Constitutional Government Means Following the Whole Constitution

I believe the federal government should be run according to the Constitution. That principle shouldn't change depending on who occupies the White House.

For years, conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists argued that Washington had exceeded the powers granted to it by the Constitution. They criticized executive overreach, government by executive order, federal agencies acting without clear congressional authority, and presidents stretching the limits of their office.¹

Those concerns do not disappear when our preferred candidate wins.

One of the biggest mistakes Americans make is confusing support for a politician with support for the Constitution. The Founders created a system of checks and balances because they did not trust any individual or political party with unlimited power. They understood that liberty survives only when government power is restrained.²

That is why constitutional government requires consistency.

If Congress has the authority to make laws, then Congress should make laws. If Congress controls spending, then presidents should not look for ways around Congress when they fail to get what they want. If tariffs, military actions, immigration policies, trade agreements, or emergency powers are exercised, they should be exercised within the constitutional framework established by the Founders and amended by the American people.³

That is where I have concerns about the way the Trump administration has operated.

The extensive use of executive orders and executive actions to accomplish goals that Congress has not enacted raises serious constitutional questions. Constitutional government was designed to prevent any president from becoming the primary lawmaker.⁴

The use of emergency powers to redirect federal resources after Congress has rejected or modified a president's request also raises legitimate separation-of-powers concerns. Even when a president believes he is acting in the national interest, the Constitution assigns spending authority to Congress.⁵

The same principle applies to tariffs. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. While Congress has delegated some authority to the executive branch, constitutionalists should still ask whether such broad economic decisions should increasingly be made by a single individual rather than the people's elected representatives.⁶

Questions surrounding immigration enforcement, federal pressure on universities and private institutions, disputes over congressional oversight, and broad assertions of presidential authority should concern anyone who claims to support limited government.⁷ The issue is not whether a particular policy is good or bad. The issue is whether constitutional limits are being respected.

At the same time, constitutionalists should be honest about what the Constitution actually says.

The Constitution gives Congress authority over foreign commerce.⁶ The Fifth Amendment recognizes eminent domain while requiring just compensation.⁸ The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a federal income tax.⁹ The Second Amendment's phrase "well regulated militia" had a historical meaning that deserves to be understood in its original context.¹⁰

Too often, people confuse "I don't like it" with "it's unconstitutional." Those are not the same thing.

I see this on both the right and the left. Some people claim every federal program they oppose is unconstitutional. Others seem willing to ignore constitutional limits if doing so advances a cause they support. Both approaches miss the point.

The real danger to our republic is not any single president. It is the growing belief that constitutional limits only matter when the other party is in power. Many Republicans objected when Presidents Obama and Biden pushed the limits of executive authority. Those same standards should apply to President Trump. Likewise, Democrats who suddenly discover constitutional concerns under Trump should apply those same standards to administrations they support.

The Constitution is not a Republican document. It is not a Democratic document. It is the framework of our government.

The real test of constitutional government is whether we are willing to defend the Constitution even when it limits the power of leaders we support. If we only care about constitutional limits when our opponents are in office, then we are not defending the Constitution at all. We are simply defending our side.

The Founders expected better from us. We should expect better from ourselves.

References

¹ Madison, James. *The Federalist No. 51*. Avalon Project, Yale Law School, 1788. 

² Madison, James. *The Federalist No. 47*. Avalon Project, Yale Law School, 1788. 

³ United States. *Constitution of the United States*. National Archives. 

⁴ Congressional Research Service. *Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation*. 

⁵ Congressional Research Service. *National Emergencies Act: Background and Recent Developments*. 

⁶ Library of Congress. *Constitution Annotated: Article I, Section 8 (Commerce Clause)*. 

⁷ Congressional Research Service. *Congressional Oversight and Executive Privilege*. 

⁸ United States. *Bill of Rights – Amendment V (Takings Clause)*. National Archives. 

Additional discussion: Library of Congress, *Constitution Annotated: Takings Clause*. 

⁹ United States. *Constitution of the United States, Amendment XVI*. National Archives. 

¹⁰ Volokh, Eugene. "The Commonplace Second Amendment." *New York University Law Review*, vol. 73, no. 3, 1998.