The Get Trump Campaign and Future Implications

While Mr. Trump was still in office, a hot item in the “we’ve got him now” vein was a ruling by the US Supreme Court which seemed to indicate that the president cannot withhold his personal financial records, including tax returns, from prosecutors pressing a “criminal case.” There’s some fine print in the ruling, but it seemed to enable a prosecutor to obtain a judicial subpoena which would order the president to turn over his financial records.

This ruling was hailed as the “silver bullet” that would finally make Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial records available for publication – probably via leakage to the media. Democrats devoutly believed that those records would so offend the public – mainly by the size of Mr. Trump’s income – that many of his supporters would abandon him. Even if those records wouldn’t defeat the president in November, his enemies expected that the criminal proceedings for which the records are obtained would lead to Mr. Trump’s arrest, conviction and expulsion from office.

All this was wonderful material for a three-pipe night at a Democratic opium den, but it had no Constitutional basis. “Separation of powers” means that:

• Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court-level can order the president to do anything while he is in office; (they can issue orders, including subpoenas, but he can ignore them);
• No level of law-enforcement or jurisprudence can arrest, detain, or try a sitting president;
• The Congress cannot make the president do anything while he is in office; (they can order all they want, but he doesn’t have to obey);
• The president cannot make Congress or any court to do anything; (he can issue orders, but they can make rude noises with their armpits and do nothing else);
• Congressional- or Court-offices may not be invaded or searched by the president’s law-enforcement agents.

The Constitution does give some of the branches certain powers over the other branches:

• The Supreme Court can decide if a law enacted by Congress (and signed by the president) is Constitutional; if the Court says no, the president can’t enforce the law;
• The Congress may fence off particular areas of law from the Supreme Court’s purview;
• The House of Representatives may impeach the president or any sitting federal judge at any level, including the Supreme Court;
• The Senate tries the impeached official as prescribed by the Constitution; a 2/3 vote for conviction removes the official from office;
• The Senate has the power to approve or reject any nominee put forward by the president for a cabinet or judicial office;
• Each house of Congress may impose its own rules of conduct and operation without interference from the other Congressional house, or from the courts or the president;
• The president may issue executive orders as he sees fit;
• The Supreme Court may decide whether such orders are Constitutional; if not, they cannot be enforced and need not be obeyed;
• A sitting president may cancel or modify any executive order issued by a previous president;
• The Congress may overturn any presidential executive order by ordinary legislative protocol;
• The president can veto any legislation; the Congress can override his veto by a 2/3 vote in each house.

I list the foregoing because there seems to be widespread misunderstanding today about who can take what action against a sitting president. The idea that any court can “order” the president to do anything is especially alarming. Where did we get such a notion? It has never been our practice. Should it gain currency, any president could be subjected to a constant blizzard of demands from prosecutors all over the country, for every possible financial or business datum. As the Declaration of Independence described the king’s tax-agents: ‘an army of agents would harass him and eat out his substance.’ It would render any president incapable of executing his office.

This probably sounded great to Mr. Trump’s opponents, who hoped to achieve that very result, but they weren’t thinking clearly about the future. When their party or faction has put a man (or woman) in the White House, did they really think their scorched-earth strategy of unending subpoenas and indictments would be quietly retired so their president could govern decently and in good order?

This is a delusion of the first order. The opposition’s treatment of any president becomes the model for how future presidents of either party will be treated. Partisans who think it is great fun to kick the other party’s guy around can expect their guy to get the same treatment. This is not our governing “compact,” and it is not the responsible behavior of a free people.

Another current development has been the idea that a former president can be harassed, and even prosecuted, by state or municipal prosecutors and officials for actions he took, what he said, or intentions he might have had while he was in office. The issue is not addressed in the Constitution, but earlier voters clearly thought this treatment of a former president was out of bounds.

Today several local DAs are having great fun, and garnering much fame, by pursuing cases against former President Trump for various elements of his conduct while in office. This includes a charge that he “incited an insurrection against the United States” on January 6, 2021. Other state officials are now announcing that his name will not be listed on the ballots in primary and general elections.

All this might sound pretty serious to the Man on the Street, who might be ignorant of the facts that:

• Only the House of Representatives can “impeach” – i.e., charge – a president with “high crimes or misdemeanors” (in the Constitution’s very words) while he is in office;
• Only the Senate can try a sitting president on those charges;
• Those Congressional powers apply only to a sitting president.

In today’s contentious climate, various arms of state or municipal governments are ambitiously devising new ways to punish an ex-president for things which he did (or said) while in office. They are taking legal actions against former President Trump on the assumption that nobody will be able to stop them.

Knowledgeable politicians and Constitutional scholars believe the US Supreme Court will strike down these newly crafted punitive actions. But until (and if) the Court rules, those local grandees are hoping to be the “heroes” who finally brought Trump down.

Indeed, even if the Supremes do negate these local prosecutorial efforts, who will enforce their ruling? Has anyone noticed that there are no Supreme Court cops? Another important aspect of our Ruling Compact is the mutual agreement – crossing all political lines – to obey all Supreme Court rulings.

Finally, do members of the Get Trump gang understand that they are fashioning a radical new model for the treatment of all future ex-presidents, including those of their own party? “Be careful what you wish for” is a wise precept from an earlier time when common sense was the rule, not the exception. Let’s hope we can come to our senses – common or uncommon – before our system of government is damaged beyond repair.

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.” (Psalm 2)