29th October 2025
Some say Trump and his circle are disregarding the constitution – but that is only half right
We have a tendency to think in binaries – and this is certainly true about when we think about constitutions and constitutionalism.
We will take a view on whether a politician is acting either within a constitution or not.
And if not, we may use emphatic phrases with redundant adverbs: “[A] is completely disregarding the constitution” or “[B] is totally ignoring the constitution” – and so on.
But with the case of Trump and others, this is not correct, “completely” or “totally” or otherwise.
For in practice Trump keen on the constitutional protections that protect him and confer on him powers, and his various supporters are keen on the constitutional provisions that protect them and give them powers.
The constitution is not disregarded or ignored when it is to their advantage.
When it suits them, the constitution is very much intact.
They just do not want those elements of the constitution that check and balance them, or which confer rights on those they want to attack
It is one-way constitutionalism.
*
Over at Prospect (click here) my latest “weekly constitutional” post applies this general observation to a couple of concrete examples: about how the Trump-allied Speaker of the House of Representatives is using his powers to not swear in a political opponent over a month after she was elected, and how the conservative majority on the Supreme Court are using a “shadow docket” to determine cases in the government’s favour without full hearings.
But there are many other examples – consider Trump’s use of the pardon power to circumvent and frustrate accountability in the criminal justice system, or how is using executive orders to usurp the proper role of Congress (with Congress nodding-along).
All these examples are, in their different ways, uses and abuses of powers and rights allocated by the constitution.
If Trump and his allies were genuinely disregarding the constitution they would not be able to do these things.
Instead what they are doing is gaming the constitution.
A constitution for me, but not for thee.
*
As such, they are adopting a similar approach to how they deal with other matters of first principle.
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Law and order for thee, but not for me.
And so on.
As someone once described conservatism, though it also is wider application:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
This is formal power using a one-way valve.
*
If full, two-way constitutionalism is to be restored in the United States and elsewhere it will not be a case of building up from ground zero.
It will be a far more difficult exercise stabilising and remedying a structure which has half-fallen down – and against the unwilling occupants of the still-stable bits.
Restoring constitutionalism will be a big job – and it will be more demanding than, say, having a revolution and starting again.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
I do wonder if the only practicable way to resolve this is by repeating history, i.e., the way the French went about it in 1789?
I also wonder if those who seem to be trying to repeat the history of the early 20th century have bothered looking back to the 18th and seeing what becomes of the mega wealthy & powerful?
Disclaimer: I’m not condoning violence
I can’t entirely agree with this.
Not because I disagree with any of the facts or observations that DAG makes here, but because, if anything, I suspect it sees only part of the problem.
The behaviour of the current Administration – in particular that of President Trump, is entirely consistent and “on brand” with Donald Trump the businessman. We know from public record that Donald Trump would “stiff” banks and contractors and that many of them would sue. He would then immediately counter-sue, and use the law to tie up his adversaries in endless red tape. This tactic served him so well – he effectively side-stepped the Confidential Documents case, the Georgia RICO case – and he’s now working to try and overturn the two that went against him from author and journalist E. Jean Carroll.
So is the current administration one-sided when it comes to constitutionalism? Yes, absolutely.
But I don’t think that this is reflective of their view towards the constitution or its legal framework per se; rather I think this is illustrative of their attitude to *everything*. For or against. Friend or foe. Someone to suck up to, or someone to squash.
There is no middle ground.
And: an ally is just someone you haven’t gotten around to screwing over yet.
Good points.
As far as that famous quote is concerned, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that that’s *all* there is to conservatism, but it’s certainly an important aspect.
The left wing will feed 100 people because there is 1 who might go hungry.
The right wing will let 100 people starve because there might be 1 who doesn’t need the food.
That tells you everything you need to know about the current state of politics.
That may be true, but I think that the political landscape in the US was more complex and subtle than that before President Trump was elected – and has become much more complex since.
Previously, [well, prior to Reagan] Republicans were fiscally conservative, believed in small government and minimal red tape. They were unabashedly the part for the wealthy, but they were also more closely aligned with those of stronger Christian beliefs – Evangelicals, Mormons, and so on. We have to remember that the reason the Pilgrims left Europe in the first place was their wish to be able to practice a more puritanical form of Christianity than was prevalent in the UK and Europe at the time. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been historically multi-cultural, more progressive, more liberal in their outlook. But the Republicans also caucused with the 2nd Amendment lobby and the NRA, which was an uneasy alliance at the best of times.
Donald Trump contributed heavily to Democrats in New York but chose to run as a Republican. He appealed to the Christian base by promising to nominate more extremist Christians to the Federal bench, to Circuit Courts and to SCotUS. He appealed directly to labour unions – like the Teamsters – with his brash talk and his New York attitude. He appealed to the extreme right and the fascists with his frequent dog whistles to their cause (see e.g. “very fine people on both sides” after Charlottesville). He appealed to the Federalist Society by promising to take only their nominations for the bench.
In short, he made politics ruthlessly transactional – and somehow he was able to persuade those who voted for him to do so despite his many contradictions and to ignore when his actions for others ran counter to their values and focus narrowly on what they were getting from him. Journalists from e.g. MSNBC and CNN have been recorded interviewing devout Evangelical Christians and asking them if they would be willing to explain why they chose to vote for someone who had been accused [and has now been found guilty] of sex crimes. The response was enlightening – they voted for him because he agreed to give them what they wanted – more Christian, conservative judges.
He is a complete contradiction.
Where I think he is completely different [let’s be honest, any presidential candidate is going to try to appeal to as many voter groups as possible] is that he brought an entire new group out to vote – the extremists. Historically I don’t think that [extreme example] “biker gangs” or the KKK or the fascists would have voted. But we saw plenty of evidence of them doing so for Trump.
The problem for the US now is to unpick how the lessons learned from Trump will impact political thinking for the next 50, 100 years. Perhaps more immediately, the challenge is going to be how the nation reacts when the current occupant does not leave the remains of the White House in January 2029.
A complement to this here https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/10/dual-state-supreme-court/
The ‘dual state’ is a similar analysis, with the chilling observation that the zone of prerogative action tends to engulf the remaining lawful bits.
Of what I do not know I should not speak, but I will speak anyway.
Trump does seem the most awful gangster type, surrounded by some very smooth not to say smarmy operators plus more gangsters. On the other hand Biden did seem a feeble old man a long way past it with a nothing-burger of a running mate in Harris.
If I look at the online Washington Post I get a very bland (useless) look at US politics. The NYT does not seem any better. A bit more digging reveals that polarisation is a problem and the Republicans have been shifting rightwards for years. What little hands on experience I have would agree with that. Why is for the sociologists.
There we have it, the (still) most powerful nation on earth seems to be run by a gangster who pleases a great many of his countrypersons. The US setup seems easily manipulated by money. This does not augur well but the US can head down the drain for a very very long time. You will likely go bust betting against the US (unless you are inscrutable).
There are a few clouds on the horizon. How quickly they turn into a storm is unclear and I suspect US politics will be poorly prepared. Could be a bumpy ride.