Invasion of the Constitution Snatchers: the Trumpian Decay of a Republic

Donald Trump’s emergence as the nominee and de-facto standard-bearer of the Republican Party has uncovered a dark underbelly of American political psychology. Attracted to what they describe as his “strong personality”, “get-the-job-done demeanor”, and aversion for “political correctness”, his supporters have casted him in the role of a messiah who has come to restore America’s zenith. His disdain for the Constitution is no secret either. Whether it is his proposal to ban Muslims using a religious test, support for press restriction, or his affinity for waterboarding, his vitriolic rhetoric and championing of the unconstitutional offends our deepest sense of civic propriety. How did a man with such profound indifference for our founding documents and a disposition towards authoritarian prerogatives earn the nomination of the party of decentralized federal government and constitutionalism?

What ethos surrounds the Constitution and its legitimacy? The radical Left has no regard for the document. The moderate Left touts the Constitution when it suits their policies or affords protections they support but conveniently ignores its domain when it contradicts their political program. Neither is the Right absolved of responsibility, GOP administrations and legislators have been complicit in the metastasizing of government authority for decades. Reagan oversaw the largest increase in federal bureaucrats of any administration since Lyndon Johnson. Few politicians are willing to act in a manner that acknowledges the document as an absolute and final authority on the boundaries of federal government.

Former Chief Justice John Marshall provides an astute observation regarding the relationship between the Constitution and the citizenry, “It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.” The unfortunate reality is that Donald Trump’s disregard for constitutional restraints was born out of and enabled by our attitude of indifference towards the fiber of our political fabric. Having lost an appreciation for the Constitution as a bulwark against a tyrannical government, it has now become an obstacle that retards the achievement of our desired political ends. Material prosperity and institutional stability have obfuscated a stark reality regarding the rise of authoritarian governments; they often need no more than a decade to develop from free states. The rapidity with which liberty is forfeited and injustice committed in times of high alarm is a testament to the necessity of constitutional restrictions on government power.

Ignoring constitutional restraints does not effect immediate consequences. While this makes it all the more convenient for legislators to disregard it for what is politically expedient, the long-term outcomes are of serious gravity. Each nonchalant infraction makes the next more feasible as constitutional legitimacy erodes. What is there to turn to when the tides of pitchfork democracy sway against us? If the Constitution becomes an arbitrary document, there are no domain restrictions for the federal government. Some might argue that a moral compass can determine the boundaries of legitimate government action. However, as a pluralistic and multi-cultural society, our world-views, interests, and conceptions of morality are so varied that few heinous crimes would receive unanimous opposition. The morality of the majority would become the de-facto morality of the government. It need not even receive explicit sanction from the majority, merely quiet acquiescence. Utilitarian moral judgments would quickly lead to atrocities against thousands justified by a mythical greater good.

The Constitution can make the attainment of noble ends more time-consuming and difficult to achieve. Those same constitutional protections, however, stem the tide of ruin that even good intentions sometimes release. Arbitrary and strong executive power may be convenient and even beneficial under an enlightened despot, but our system of government was designed to function without the assumption of virtuous leaders who had natures ennobled above other men. The alternative to strict Constitutional restraint is arbitrary power; a relaxation of Constitutional norms will eventually, however slowly, lead to the free exercise of power.

Does that mean that the Constitution in its original form is forever perfect? No. Even Jefferson conceded the necessity for constitutional mutability, “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” Constitutionalism does not rule out reform or even expansion of legitimate federal spheres of influence; it does, however, necessitate that these ends be pursued through constitutional avenues.

The cultural decline of constitutional sanctity has profound implications for our liberty going forward. As Donald Trump’s unconstitutional atrocities become mainstream ideas what stands to protect Muslims against mass cruelties? Restrictions on free speech? The use of torture? If the constitution continues to be ignored, nothing. It is the Constitution and its legitimacy that gives a civic expression to our inalienable natural rights. It makes explicit the government’s responsibility to natural law as the absolute standard of conduct. Our Constitution is a people’s document; if the citizenry is unwilling to enforce its restraints, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. 2016 is a potent reminder to detractors of the Constitution why the document needs to be protected and upheld as a matter of social justice. If we continue to give a pass to unconstitutional policies, we subject disenfranchised persons to the destructive passions of pop morality.