Should Americans be afraid of the Presidency?

If we were to compare the Presidency as originally designed at ratification and what has become of the Presidency overtime, there would be two conflicting images presented. In the case of the former, an executive with limited powers was created. The President would be responsible for ensuring the law is executed, being commander-in-chief of the military, and representing our nation in foreign matters.

The Constitution narrowly defined the role of the President of the United States. The founding fathers clearly didn’t want a king.

In the centuries since, the President has bent the Constitution and even openly defied the law. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Franklin Delano Roosevelt rounded up innocent Japanese Americans into internment camps, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have intercepted and mined digital information on unsuspecting citizens, and countless Presidents have taken us to war without congressional approval.

The Constitution may have set firm boundaries, but it hasn’t stopped the President of the United States from becoming a king.

The presidential race has become defined by the Supreme Court and a fear of the court tipping in a certain partisan direction. Separation of powers once kept these roles apart, but the lines have become blurred. Supreme Court justices were given lifetime tenures to avoid the politics of elections, but the result has been presidential politics becoming dependent on the judiciary.

Should liberals vote for a bad Democrat out of fear of a conservative Supreme Court? Should conservatives vote for a bad Republican out of fear of a liberal Supreme Court?

The intent of the Supreme Court was never to become as far reaching as it has. The Supreme Court has become a second legislative body in the federal government, often inventing law from the bench and leaving the other two branches subservient, not just separate.

The Presidency itself has become just that, as well. The executive has become a dictator, with the validation of the judicial branch and the complacency of the legislative branch.

When Roosevelt put innocent Japanese Americans in camps simply because of heritage, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Executive Order 9066. The Supreme Court, with a decision written by Roosevelt appointee Hugo Black, ruled that war time justifies forced relocation of innocent Americans.

Consider the fact that the United States has essentially been in a state of perpetual war since 9/11. Liberals like to suggest that President-Elect Donald Trump is an islamophobe who would round up Muslims, but he would have the legal authority to do so because of a Democratic President.

Rounding up Muslims, political opponents, and other dissidents wouldn’t be difficult in modern society. Under both the Bush and Obama Administrations, the federal government has been intercepting phone and data records, storing the information, and otherwise monitoring innocent Americans in violation of the Bill of Rights. Tracking everyday Americans is not difficult, in theory.

And now that President Obama further legitimized these powers, Trump has the power of the wiretap at his disposal. On top of the power to detain, the power to roundup, and the power to go to war without congressional approval.

Should Americans be afraid of the Presidency?

In a perfect world, no. But this illustrates why precedents are important. If we allow to the law to be broken and constitutional protections be infringed, we are setting the precedent for an untold future.