The Answer is No

Thirty-two minutes, that is how long it takes to read the United States Constitution and its 27 amendments.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution dictates that upon assuming his or her duties, the President of the United States will take an oath, simply but weightily saying, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” President Donald Trump has now taken that oath twice.

I feel, before I go any further, this piece needs a disclaimer. So I awkwardly insert it here. I am not a never-Trumper. I do not have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I look for things he has done correctly, and I wish him well because his success is indeed our success. But I do agree with what the incredible Peggy Noonan wrote in her recent piece. “He’s a fearless man with bad judgment. He lacks internal calibration.” It is often this lack of calibration that gives many pause. And pause is not derangement. Disclaimer over.

Given that President Trump has now taken the oath of office twice, it is understandable that many people, including me, are concerned that in an interview this week with Kristen Welker of NBC, President Trump responded, “I don’t know,” when Welker asked him, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as President?” I want to be as fair as possible, so I watched the entire uncut interview. In so doing, one could make the case that the President was referring in his answer simply to the matter of deportations and not the overarching responsibility. So let me give that answer the interpretation most favorable to the President.

But here is where I won’t give the President the benefit of the doubt. When asked by Welker whether he was truly considering running for a third term, President Trump responded, “So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that to the best of my knowledge you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else.”

Mr. President, let me help you. Amendment XXII, Section 1, of the document you took an oath to preserve – a document that takes one half hour to read – says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Do I wish for the sake of clarity that it also made clear that no person shall serve more than two terms? I do. But the intent is clear.

A person taking his oath to preserve the Constitution seriously would answer the question Welker posed plainly with, “No, I will not seek a third term nor serve beyond this term because I am precluded from so doing by our Constitution.” That answer places country above person. Any other answer, for any other purpose, says that a person or a particular agenda is more important than the country. And that, in and of itself, is disqualifying. It speaks directly to fitness for office. And his supporters defending him on this topic, or using the now tired mantra of “he is just joking,” is both unacceptable and enabling. It unnecessarily teases Constitutional crisis at a time when crisis, real or perceived, is everywhere. It is a needless strain.

I wonder if it ever crossed the minds of our founders that it may be necessary to insert the word “read” into the oath of office, or if they would have just assumed that to preserve, protect, and defend it, the occupant of the office would have felt an obligation to have read the Constitution.

If one did read the Constitution, one would see some other interesting things. Its first article is about the Legislative branch. Not only is it foremost, it takes up 11 minutes of the 19 it takes to read the main body of the Constitution. It gives Congress, not the President, the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” It gives Congress, not the President, the authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” It gives to Congress, not the President, the authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” And it gives to Congress, not to the President, the authority and responsibility to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all powers vested in the “Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Laws duly passed, not Executive Orders, govern our land.  The Executive appropriating the duties of the Legislature is unconstitutional. Declaring flimsy national emergencies to do so is violative of the intent of the National Emergencies Act. And if the President has not read the Constitution, perhaps Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune should. And they should wrest their authority back from an overreaching Executive. And the nine justices of the Supreme Court, or at least the seven that still seem capable of looking at the merits of a case, should stand ready to do their part. Process matters. If not because it is the right thing to do, if not out of legal necessity, then because there will always be a next guy with whom you may completely disagree. And you’ll want constraints on his ability to act.

The Constitution is not a pesky annoyance standing in the way of progress; it’s a guardrail protecting our future.