The US Constitution has not been made for Trump protection | Policy

The fear that squeezes large parts of the US public under the second administration of Donald Trump is unprecedented in modern US history. The President's relevant acts against political opponents, open hostility to disagreement and neglect of democratic norms, clarify that he intends to rule power with even less restrictions than before.

It is seductive to reduce the political crisis of the United States to the simple idea that a bad choice of urn produces bad results.

The horrific reality, however, is that the constitutional and legal precautionary measures, which are believed to be the bases against authoritarian government, proved to be anxiously ineffective. This is because the elite privilege and authoritarianism are part of the DNA of the US Constitution.

Inequality and privilege in the US Constitution

Despite the exalted rhetoric of freedom, supported by the founders of the founders, the constitution they prepared was not for freedom and equality for all.

As he first thought, he was a deeply insufficient slavery document prepared by an elite class by owners of white male properties, whose main concern was to preserve their economic and political domination. The so-called principles of freedom and democracy are intended to exclude most of the population, including enslaved people, women and the poor.

It is far from being the Charter of Universal Rights, the US Constitution has secured systemic inequality, ensuring that power remains concentrated in the hands of privileged few.

It is no coincidence that the United States is lagging behind much of the world in securing fundamental rights. Unlike many democracies, where constitutions explicitly recognize economic and social rights as fundamental to human dignity, the US Constitution does not contain such guarantees. There is no constitutional right to healthcare, housing, salary or basic economic security. This absence is no accident; It reflects the priorities of a system designed to serve economic elites.

In the United States, these defenses remain elusive, rejected as “radical” by an establishment charged with the privileged wealth and power over human well -being. Not surprisingly, the US government has not spared any expenses for military power, but refuses to expand the same urgency to the socio -economic security of its citizens.

Unverified executive

While expanding the little economic and social rights of US citizens, the US Constitution grants US presidents to a wide power to do as they wish.

Unlike leaders in most democracies, the President of the United States has extraordinary unilateral powers with little judicial or legislative supervision. The president may stop or follow federal prosecution, elect a laws, control immigration policies, classify or cut the government secrets, cancel the creation of the agency's rules and cleanse “unfair” employees – without significant checks.

Foreign policy decisions, including the withdrawal of contracts and military interventions, require parliament's approval elsewhere, but US presidents may unilaterally leave the contracts and have troops using doors in resolving military forces without congress permission.

Emergency powers, which in most democracies require legislative supervision, are not practically checked in the United States, which allows the executive to seize assets, impose sanctions and redirect funds to declare a national emergency.

Unlike democracies, where the courts are actively verifying the executive, the US judicial system consistently reported to the executive in foreign affairs, even when there are gross violations of human rights. A spring example is the lawsuit of children's international Palestin against Biden, where the plaintiffs seek to hold the administration of former US President Joe Biden, responsible for the US support for Israel's war, arguing that US assistance facilitates acts of genocide.

Although recognized reliable evidence, the court rejected the case, confirming that even in cases related to human rights violations, the executive power remains legitimately unrecognized.

Calling the national security of presidents has long been a pretext for the unauthorized expansion of the executive branch. Trump, like President George B Bush, aggressively seizes this precedent, using it not only for military interventions, but also to justify internal repression. Under the guise of national security, his administration is aimed at immigrants and threatens to criminalize disagreement.

The absolute character of the pardon of the president is also alarming. Unlike other democracies, where executive reconciliation is subject to supervision, the US Constitution does not impose any meaningful restrictions on this power. Trump has accepted this to the extreme, providing pardons to political loyalists, war criminals and rebels. In the hands of an authoritarian president, the pardon becomes a tool for undermining justice and consolidating power.

The role of the Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court, a court entity, charged with what is constitutionally or not, has historically played a key role in strengthening white supremacy, privilege and inequality in the United States.

In Plessi's trial against Ferguson of 1896, the court provides a constitutional legitimacy to the racial apartheid, an injustice that continued well in the 20th century. The legal system not only tolerates racial submission; He actively supports it and imposes it.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court routinely reduces attempts at economic regulation, blocking the laws of minimum wage, labor protection and the implementation of antitrustities on the grounds that such measures violate the principles of federalism and the so -called contract freedom. These decisions were less to protect freedom and more to protect the rich elite from democratic accountability.

It was not until the mid-20th century, especially in the court of Warren, did the judiciary adopted a discourse based on rights aimed at expanding civil freedoms and the protection of marginalized communities. Remarkable solutions such as Brown against Education Council (1954), Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963), Miranda V. Arizona (1966) and ROE vs. Wade (1973) have abolished the principle of separate but equal to education, strengthened the right to fair test procedures and the right of women to reproductive choice. Among other cases, they have signaled to the transition to a more information interpretation of constitutional rights.

However, this period of judicial progress turned out to be short -lived. Increasing the conservative majority to the Supreme Court returned the institution to its original DNA – it favors the elites to the detriment of women and minorities.

Over the last two decades, the court has systematically dismantled many profits from the revolution in rights, repealing the right to vote, eroding reproductive freedoms and the weakening of labor protection.

The impact of money in US policy further strengthened this reality, ensuring that the government remains to be elite interest, not an electorate. The Supreme Court's decision of 2010 at Citizens United against FEC has accelerated this decline, legalizing the unlimited flow of corporate money in political campaigns.

The Supreme Court also played a key role in the expansion of the executive branch. Nowhere is this not more clear than in the Supreme Court's decision in 2024 in Trump against the United States, which effectively provides the presidents with a broad immunity of prosecution for actions taken during the position – in a distance of the execution branch of Legal accountability.

The court also granted the executive with almost unlimited control over law enforcement. In the case of the United States against Nixon (1974), the court confirmed that the Executive Branch has exceptional powers to prosecutorial decisions, emphasizing that the President and the Prosecutor General remain a broad judgment in determining whom to pursue, what accusations to bring and whether to pursue whether to pursue case.

In the same way, in Heckler against Chaney (1985), the court explicitly held that the agency's decision not to apply a law – similar to the prosecutor's decision not to charges – was presumed unauthorized as it falls within the sphere of executive discretion. Together, these cases have strengthened the principle that the executive has an almost absolute judgment on prosecutorial issues protected by judicial intervention.

Trump used this completely. He openly declares his intention to investigate and pursue political opponents, threatening the fundamental democratic principle of impartial justice. In constitutional democracy, no one should live in fear of the government's arbitrary actions. However, this legal framework offers low protection. Even if the target persons are justified, the financial and emotional fee can be detrimental.

Sobering

Trump is not a deviation, but the predictable product of a system that privilege elites maintains global domination and protects the presidency from accountability. The fear that many Americans feel today is justified, but reflects a deeper misunderstanding: this is not a deviation from the norm, but a continuation.

The belief that the US Constitution is inherently protecting against despotism has always been an illusion. From slavery and genocide of the indigenous population to Jim Crowe, the internment of Japanese Americans, the red frightening, the “war against the terror” and the repression of disagreement against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, American history reveals that power is constantly imposing justice.

The reality is that the US Constitution, despite its worship in American political culture, is an outdated and insufficient document to address the challenges of the modern world. It was written by and for a narrow class of elites, which could not predict a varied, industrialized and globally connected society. The structural shortcomings of the Constitution-Lips of Social and Economic Protection, its predominance of a chosen judicial system appointed for life, its reading of corrosive money in politics, its deeply undemocratic electoral system-left the country unscrupulous to face crises from the 21st century.

This is not a fleeting crisis, but the culmination of a constitutional system that is not designed to protect against tyranny. The urgent question is no longer whether American democracy is in crisis, but what will need for the public to stand up to this sobering reality.

The anger expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazee's editorial position.