Trump is abusing his power. Is this a 'constitutional crisis' or something more?
In the last couple of weeks, President Donald Trump's rapid-fire executive orders have led legal experts to say his actions either have caused or are edging toward a "constitutional crisis."
Frankly, I don't know what that term means anymore, given the confusion over whether we are in it or about to be in it.
So, over the weekend, I opened up my pocket U.S. Constitution and read it to try to find some clarity.
I also reflected upon the many essays written by former Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers, who wrote in the USA TODAY Network Tennessee publications for two years about each article and amendment in the U.S. Constitution. He always reminded readers that studying the USA's founding documents is "time well spent."
My conclusion is this: What we're seeing is a gross overreach of the executive branch of government that must be reversed and contained.
Yes, Article II grants the president tremendous amounts of power, but Article II, Section 1 (8) says: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: − "I do solemnly swear (of affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president is a public servant not a king. His powers are limited by design.
The Trump administration has faced 135 lawsuits as of March 23 due to its actions from firing federal employees to seeking to abolish the U.S. Department of Education.
The reason that so many entities, including Metro Nashville Government and nonprofits, are suing the federal government is because they believe that Trump has overstepped his authority, for example, by halting federal grants Congress already authorized.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution created Congress, but the GOP majority in the Senate and House seem to have very little interest in reining in the president because he happens to be a Republican.
Meanwhile, the courts, created in Article III, are pushing back, but they are moving way too slowly for the speed of executive orders.
Opinion: Tumultuous tariffs, federal layoffs leave TN readers uneasy about the economy
The three branches of government − legislative, executive and judicial − are co-equal and meant check and balance each other.
On Feb. 13, 99.7 Super Talk conservative talk show radio host Matt Murphy invited me on his radio show to discuss presidential adviser Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and an unscientific survey The Tennessean published that showed a majority of our readers think DOGE wields too much power.
Murphy insisted that the Constitution's Article II endows President Trump with the authority to do what he is doing. I disagreed on the air and I continue to disagree.
For example, Trump signed an executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. whose parents are not legally in the country. The problem is the clause is in the Constitution.
14th Amendment, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In addition, the Supreme Court effectively ruled in the 19th century decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that "all persons" means "all persons."
Trump has no authority to amend the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, Article V grants the power of proposing constitutional amendments only to the Congress or to state legislatures. The president is not mentioned once in that article.
So I found strange that Tennessee's current Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti's office has filed an amicus brief to defend Trump's executive order action on birthright citizenship.
'Courts are empowered by the Constitution to resolve cases and controversies, not to issue sweeping policy proclamations or manage the executive branch,' Skrmetti said in a March 21 news release. 'The American people are the ultimate source of authority and legitimacy for every branch of our government, and every court interpreting the Constitution must therefore adhere to the understanding of the voters who adopted the constitutional language.
"Undermining the sovereignty of the American people through judicial overreach threatens to alienate the people from our constitutional system and thereby cause grievous harm to liberty and public order," Skrmetti added.
The Supreme Court may buy this argument, but I still think the problem is executive overreach, not judicial overreach. Just to reiterate what I wrote earlier, the president has no role whatsoever in the constitutional amendment process.
In 2000, legal experts were calling a "constitutional crisis" the impasse between George W. Bush and Al Gore Jr. for the presidency that year. While Gore, the vice president at the time, initially conceded on Election Night, he took it back when results showed Florida's vote count was too close to call.
What ensued were weeks of drama, tension andgrowing polarization.
However, friction is a natural part of democracy. Democracy can sometimes be messy, but the judiciary eventually resolved the issue when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the vote count in Florida.
Gore conceded the race, but theoretically, he could have continued his fight and we might have seen a version of the Jan. 6, 2021, riots 20 years earlier.
The difference though was that Gore responsibly believed in limited government, the power of institutions and the integrity of the people's vote. It's a view not shared by the current occupant of the White House.
Take the time to re-read the U.S. Constitution to see that the presidency is the creation of a compact that is about sustaining limited government and freedom for its citizens.
Elected leaders should never pretend that the president has more power than he is granted by the U.S. Constitution.
For the sake of our republic, presidential overreach − and abuse − must be checked.
David Plazas is the director of opinion and engagement for the USA TODAY Network Tennessee. He is an editorial board member of The Tennessean. Call him at (615) 259-8063, email him at dplazas@tennessean.com or find him on X at @davidplazas or BlueSky at davidplazas.bsky.social.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Trump's executive overreach is abuse of constitutional power | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump told Putin U.S. is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran, Kremlin says
President Trump told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call on Saturday that White House envoy Steve Witkoff is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran's foreign minister, the Russian president's foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov said. Why it matters: Putin, in previous phone calls, proposed that Trump help in the nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran. The current crisis between Israel and Iran will be a test case for Trump's strategy of mending relations between the U.S. and Russia in order to solve crisis around the world together. Driving the news: The nuclear talks planned for Sunday in Muscat have been cancelled due to the Israeli attack against Iran, the foreign minister of Oman Badr al-Busaidi said. "While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon," a U.S. official said. Trump told Axios on Friday that he thinks the Israeli strikes on Iran might help in pushing Iran toward a nuclear deal. Trump and Putin both spoke on Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Putin spoke to Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian. Putin told both Netanyahu and Pezeshkian that he is ready to mediate between the parties to prevent further escalation of tensions, the Kremlin said. Behind the scenes: Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi told the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on Saturday that Iran will not continue its negotiations with the U.S. as long as the Israeli attack on Iran continues. He claimed the U.S. directly supports the Israeli strikes, the Iranian foreign ministry said. But two sources with direct knowledge said Araghchi told several foreign ministers in the last 36 hours that Iran will be willing to resume negotiations with the U.S. once its retaliation for the Israeli attack is over. What they're saying: Ushakov said in a briefing with reporters that Putin and Trump spoke for 50 minutes and discussed the war between Israel and Iran.
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
In pictures: The nationwide ‘No Kings' protests
More than 2,000 protests are scheduled across all 50 states Saturday through the No Kings movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization is a direct response to a military parade rolling through Washington, DC, on Saturday that celebrates the 250th anniversary of the US Army. It also coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. Saturday's rallies have been amplified by a week of protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles and other major cities. Following the Hands Off! and 50501 protests this spring, Saturday's demonstrations aren't the first nationwide rejection of Trump's policies. But organizers expect them to be the largest. Millions of Americans are expected to take part.
