump could run on the ticket for vice president, and then Vance could resign, elevating Trump to the presidency. No. That would still violate the Constitution.
But if people begin to believe that he who saves the country cannot violate the law, they might just stand by and let this happen in 2028. When outlandish statements of the president are not challenged, they sometimes find their way into the national consciousness and stop looking outlandish. Ultimately, this is not good for Republicans, Democrats or the survival or our republic.
Solomon D. Stevens of North Charleston is a retired professor of constitutional law, American government and political theory. He is a regular contributor to The Post and Courier Opinion section and can be reached at soldenstevens18@outlook.
com ..
