Where has the Rule of Law gone?

I’m not a Rosie O’Donnell fan.  Not at all.  I don’t like her act whatsoever.  But there is something about Rosie I do like, and that is she sometimes is not afraid to express her thoughts or her doings.  Rosie has moved to Ireland.  The reason seems to be her disdain for the President.

It was reported, after O’Donnell’s move to Ireland in January, Trump threatened to “revoke” her citizenship in the United States.  He stated so on this Social Truth platform.  Since the breakup of the bromance between Elon Musk and the President, the President has said he would consider “revoking” Musk’s citizenship.

This isn’t akin to a judge suspending a driver’s license because of a person operating a motor vehicle under the influence. It is creating a situation much like a short story by Edward Everett Hale, first published in 1863, “A Man Without a Country”, with one small exception.  It was O’Donnell’s choice to move to Ireland, regardless the reason.

The President wrote "Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her citizenship." 

“She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. God Bless America!"

Rosie O’Donnell a threat to humanity?  Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity; the black plaque was a threat to humanity; the Spanish Flu epidemic that occurred in 1918-1919 was a threat to humanity…but Rosie O’Donnell?  C’mon man!

I researched the possibility of Trump going through with his threat.  I’m not sure the President has done so. Rosie’s father was from Donegal, Ireland; her mother Irish-American born in the United States.  Rosie was born in the United States.  She has citizenship being born in the United States to an American citizen.  On what grounds would the President revoke O’Donnell’s citizenship?  Because she moved to another country and spoke badly about him?

This threat by the President goes along with his idea of dismissing “birthright citizenship”.  Imagine if the President were to pursue this and be successful, everyone in the United States could have our citizenship revoked because of … speaking our mind and criticizing the President … uhhh, that is a First Amendment Right.

It is well known, the President, in an interview with Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” indicated he didn’t have to worry about what he could or couldn’t do as President in regards to the Constitution.  When Welker pressed the President on upholding the Constitution, Trump’s reply was, “I don’t know.  I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”  But please notice, the President didn’t say he would uphold the Constitution.

So, what does this indicate?  It is apparent President Trump would like to negate the 1st Clause of the 14thAmendment to do away with “birthright citizenship”.  But please understand, that is the same clause that gives ALL citizens 1st class citizenship to include the Bill of Rights.  It is the same Amendment that gave us SCOTUS decisions of Topeka v. Brown, Bakke v. UC Davis Regents, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which, surprisingly, affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.

If the President were to be successful in negating the 14th Amendment, could he pick and choose what he wishes to negate in the Constitution?  In a recent ruling by SCOTUS, the Court said anything the President does in an official capacity as President of the United States is legal.

And that brings me to the real nuts and bolts of this article:  The Rule of Law.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has recently spoken out about the erosion of “the Rule of Law” in the United States.  Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently expressed concerns about the state of the rule of law in the United States, pointing to several areas of concern:

• Eroding Public Trust and Disregard for Court Decisions: Roberts has warned against public officials, regardless of political affiliation, who suggest open disregard for federal court rulings.  A Gallup poll found American's confidence in the country's judicial system dropped to a record low of 35%.
• Attacks on Judges and Judicial Independence:  He's cautioned against "ad hominem" attacks on judges and stressed that criticism should be directed at the decisions themselves, not at the judges personally. 
• Importance of Civic Education: In a recent address to Georgetown Law graduates, Roberts highlighted the importance of civic education, stating that a lack of understanding about the courts and the different branches of government among young people poses a significant threat to the rule of law. He emphasized that strengthening the rule of law requires a better understanding of how the U.S. system of justice works.
• Overturning Precedent and Legal Stability:  He believes that overruling precedent solely because a different group of justices holds a differing opinion is not a sufficient reason and could lead to legal instability.

In essence, Chief Justice Roberts' concerns about the rule of law center on maintaining the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary, protecting judges from intimidation and threats, and ensuring the public's understanding and trust in the U.S. system of justice.
 
How does this apply to the Executive Branch, namely the President?

A New York Times columnist, Charlie Savage, wrote, “In the radical opening weeks of his second term, President Trump has appeared to feel little constraint by any need to show respect for the rule of law."

What must be remembered, and should have been learned in government class in school is:

• The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes laws
• The Executive Branch (the President) enforces law
• The Judiciary (the court system) interprets law

Please keep in mind, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  This was to prevent one central figure from garnering authoritarian or autocratic power.

President Trump began the first weeks of his second term with a flurry of executive actions and orders that pushed beyond the limits of executive authority. As of this writing, since Trump took office some 6 months ago, President Trump has signed 166 Executive Orders …which have the same force as law.  In his eight years as President, Ronald Reagan signed a total of 381 Executive Orders.
​  
Is Trump overstepping his authority?  Is the Executive branch becoming all too powerful, and if so…why?

Let me suggest this:  The President is one who is promoting “Ad hominem” attacks. This simply means, in an argument or debate, one doesn’t defend their argument or position.  One attacks the person.  The buzz word for this behavior is “bully”.
  
This is exactly what behavior Trump has demonstrated.  If one is not loyal to Trump, if one questions his ideas or proposed policies, Trump attacks the person and doesn’t defend his argument.  He has verbally attacked judges that didn’t deliver an opinion in his favor.  Trump has attacked the work of the January 6thCommittee…personally using a verbal attack on Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger, both Republicans.  Cheney lost her primary election to a Trump backed candidate.  Kinzinger chose not to run for re-election. Trump continually blames his shortcomings on President Biden, often calling him “the worst President in the history of the United States.”
  
Is it this behavior that prevents the Republicans in Congress from speaking out against Trump, from performing their job of oversight?  Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina spoke out and voted against the Big Beautiful Bill Act for which he was rudely chastised by the President, who even indicated Tillis would not have his support in his upcoming election.  Tillis, a well-respected Senator, surprised just about everyone  by stating he was not going to run for re-election, thereby declaring he was not beholding to the President.

Are members of Congress afraid of the President and his personal attacks?  I believe the Chief Justice did say so…in a very diplomatic manner.  If this is the case, and the Legislative Branch will not use its power of checks and balances on the Executive Branch, then it is up to the Judiciary to do so.  Unfortunately, even if SCOTUS were to deliver an opinion that was not favorable to the President, how would it be enforced when the Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of our government?
  
So, is it Trump’s behavior of requiring complete loyalty of his minions causing the court system and Congress to look the other way and allow the checks and balance system to fail?  Because, if that is the case, the Rule of Law doesn’t apply and an Imperial Presidency is exactly what will develop…something the Founding Fathers did not want.

That is why the Constitution was written as it is.  In fact, Article 1 of the Constitution is the Legislative Branch, NOT, the Executive Branch, and it was done so because of the fear of a singular person becoming all too powerful.

I’ll let you arrive at your own conclusion.