The checks and balances of our government’s constitution deserve respect all the time, even if just to preserve them for times like these. With President-elect Donald Trump taking office next year, these mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power will likely be tested. Trump has already suggested several political initiatives over the long campaign season that show a pattern of disregard for the checks of the Constitution — or, indeed, basic decency — on political action.
A year ago, for example, a few days after the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS, then-candidate Trump (in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity) seemed willing to shut down mosques if they are linked to terrorist activity. Hannity, offering summary of an earlier Trump statement in the interview, said, “If we see that there is plotting and planning and talk of jihad and terroristic threats that we think might be talked about in these places, if we could prove that, in that case you would shut them down.” Trump replied, “Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice.”
While actions against speakers in mosques might conceivably be constitutional under the “imminent lawless action” standard of exception to the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, the same amendment’s free exercise of religion clause should bar any Trump-led government action to close mosques. Hopefully, the judicial system will provide the necessary checks in the event of such actions, executive or legislative.
Speaking of the legislative branch, we also call on them to block bad or unconstitutional executive actions. Representatives and senators from both parties should heed their consciences and oppose executive actions and suggestions that appall them. Hopefully, their moral senses will spur opposition to the intentional killing of ISIS members’ families, something Trump called for vehemently in a December 2015 interview.
Trump’s campaign statements suggest that his presidency may be a crucial moment for institutional checks and balances to play their part.
While its Trump-led successor may make it look sterling by comparison, the Obama administration took several actions that set a dangerous precedent for executive power. These include the 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, an executive action that would have allowed undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements to apply for employment authorization, and the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which would have required state governments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in their state.
While they would have been admirable as legislation, both actions overstepped what we should define as the bounds of executive power. As a result of legal challenges, neither are currently in effect.
We should have objected to these actions when they were announced, because they set a bad precedent for the executive powers of presidents to come. Now the president to come is Donald Trump — and it’s a better time than never to venerate checks and balances.
