From Presidents to Kings: The Erosion of Checks and Balances in Modern America

Pardon the Interruption

Everything I learned in college about the presidency and the Supreme Court has been turned upside down. 

Last week, the Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that required courts to defer to reasonable agency decisions when federal law is silent or unclear. This new decision means that courts no longer have to accept federal agencies' expertise when reviewing challenged regulations.

Then, on July 1st, the Supreme Court decided that presidents have absolute immunity for "official acts." This is far from what we were taught in government class. We learned that the U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government, each accountable to the others, creating a system of checks and balances to maintain a steady balance of power.

The textbooks emphasized that presidents don't get everything they want and that the presidency is an elected position with authority equal to and independent of the national legislature. For 248 years, it has been understood that the president is not a king, queen, pharaoh, or emperor. Granted, some presidents have found ways to overcome limitations, sometimes using covert methods that led to trouble, such as Richard Nixon spying on his "enemies" and Reagan authorizing arms sales to Iran. Nixon resigned after facing impeachment, and Reagan took full responsibility for the affair on national television. Now, the Supreme Court has decided that those instances were within the scope of presidential "official acts."

In reality, these cases highlight why Republicans have sought to fill the Supreme Court bench with conservatives. According to this logic, Nixon shouldn't have been impeached, Reagan had every reason to sell arms to Iran, but Bill Clinton should have been impeached because he had sex with an intern. 

Now, the head of the Republican Party is inching closer to being re-elected as president. He has repeatedly indicated his plans to hold those accountable by sending "never-Trumpers" to jail and mentioned that he plans to be a dictator on the first day of his presidency. We can't ignore these comments or dismiss them as banter. Donald Trump is serious about what he says and what he plans to do on day one if he returns to office.

Meanwhile, we have an 81-year-old president who seems to be becoming less cognitive by the day. President Biden's poor performance in the recent debate has many in the Democratic Party worried that this election is lost. Some are already calling for him to step down. Even U.S. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, an Austin liberal, is asking Biden to let someone else take the helm. 

If Biden decides not to continue his campaign, his delegates will have to select a new candidate at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on August 19th. Will the convention mirror the chaos of 1968, which also took place in Chicago? What will the outcome be? Who would be the candidate? Can a candidate gather enough support before Election Day in November? This is a very scary time for many of us because the outcome will determine the next "king."

Mike Luckovich (July 2, 2024)