Presidents as constitutional scholars
All else being equal, it’s a good thing to have a president who understands the Constitution. It’s even a good thing to have a president who understands the Constitution really, really well.
My guess is that President Obama understands the Consitution very well.
But understanding the Constitution is not the same thing as respecting and abiding by it. A president can use his/her understanding of the Constitution to work around it or undermine it. Nor do all constitutional scholars—or SCOTUS justices, for that matter—agree on what “understanding” signifies in terms of constitutional interpretation, and of the extent of the powers possessed by the different branches of government.
This year we had a chance to elect a bona fide brilliant constitutional scholar, as well as someone who respects the Constitution: Ted Cruz. But that horse has left the barn. For now we have president-elect Donald Trump—who would not be called a constitutional scholar by anyone, anywhere, any time, by any stretch of the imagination. Au contraire.
And one of the most contraire of all is Evan McMullin, who lets us know what he thinks the problems are with Trump and his attitude towards the Constitution in this op-ed in today’s NY Times:
On July 7, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, met privately with House Republicans near the Capitol. I was present as chief policy director of the House Republican Conference. Mr. Trump’s purpose was to persuade the representatives to unite around him, a pitch he delivered in a subdued version of his stream-of-consciousness style. A congresswoman asked him about his plans to protect Article I of the Constitution, which assigns all federal lawmaking power to Congress.
Mr. Trump interrupted her to declare his commitment to the Constitution ”” even to parts of it that do not exist, such as “Article XII.” Shock swept through the room as Mr. Trump confirmed one of our chief concerns about him: He lacked a basic knowledge of the Constitution.
Now, I yield to no one in the concerns I’ve voiced about Donald Trump many many times, and among them are his lack of constitutional knowledge and possible lack of constitutional respect. But I’m singularly unimpressed by what McMullin has written there. Trump cited an article that didn’t exist? Hey I studied the Constitution in great detail, but I haven’t memorized it (and my knowledge is many decades old), and so I am fully capable of citing the wrong number of an article or even one that doesn’t exist.
Much more important to know would be what point was Trump trying to make when he discussed the phantom “Article XII.” What was he talking about, and why did he cite it? Did anyone ask him what he meant, or did they just note the error in order to discredit him later in an op-ed? These aren’t snarky questions on my part; I really would like to know some of the content of what Trump said, besides the fact that (as McMullin describes it) he “declare[d] his commitment to the Constitution.”
Ah, so he declared his commitment to the Constitution? Trump could be lying about that, of course. If so, he wouldn’t be the first president to do so. Obama certainly said something similar, and his presidency showed it was a false promise. Presidents generally will take as much power as they can, unless their commitment to the Constitution is unusually deep and they have an unusually conservative take on it.
My point is that knowledge of the Constitution and commitment to its principles are not necessarily connected, and that the knowledge part is much easier to repair. That’s one of the reasons presidents have advisors and Cabinets.
McMullin adds:
There is still deeper cause for concern. Mr. Trump’s erroneous proclamation also suggested that he lacked even an interest in the Constitution. Worse, his campaign rhetoric had demonstrated authoritarian tendencies.
I’ve voiced this exact concern about Trump’s authoritarian (and even tyrannical) tendencies many times. But not because Donald Trump cited the wrong number article in the Constitution when trying to say something. That’s an absurdly pedantic point that McMullin is making. Nor does Trump’s citing an incorrect number indicate anything about his interest in the Constitution; it’s a mistake that people with an interest in the Constitution could make.
McMullin’s concerns about possible tyranny are valid, but they are a separate issue. Concerns about whether Trump will listen to his advisors, or his team of lawyers and Attorney General, when he’s contemplating moves as president is a different issue, as well. But those issues would be present even if a president can cite chapter and verse of the Constitution (as I assume Obama could if he wanted to).
Trump is president-elect now, and we will soon find out whether he is going to respect the Constitution. We’ve already learned who some of his advisors will be—or at least, who he wants them to be—and there’s no cause for constitutional alarm there. We don’t yet know if he’ll listen to them and if so how much, although I’d like it if this turned out to be the model.
What’s more, isn’t our system to designed to check the presidential lust for power to which most chief executives fall prey to? So, what about those checks and balances? I would much rather they were not so strongly tested, of course. But if they can’t stand the test then we are at grave risk, because Donald Trump is not the only president who will be straining at the bit to challenge them.
Good points, all very well made. I strongly suspect that Trump will be, as is Obama, a figurehead, a front for a coalition, and that we are going to like the next coalition much better than the present one.
I do question whether The Big O. knows the Constitution. His students who evaluated his instruction at the U of Chicago do not appear to have mentioned his depth of knowledge as one of the things that they most liked about his course.
Of course, I could b wrong. The past eight years have taught me to believe every evil spoken of the present incumbent. However, the gap between knowing and upholding is still pretty wide and troublesome.
McMuffin is discredited. Sore loser, former CIA spy and blabbing about something that was supposed to be private.
I’ll take Trump over Obama or Hillary any day.
And trust me, he has plenty of lawyers on staff.
Trump’s lawyers used to send two of their staff to every meeting with trump so a witness would be present, since Trump would change his position minute by minute. Not a very reassuring sign for his listening to legal staff.
The important thing about the Constitution is that it is fundamental law in a nation ruled by law. That’s why the oath of office is to the constitution not the country. Time for big Donald to grow up and take real responsibility.
Michael Adama:
I don’t mean to say that Obama is one of the top constitutional scholars in the country. But I am virtually certain he is very conversant with the Constitution.
Cruz, on the other hand, is one of the top constitutional scholars in the country.
Is it possible that Trump got article and amendment mixed up? You are right, Neo, we need more context. And Trump needs more practice in speaking about the law and the constitution. He goes by gut instincts, but that isn’t enough.
OTOH, Obama subjects law to his social justice vision of the world. He only tries to get around it.
@Neo – though I am a cautious skeptic wrt trump, yes, McMullin’s take seems to be a stretch, as a proof point.
The problem with the approach outlined in Red State is that trump still would have to listen to his cabinet. POTUS is NOT that much of a hands-off job, imho – though obama seemed to do his part to make it seem so.
A COB, or CEO needs to set the vision and direction, but when it comes down to specifics he has to let his staff carry it out, though he cannot delegate all decision making.
trump’s campaign has shown him prone to changing on a dime, and undermining his own team (e.g. his comment re: disagreeing and not having talked to Pence about it).
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/05/peter-thiel-picked-the-most-troll-tastic-costume-to-gloat-over-gawker/
Does he have a consistent vision and can he really be as hands off as that suggests, without pulling his cabinet to and fro with his media spotlight?
Red State’s article may be more of a wish than what will really be the case.
Why? Well, how does that jive with trump refusing to take the security briefings – if true?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html
Would prefer trump be more like JFK (in the latter part of his admin) and be willing to entertain a cabinet who holds different and opposing views (or insists they do) so that he becomes fully informed from which to make a decision.
Alas, yet another wish.
We shall see.
“Trump’s lawyers used to send two of their staff to every meeting with trump so a witness would be present, since Trump would change his position minute by minute. Not a very reassuring sign for his listening to legal staff.” – DirtyJobsGuy
Forgot about that – read it somewhere too.
Fits in with my comment above, being skeptical that Red State is onto anything wrt how the cabinet will operate.
It is possible was administering himself a crash reading course on the history of the Bill of Rights wherein the tenth which he has expressed commitment to, was listed as Article 12, and just had it stick
You can look this up for yourself on USConstitution.net
First 12 Articles of Amendment.
It’s amazing what arcane historical details will stick. Or maybe not.
I also have a scribbles in my pocket Constitution which number 5 of the bill of rights with the 10th being # 5 … making 12 Articles. But my reason for doing so is so obscure, even I cannot remember why I did it or on what historical reference – if any – it was predicated.
Let me take a moment and be more deliberate.
If one were doing a crash course on the history of the Constitution from an historical angle of attack, this data point might stick in your mind.
http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html
As anyone would recognize who has sat through a half-dozen or more courses on the American Constitution as approached from different disciplines – political science, history, legal theory and development, and so forth – you will accumulate a good deal of data that is not, strictly speaking, currently valid.
Do I really believe that is what happened?
Don’t ask.
” Worse, his campaign rhetoric had demonstrated authoritarian tendencies.”
” Worse, Obama’s governing actions had demonstrated authoritarian tendencies.”
=====
“McMullin’s concerns about possible tyranny are valid, but they are a separate issue. ”
Maybe on Planet IGotTheFear. Hard to see that “possibility” happening here. Don’t see exactly how that might unfold. Don’t see it at all.
At the time, I thought djt’s article 12 comment was just something that popped into his thoughts, and he reacted without thinking. I see no reason to believe Trump cares any more about following Article II than bho. I will grant that bho has read the Constitution more than once, but he is not a Constitutional scholar IMO..
At the University of Chicago he was an adjunct member of the faculty who lectured on his supposed area of expertise, the 14th Amendment. His comment that the Constitution was inadequate because it originally was a list of negative rights was a tell. He understands that the founders sought to limit the scope and power of the federal government, and decentralization is not his choice of choom tea.
Nominating Sessions and Mattis is encouraging. We’ll see (the neoneocon hedge phrase on all things Trump).
@DNW – you may be right.
(Whoops, did I say that????) 😉
It is likely a blooper event, and without other context, it is not worth jumping on as proof of anything wrt trump.
We’ve seen this happen to GWB (misunderestimate), obama (corpse vs corps), even, remember, potato / potatoe with VP Dan Quayle.
Every news article, every opinion piece, and every single line in the NYT between now and Jan 20, 2020 will be about how terrible DJT is. He’s a dictator, he hates women, blacks, LGBTQRXTs, the poor, the elderly, small children, and dogs and cats. The social safety net is being ripped asunder and Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the poverty programs in their millions are being shredded throwing billions of people out onto the filthy streets because the garbage trucks no longer work and global warming is causing mold and algae to poison the water supply and we’re all going to die because the smartest woman in the world lost due that awful Constitution that’s so old no one can read it or should care about it. That Constution that Trump doesn’t understand so he’s a boob and wanna be dictator.
Did I miss any thing?
@ Paul in Boston: “Did I miss any thing?”
MSM is pushing the fact that Trump is hiring wealthy people to advise him therefore he isn’t an outsider after all.
Obviously, he was referring to the 12th amendment which has been much in the news lately.
Paul in Boston,
You also omitted the 300% rise in homelessness and the 500% increase in childhood malnutrition. Plus, under djt the sky actually fell on transgendered hookers and millions of them committed suicide because Trump is mean.
Mister Apple,
I don’t see it as obvious. Failure to differentiate between an article and an amendment is not a sign of familiarity with the founding document and what should be, but is not currently, law of the land.
Meanwhile, time for parker to warm up my signature chicken soup for Mrs parker who is in bed trying to defeat a rather nasty cold.
Mister Apple:
It may have been in the news lately. But notice in that quote that the conversation in question is reported to have taken place, according to McMullin, back in July.
Speaking of Presidents, William Howard Taft, the 27th President (from 1909-1913), was later appointed by Warren G. Harding as the 10th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serving from 1921 to 1930. So far, Taft is the only person to have held both positions, and one of a very few persons to have held other offices after being President.
Senator Ted Cruz would make a fine Associate Justice for the Supreme Court, and he is certainly qualified. In theory, Pres. Obama could be nominated by some future Democratic President for the Supreme Court, but it is very, very unlikely that a man like him would accept the position (too much work, and not enough attention).
Ivanka, her adoring daddy, and Algore met in Trump Tower to discuss Ivanka’s pet project climate change due to CO2 spikes from evil human civilization. Yeh, kick the miners and oil field roustabouts in the gonads for rendering their votes to Trump.
Please explain djt fans why Trump would give Gore the time of day, let alone a confab at Trump Tower? Feel free to echo BB and Rush talking points.
Many of us are bombarded on all sides by anti-Trump rhetoric. Some of it is based on fact; some is not. I am hearing perfectly ridiculous stuff from my intelligent daughters, who are getting it from “who knows where?”. They have been saturated with negativity to the point that they are berating their parents–for how they assume they voted. We are walking through a mine field.
I documented my misgivings during the primary campaign. I will not look in the rear view mirror. At this point it matters not what Trump said, didn’t say, meant, or didn’t mean. There is nothing realistically to be done but to look forward, stubbornly ignore the negative blather (some of which defies credulity) and wait to see how the new President governs. Well, if you are so inclined, you might pray.
GRA: Of course, Trump is not outsider to business world, but he is to Washington corridors of power. MSM deliberately confuse these two very different things.
Agree with parker that the Algore meet and greet is disturbing. Trump said he was going to put miners and drillers back to work. Listening to Algore can only weaken that plan.
If Trump is as resistant to knowing the facts about CAGW as is his buddy, Bill O’Reilly, he might be convinced that CO2 is a DANGEROUS POLLUTANT! I have written O’Reilly several times about his ignorance of the facts about CO2 with no success at all. He just keeps saying he wants a clean environment and, if CO2 is polluting things, it ought to be “cleaned up.” Aaaaarrrrrggghhhh!
What’s next, a sit down with Medea Benjamin of Code Pink?
And trust me, he has plenty of lawyers on staff.
I’ll trust Corn to fall on his sword then, if Trum makes any betrayals. Authority goes to the President, not the voters, but the voters will be held to account nonetheless.
And if people don’t have their own sword, they can use my collection.
Hard to see that “possibility” happening here. Don’t see exactly how that might unfold. Don’t see it at all.
That’s what people who liked the Left said about Leftists. In fact some of them still talk that way about Leftists.