The United States Constitution was not made to protect against Trump | Policy

The fear that grabs great stripes of the American public under the second administration of Donald Trump is not precedent in the modern history of the United States. The rapid acts of remuneration of the president against political opponents, opens the hostility towards dissent and ignored by democratic norms make it clear that he intends to exercise power with even less restrictions than before.

It is tempting to reduce the political crisis of the United States to the simple notion that bad elections at the polls produce bad results.

However, the terrifying reality is that the constitutional and legal safeguards, which are supposed to be assumed for the authoritarian government for a long time, have proven to be alarmingly ineffective. This is because elite privilege and authoritarianism are part of the DNA of the Constitution of the United States.

Inequality and privilege in the United States Constitution

Despite the high rhetoric of freedom proposed by the founding founders, the constitution they drafted was not about freedom and equality for all.

As originally conceived, it was a deeply defective pro-class document written by an elite class of white property owners whose main concern was to preserve their economic and political domain. The so -called principles of freedom and democracy were designed to exclude the majority of the population, including enslaved people, women and poor.

Far from being a letter of universal rights, the Constitution of the United States consecrated systemic inequality, ensuring that power remained concentrated in the hands of a few privileged.

It is not a coincidence that the United States is behind much of the world to ensure fundamental rights. Unlike many democracies, where constitutions explicitly recognize economic and social rights as fundamental for human dignity, the constitution of the United States does not contain such guarantees. There is no constitutional right to medical care, housing, a dignified salary or basic economic security. This absence is not accidental; It reflects the priorities of a system designed to serve economic elites.

In the United States, these protections remain elusive, farewells as “radicals” by an establishment committed to privilege wealth and power over human well -being. It is not surprising that the US government does not produce expenses for military power, but refuses to extend the same urgency to the socioeconomic security of its citizens.

Executive Power Without Control

While extending few economic and social rights to US citizens, the United States constitution gives US presidents a wide range to do what they want.

Unlike leaders in most democracies, the president of the United States exercises extraordinary unilateral powers with little judicial or legislative supervision. The president may stop or pursue federal prosecutions, selectively enforce laws, control immigration policies, classify or declassify government secrets, cancel the agency’s rule and purge “unfair” officials, all without significant controls.

Foreign policy decisions, including withdrawals from treaties and military interventions, require parliamentary approval in other places, however, US presidents can leave the treaties unilaterally and deploy troops that exploit lagoons in the resolution of war powers Without authorization from Congress.

Emergency powers, which in most democracies require legislative supervision, are practically not in the US.

In marked contrast to democracies where the courts actively verify the executive overreach, the American judiciary constantly accuses the Executive in foreign matters, even when there are serious violations of human rights. A condemnatory example is the case of the Defense Court for Children International Palestine v. Biden, where the plaintiffs sought to hold the administration of the former president of the United States, Joe Biden, for the support of the United States to the military actions of Israel in Gaza, arguing that US help facilitated the acts of genocide of genocide.

Despite recognizing credible evidence, the court dismissed the case, reaffirming that even in cases involving human rights violations, the Executive remains legally inexplicable.

The invocation of the national security of the presidents has long been an pretext for the expansion without control of the executive authority. Trump, like President George W Bush, has aggressively seized this precedent, using it not only for military interventions but also to justify domestic repression. Under the pretext of national security, its administration is aimed at immigrants and threatening to criminalize dissent.

The absolute nature of the president’s forgiveness is also worrisome. Unlike other democracies where executive clemency is subject to supervision, the constitution of the United States does not impose significant limits in this power. Trump has taken this to one extreme, giving pardons to political loyal, war criminals and insurrectionists. In the hands of an authoritarian president, forgiveness becomes a tool to undermine justice and consolidate power.

The role of the Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court, the judicial entity responsible for what is constitutional or not, has historically played a key role in white supremacy, privilege and inequality in the United States.

In the judicial case of Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896, the court provided constitutional legitimacy to racial apartheid, an injustice that persisted until well into the twentieth century. The legal system did not simply tolerate racial subjugation; He confirmed it and made it actively.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court routinely annulled attempts at economic regulation, blocking minimum wage laws, labor protections and antitrust application with the argument that such measures violated the principles of federalism and the so -called contract freedom. These decisions were about protecting freedom and more about protecting the rich elite from democratic responsibility.

It was only in the mid -twentieth century, particularly under the Warren court, that the Judiciary adopted a discourse based on rights aimed at expanding civil liberties and protecting marginalized communities. Historical decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Roe v. Wade (1973), eliminated the principle of separate but equal to education, rooted the right to fair proof procedures and the right of women to reproductive elections. These, among other cases, indicated a change towards a more inclusive interpretation of constitutional rights.

However, this period of judicial progress was of short duration. The elevation of a conservative majority in the Supreme Court has returned the institution to its original DNA, favoring elites to the detriment of women and minorities.

In the last two decades, the Court has systematically dismantled many profits from the Rights Revolution, retreating voting rights, eroding reproductive freedoms and weakening labor protections.

The influence of money on American politics has further cemented this reality, ensuring that the government remains in debt to elite interests instead of the electorate. The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC accelerated this decrease in legalizing the flow without restrictions of corporate money in political campaigns.

The Supreme Court has also played a key role in the expansion of the Executive Power. Nowhere is this clearer than in the 2024 decision of the Supreme Court in Trump V United States, which effectively granted the presidents a wide immunity of criminal prosecution for the actions taken while they are in office, isolating the branch Executive of legal responsibility.

The Court has also granted the control Executive almost without restrictions on the application of the law. In the case of the United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court reaffirmed that the Executive Branch has exclusive authority on prosecuting decisions, emphasizing that the President and the Attorney General retain a broad discretion to determine who to process, what charges to bring, and if pursuing a case.

Similarly, in Heckler v. Chaney (1985), the court explicitly argued that an agency’s decision not to enforce a law, similar to the decision of a prosecutor not to present charges, allegedly not reviewable, since it is within the scope of the executive discretion. Together, these cases reinforced the principle that the Executive has an almost absolute discretion in tax matters, protected from judicial interference.

Trump has completely exploited. He has openly declared his intention to investigate and prosecute political adversaries, threatening the fundamental democratic principle of impartial justice. In a constitutional democracy, no individual must live in fear of the arbitrary actions of the government. However, the current legal framework offers little protection. Even if directed people are acquitted, financial and emotional toll can be devastating.

An alerting reality

Trump is not an aberration, but the predictable product of a system that privileges elites, maintains global domination and protects the presidency of responsibility. The fear of those who many Americans feel today is justified, but reflects a deeper misunderstanding: this is not a deviation from the norm, but a continuation.

The belief that the United States Constitution protects inherently against despotism has always been an illusion. From slavery and genocide of indigenous peoples to Jim Crow, the internment of US Japanese, the red fright, the “war on terror” and the repression of dissent against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, US history reveals that power constantly exceeds justice.

The clear reality is that the constitution of the United States, despite its veneration in American political culture, is an outdated and inappropriate document to address the challenges of the modern world. It was written by and for a narrow class of elites that could not have imagined a diverse, industrialized and globally connected society. The structural deficiencies of the Constitution: its lack of social and economic protections, its excessive dependence on an not chosen judicial power designated for life, its dependence on corrosive money in politics, its deeply antidemocratic electoral system) has left the country badly equipped to face the crises of the 21st century.

This is not a fleeting crisis, but the culmination of a constitutional system that was not designed to safeguard against tyranny. The pressing question is no longer whether American democracy is in crisis, but what will be needed so that the public in front of this sobering reality.

The opinions expressed in this article are typical of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.