President must act within the Consitution

In a recent interview President Trump proclaimed that he recognizes no limitation of his power in the area of foreign affairs other than that of his own morality or his own mind.

Operating under this mindset, the pretend monarch has authorized military strikes against suspected drug carrying vessels in the Caribbean, mounted a military strike against Argentina, threatens to take control of Greenland by force if necessary and unilaterally levied across the board tariffs on the exports of scores of nations.

The US Supreme Court held in US v Curtiss Wright Export Corporation (1936) that the US president does possess “ inherent powers” in the area of foreign affairs or powers necessary to secure the sovereign status of the US within the international community of nations even if not delegated by provisions of the US Constitution, laws of Congress or treaties of the US. However, the Court qualified the scope of inherent powers by holding that even inherent powers are restricted by US Constitutional prohibitions of power.

Among the most significant Constitutional prohibitions of power are the provisions of Article I Section 9, the US Bill of Rights and the nondelegation doctrine embraced by the US Supreme Court. Article I Section 9 includes a listing of powers that are explicitly denied to the national government including a prohibition against suspending the writ of habeas corpus in the absence of a rebellion or foreign invasion, a prohibition against withdrawing treasury funds without a Congressional appropriation, and a prohibition against any federal official receiving any foreign emolument.

The US Bill of Rights enumerates our individual liberties that are ordinarily beyond the scope of governmental powers and acknowledges the sovereign status of states within their sphere of reserved powers even when threatened under the pretense of presidential inherent powers.

The “nondelegation doctrine” was expressed by US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshal in the early years of our nation. The doctrine basically asserts that powers “We the People” have placed in trust with one branch of our national government may not be delegated to another branch nor usurped by a sister branch. The Roberts’ Court has offered their own twist to the doctrine by holding that there is a heightened prohibition regarding delegation or usurpation when the power invokes a “major policy question”.

This doctrine is particularly significant regarding Trump levying tariffs across the board on nations in conflict with an Article I, Section 8 provision that delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. In a similar vein, attacks on Argentina and threatened attacks on Greenland challenge Congress’s powers to declare war and to make rules regarding captures on land and water.

While more elaboration may be needed, the point is that established Constitutional doctrines recognize limitations on the power of the US president even when inherent powers are asserted in the area of foreign affairs.

Pretend Monarch Trump has refused to acknowledge these limitations by asserting that he is limited only by his own morality or his mind. When a US president publicly asserts himself over the supremacy of the US Constitution, he violates his oath of office in which he pledged to defend the Constitution.

This action by the president ought to at least prompt a swift condemnation by the US Congress and more significantly an impeachment article ought to be introduced but the Congress remains mute.

In the absence of Congressional oversight, the obligation falls on “We the People” to enforce limitations on presidential powers by electing members of Congress who will honor the letter and spirit of the US Constitution rather than the whims of a pretend monarch who has become increasingly unhinged in both the area of domestic and foreign affairs.