My Analysis of the Direction of our Nation

After writing the three-part article defining Fascism, and observing the present administration’s actions, I have arrived at this conclusion.  The President is moving our government to a more powerful, centralized figurehead (the Presidency), resulting in a less democratic state under the guise of Make America Great Again.

The President is not governing by using the parameters as set forth by the Constitution.  Those including the idea of three separate, but, equal branches of government.  Instead, he ruling.  By definition given by Webster’s dictionary, ruling: 

1. Governing; controlling the will and actions of intelligent beings, or the movements of other physical bodies. 2. Marking by a ruler. 3. Deciding; determining. 4. a. Predominant; chief; controlling; as a ruling passion.

Re-read the very first portion of the Webster’s definition. The fourth portion of the definition helps to clarify the first portion.  Now, think about what that means in a system of government that emphasizes equal branches of government.

Please allow me to review the meaning of Fascism as defined in the first article.

1. fascism | ˈfaSHˌizəm | (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
   1. [derogatory] extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior: 
   2. [with modifier] very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area: 
   3. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

How closely does this coincide with my idea of “ruling” instead of using the process of governing as set out by the Constitution, laws, an accepted practices for approximately 250 years of our country’s existence?

Let me point out why I consider this to be of grave importance.

President Donald Trump has been in office for three months and has signed over 120 executive orders during that time.  While some of the orders have been regarding minor issues like paper straws and water pressure, some of Trump's orders have raised concerns including one attempting to change birthright citizenship in the U.S., which the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in May.

This amounts to the President negating the provisions of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.  In simple terms, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves. It also ensures "equal protection of the laws" and prohibits states from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. This has been a cornerstone for many landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights.
 
The President’s argument will be the 14th Amendment was aimed at giving citizenship to the slaves after the Civil War, and not babies born in the United States to undocumented citizens.  It has been accepted since the inception of the 14th Amendment that ANYONE born on US soil is automatically a citizen of the United States.  The President’s argument will also attempt to overturn the theory of jus soli (of the soil) which has been the accepted practice in the United States for over 150 years, to jus sanquinis, a legal principle where citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents, regardless of the child's birthplace.

The 14th Amendment also guarantees due process in a court of law.  At the moment, the President’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Steven Miller, has said the White House (the President) is actively seeking to suspend the rule of Habeas Corpus, which is one of the cornerstones for our legal system.  A prisoner may petition the court through a writ of habeas corpus.  When the writ is issued, it requires the person holding the prisoner to bring them before the court. The court then determines whether the detention is lawful, and if not, the person must be released  The Suspension Clause protects liberty by protecting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege except in extraordinary circumstances: when a rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it.
 
The President will base his argument on the fact he has stated the United States has suffered an invasion of undocumented citizens and the invasion must be stopped.  Eventually the Court will rule on this action, if it takes place, and will decide on the matter.  So, with that in mind…what constitutes an invasion as compared to immigration.  Using Webster’s once again:

INVASION, noun (singular as well as plural). [Latin invasio, from invado. See Invade.]
 

1. A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.

 
IMMIGRATION, noun
 

1. The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence.

So, what is the decision to be made?  Certainly, the President has made a case in the public arena by claiming there are hardened criminals coming into or already in our country, something I do not doubt.  His Secretary of Homeland Defense has made television commercials touting the removal of such people, even going as far as to film in the El Salvadorean prison where the hardened criminals were taken.  And in each commercial, the Secretary says to those who have immigrated here unlawfully, you will be arrested and sent back and you will not be able to return.

In essence, instead of directing Congress to develop a comprehensive bill reforming immigration, the President has selected a group of people to be the burden of everything that is wrong with America.  He has given “cause” for this by indicating the undocumented citizen is a drain on the nation’s economic system, the nation’s health system, and the nation’s Social Security system.  This is somewhat true, but is it enough to forego the legal proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution?  When asked by Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” regarding this, the President said, “I think so, because if we don’t, we would have millions of court cases and that would take years”.

In addition, the President has failed to heed legal decisions by the nation’s court system.  He has made derogatory statements about the judges who have ruled against his actions.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, has publicly rebuked the President two times for his actions and statements.  In the President’s defense, he has stated he doesn’t worry about the Constitution because he has “very good lawyers working for him” to do that.

Is that enough to ignore the Constitution and court system?  Is this an attempt to centralize power in branch of our national government?

One of the characteristics of a fascist leader is the opposition to democracy; another is totalitarian ambitions.  By disdaining the democratic process and centralizing power in the executive branch, the President has moved our nation in the direction of an autocratic, totalitarian government setting.

The third branch of our government is Congress, both the House and Senate.  Despite the President's party controlling both the House and Senate, little legislation has taken place.  On April 29th of this year, Time magazine reported:

“But the first 110 days of Trump’s administration paints a more complicated picture. Instead of relying on the Republican-led Congress, Trump has leaned heavily on executive action to carry out his agenda, issuing an unprecedented 135 executive orders since he took office in January. In doing so, Trump has largely bypassed Congress at the outset of his Administration, a sharp break from his first term. So far, Congress has only passed six bills—five of which have been signed into law—the fewest of any president in the first 100 days of an administration in the last seven decades, according to a TIME analysis of congressional records.”

With that being said, it may be concluded that the President is making law to fit his Project 2025 agenda through Executive Orders, once again, usurping authority from another “equal” branch of government, to make the Executive Branch the more powerful, centralized figure he really wants to be.

The most recent(?) bill passed by the House and sent to the Senate was The Gulf of America Act, or H.R. 276, is a proposed bill that would rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America". The bill is essentially a codification of a previous executive order signed by President Trump that also renamed the Gulf.  The bill would also require federal agencies to update their documents and maps to reflect the new name within 180 days of enactment. According to the House of Representatives, the bill passed the House on May 8, 2025 and was sent on to the Senate, where no action has taken place.
 
I find the lack of legislation coming from the House and Senate to be alarming.  It would be far too convenient for the President to ask Congress to legislate his agenda, after all, the Republicans control both chambers.  But for one reason or another, the President has not taken that route.  One must ask “Why?”.

As for the issue of tariffs, Article One Section Eight of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Congress.  One clause deals with “to regulate commerce”.  The commerce clause gives Congress broad power to regulate many aspects of our economy and to pass environmental or consumer protections because so much of business today, either in manufacturing or distribution, crosses state lines. But the commerce clause powers are not unlimited.  Even though it has been accepted practice for Congress to allow the President to levy a tariff for years, why didn’t the President go to Congress (remember the President’s party controls both chambers) and ask for Congress to levy the tariffs to regulate foreign commerce?  Once again, one must ask “Why?”.

My thought is the President wants to be the ruler instead of a part of a working government.  In essence, he wants to be the government, and that my friends, is a total lack of concern for democracy as we know it.

There are many other thoughts I have regarding the methods of this administration.  Voicing those concerns would only look like a smear of mud from me.  I choose not to do that.  But what I do choose to do is champion democracy as suggested by the Founding Fathers, and a Constitution that has been flexible enough to last over two hundred years and serve this country well.