In Trumpland Laws Are Inconveniences Not Principles for Governing a Society

by E.A. Blair

It’s often said that our nation is a nation of laws and not men.  The phrase has its origin in a longer passage attributed to second president John Adams:

“The very definition of a republic is an empire of laws, and not of men. If our laws can be applied willy-nilly at the discretion of a few powerful men, how can we ever trust that there will be equal justice under the law?”

Those words have been echoed by many politicians over the 191 years since John Adams died, and they’ve always been spoken in the context of the United States upholding an ideal of justice that is impartial and unswerving, though often tempered by judicial restraint and compassion.

That tradition is reflected in the oaths affirmed by officeholders at all levels of government.  Presidents, senators, representatives, state and civic officials all swear to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”.  Even my humble role as a poll worker requires that I take that oath each election day.

The terms of that oath have been tested at times, most often by dominionists, religious zealots who seek to place biblical principles above civil laws.  The most notable reaction to this occurred in the Maryland legislature on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage where Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.  At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said:

“Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?”

Raskin replied:

“Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”*

Similar sentiments were expressed by Bill Maher in 2005 and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois in 1997.  Maher observed that

“There are laws named after one person, like the Miranda laws, but they don’t just apply to Mr. Miranda. They apply to everyone. Not so with the Schiavo Law. Does George Bush remember that he put his hand on the Bible to uphold the Constitution and not the other way around?”*

In other words, President Bush had made a law for one person, not for all, out of line with the whole notion of being a nation of laws.

Now, of course, there’s Donald Trump.

Under Trumpism, which is on track to become the state religion, the United States is becoming an empire, not of men, but of one man.  For Trump, laws are inconveniences, not principles for governing a society.  If they can’t be ignored, they must be discarded.

In keeping with the principles of Trumpism, the job of US lawmakers is not to serve their constituents, but to support Trump.  This is how he put it in his TweetRant™ on Sunday:

It’s very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 23, 2017

So we have come from 228 years of supporting and defending the Constitution to supporting and defending a president with the utmost contempt for that Constitution.  Add to the arrogance of that assertion is the laughable notion of Trump ever carrying anything on his back.  Compare, also, the eloquence of Adams, his concern for the nation, to the pettiness of Trump and his self-serving obsession with only himself.

Here, for the record, is the oath of office sworn by senators and representatives until now:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Here is the new oath of office, calculated, as Ambrose Bierce used to say, for this meridian:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the President of the United States against all embarrassments both self-inflicted and external; that I will bear upholding and allegiance to his lies despite the Constitution; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental faculties engaged for purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the sycophancy on which I am about to enter. So help me Trump.”

* Quoted from Snopes.com.  Follow the link for the context and Jesse Jackson, Jr’s quote.