OPINION: Constitutional checks & balances were made for this moment

Donald Trump will return to office [on Jan. 20], and his plans and policies for his second term are dominating the news. It’s a good time to remind ourselves that we have elected a president, not a king. We can thank the Founding Fathers for that. The president of the United States has enormous power, but it is not unlimited. The Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers, delegating the executive authority to the president, the legislative to the Congress, and the judicial to the Supreme Court and lower courts. It also includes checks and balances to ensure that no branch becomes too powerful. Presidents can veto legislation that they don’t agree with; Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate. Federal courts can declare laws unconstitutional. If presidents get truly out of line, they can be impeached and removed from office. America’s founders were especially suspicious of executive power. The new nation was born out of a revolution inspired by resentment of that kind of authority. The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against King George III, accusing him of “repeated injuries and usurpations” and a pattern of “absolute tyranny.” The founders didn’t want to replace one tyrant with another. Article II of the Constitution says the president can make treaties and appoint all “officers of the United States,” but only with the advice and consent of the Senate. In practice, that means Trump’s choices for cabinet secretaries and other top government positions need to be vetted by Senate committees and confirmed by a majority of the Senate. Trump, of course, hasn’t shown much interest in the niceties of shared governance. With his background as a private-sector dealmaker, he’s used to doing what he wants. Many of his proposed appointments suggest he values personal loyalty over qualifications and experience. Fortunately, some members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed back. Trump did win the election, and he deserves a degree of deference in assembling his administration. But that doesn’t mean Congress should look the other way when there are obvious problems. Some historians argue that Trump is exactly the kind of demagogue the founders were most concerned about when they imposed limits on presidential power. Over time, many of those limits have weakened as American presidents assumed more authority. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected an unprecedented four times and greatly expanded the federal government in response to the Great Depression and World War II. The rising importance of foreign affairs has kept presidents at center stage for decades. We live in the era of what the historian Arthur Schlesinger called the imperial presidency. It’s not surprising that presidents grab power if it’s available. In my view, however, it’s unfortunate when Congress lets this happen. Yes, America needs a strong president; but we also need a Congress that will accept the responsibility the Constitution gives it. Congress, after all, is the branch of government that is closest to the people. Its members are accountable to the voters of their districts and states. James Madison wrote that “the accumulation of all powers … in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” As Trump takes office and tries to implement some of his more extreme campaign promises, we should look to Congress to maintain balance.     

---

Lee Hamilton, 93, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.