The Year of Trump Has Laid Bare the U.S. Constitutionâs Serious Flaws
The Year of Trump  Has Laid Bare the U.S. Constitutionâs Serious Flaws
Usually  I have managed to deflect these challenges  arguing that my book was a homage to a founding ideal  not to the necessarily flawed reality. But itâs time for me to admit my doubts about its core idea â its admiration for the US constitution and system of government. For this first year of  the Donald Trump presidency  has exposed two flaws in the model that I cannot brush aside so easily.
The first is that  Trump  has vividly demonstrated that much of what keeps a democracy intact is not enshrined in the written letter of a constitution  but resides instead in customs and conventions â norms â that are essential to civic wellbeing.  Trump  trampled all over those as a candidate â refusing to disclose  his  tax returns  for example â and has trampled over even more as president.
Convention dictated that  he  had to divest  himself  of private business concerns on taking office  to prevent a conflict of interest â but in the absence of a law explicitly forcing  him  to do so   he  did no such thing. The same goes for appointing unqualified relatives to senior jobs  sacking the director of the FBI with no legitimate cause  or endorsing an accused child molester for the US Senate. No law told  him   he  couldnât  so  he  did.
I once thought the US constitution â a document crafted with almost mathematical precision  constructing a near-perfect equilibrium of checks and balances â offered protection against such perils. And thereâs no denying that that text  as interpreted by the courts  has indeed acted as a partial roadblock in  Trumpâs  path  delaying and diluting his Muslim-focused âtravel banâ  for example.
But this year of  Trump  has also shown the extent to which the US has an unwritten constitution that â just like ours â relies on the self-restraint of the key political players  a self-restraint usually insisted upon by a free press. Yet when confronted with a leader unbound by any sense of shame â and shamelessness might just be  Trumpâs  defining quality â America is left unexpectedly vulnerable.
Of course  there is a remedy  and its name is impeachment. Scholars are clear that  Trump  has already provided sufficient legal grounds for such a move â the case against  him  is far more compelling than the one against Bill Clinton. But impeachment proceedings are triggered by the House of Representatives  followed by a trial in the Senate  and nothing will happen so long as Republicans control both houses of Congress.
In 2017 we saw with new clarity that the strength of the US constitution depends entirely on the willingness of those charged with enforcing it to do their duty. And todayâs Republicans refuse to fulfil that obligation. They  like  Trump   are without shame. This was a fatal oversight by Hamilton  James Madison and their fellow framers of the constitution. They did not reckon on a partisanship so intense it would blind elected representatives to the national interest â so that they would  repeatedly  put party ahead of country. The founders did not conceive of a force like todayâs Republican party  willing to indulge a president nakedly hostile to ideals Americans once held sacred.
My 1998 self asks me whether  say  the Westminster parliament would really be so different if confronted by a Trump-like would-be autocrat. Would individual MPs suppress their own revulsion and back him  fearing deselection by party activists if they did not â much as congressional Republicans wonât move against  Trump  lest they face the wrath of his base? Itâs conceivable. And yet a parliamentary vote of no confidence is a lower hurdle than impeachment. Put simply  it would be easier to get rid of a British  Trump . And these weaknesses in the US model have prompted me to see others. The second amendment does not compel Americans to allow an unrestricted flow of guns into the hands of the violent and dangerous  but the fact that the argument hinges on interpretations of a text written more than two centuries ago is itself a problem. It means America  in the words of that great revolutionary Thomas Paine  is too often âlike dead and living bodies chained togetherâ  todayâs generation shackled to the words of their ancestors. And yet  despite everything  I still see so much to admire in the founding achievement of America. The society remains innovative  restless and creative: itâs still capable of producing a work of genius like Hamilton. But its next act of renewal might be to update or amend the text that gave it birth  to declare that no human invention  no matter how great  can remain stuck. Were he around  I suspect that âbastard  orphan  son of a whore and a Scotsmanâ would agree.
The Year of  [TGT] Has Laid Bare the U.S. Constitutionâs Serious Flaws
Usually  I have managed to deflect these challenges  arguing that my book was a homage to a founding ideal  not to the necessarily flawed reality. But itâs time for me to admit my doubts about its core idea â its admiration for the US constitution and system of government. For this first year of  the Donald Trump presidency  has exposed two flaws in the model that I cannot brush aside so easily.
The first is that   [TGT] has vividly demonstrated that much of what keeps a democracy intact is not enshrined in the written letter of a constitution  but resides instead in customs and conventions â norms â that are essential to civic wellbeing.   [TGT] trampled all over those as a candidate â refusing to disclose   [TGT]   tax returns  for example â and has trampled over even more as president.
Convention dictated that   [TGT]   had to divest   [TGT]   of private business concerns on taking office  to prevent a conflict of interest â but in the absence of a law explicitly forcing   [TGT]   to do so    [TGT]   did no such thing. The same goes for appointing unqualified relatives to senior jobs  sacking the director of the FBI with no legitimate cause  or endorsing an accused child molester for the US Senate. No law told  him   he  couldnât  so  he  did.
I once thought the US constitution â a document crafted with almost mathematical precision  constructing a near-perfect equilibrium of checks and balances â offered protection against such perils. And thereâs no denying that that text  as interpreted by the courts  has indeed acted as a partial roadblock in  Trumpâs  path  delaying and diluting his Muslim-focused âtravel banâ  for example.
But this year of  [TGT] has also shown the extent to which the US has an unwritten constitution that â just like ours â relies on the self-restraint of the key political players  a self-restraint usually insisted upon by a free press. Yet when confronted with a leader unbound by any sense of shame â and shamelessness might just be  Trumpâs  defining quality â America is left unexpectedly vulnerable.
Of course  there is a remedy  and its name is impeachment. Scholars are clear that   [TGT] has already provided sufficient legal grounds for such a move â the case against   [TGT]   is far more compelling than the one against Bill Clinton. But impeachment proceedings are triggered by the House of Representatives  followed by a trial in the Senate  and nothing will happen so long as Republicans control both houses of Congress.
In 2017 we saw with new clarity that the strength of the US constitution depends entirely on the willingness of those charged with enforcing it to do their duty. And todayâs Republicans refuse to fulfil that obligation. They  like   [TGT] are without shame. This was a fatal oversight by Hamilton  James Madison and their fellow framers of the constitution. They did not reckon on a partisanship so intense it would blind elected representatives to the national interest â so that they would  repeatedly  put party ahead of country. The founders did not conceive of a force like todayâs Republican party  willing to indulge a president nakedly hostile to ideals Americans once held sacred.
My 1998 self asks me whether  say  the Westminster parliament would really be so different if confronted by a Trump-like would-be autocrat. Would individual MPs suppress their own revulsion and back him  fearing deselection by party activists if they did not â much as congressional Republicans wonât move against  [TGT] lest they face the wrath of his base? Itâs conceivable. And yet a parliamentary vote of no confidence is a lower hurdle than impeachment. Put simply  it would be easier to get rid of  [TGT]  . And these weaknesses in the US model have prompted me to see others. The second amendment does not compel Americans to allow an unrestricted flow of guns into the hands of the violent and dangerous  but the fact that the argument hinges on interpretations of a text written more than two centuries ago is itself a problem. It means America  in the words of that great revolutionary Thomas Paine  is too often âlike dead and living bodies chained togetherâ  todayâs generation shackled to the words of their ancestors. And yet  despite everything  I still see so much to admire in the founding achievement of America. The society remains innovative  restless and creative: itâs still capable of producing a work of genius like Hamilton. But its next act of renewal might be to update or amend the text that gave it birth  to declare that no human invention  no matter how great  can remain stuck. Were he around  I suspect that âbastard  orphan  son of a whore and a Scotsmanâ would agree.