The fear that captured large quantities of American public under the second administration of Donald Trump is unprecedented in modern American history. The president’s rough acts of retaliation against political opponents, open hostility to disagreement and disrespect for democratic norms make it clear that he intends to have power with even less restrictions than before.
It is tempting to reduce the political crisis of the United States to a simple idea that the bad choices on the ballot box give bad outcomes.
However, the terrifying reality is that constitutional and legal protective measures, which are long assumed that the Burgers against the authoritarian rule have shown alarmingly inefficient. This is because the elite privilege and authoritarianism are part of the DNA of the American Constitution.
Inequality and privilege in the American Constitution
Despite the breeding rhetoric of freedom established by the founders, the Constitution they compiled did not refer to freedom and equality for everyone.
As originally conceived, it was deeply wrong, the pro-Ropiness that made an elite class of white man owners whose main concern was the preservation of their economic and political domination. The so -called principles of freedom and democracy are designed to exclude most of the population, including enslaved people, women and poor.
Far from being a universal rights charter, the US Constitution has strengthened systemic inequality, ensuring that the power remained concentrated in the hands of a few privileged.
It is not a coincidence that they are now lagging behind most of the world in ensuring fundamental rights. Unlike many democracy, where the constituents 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 health care, housing, living salary or basic economic security. This absence is not accidental; Reflects the priorities of a system intended for serving economic elites.
In the United States, these protection remain elusive, rejected as the “radical” institution bent to privilege of wealth and power over human well -being. It is not surprising that the US government does not save the cost for military authority, but refuses to expand the same urgency to the socioeconomic security of its citizens.
Unverified executive power
While expanding several economic and social rights to US nationals, the US Constitution gives us presidents of wide power to work as they want.
Unlike the leaders in most democracy, the US president has an extraordinary one -sided force with low court or legislative supervision. The president may stop or follow federal persecution, select the laws, control immigration policies, classify or declare government secrets, overpower the agency’s rule, and clean “non -sole” officials – all without meaningful checks.
Decisions on foreign policy, including the withdrawal of contracts and military interventions, require the approval of parliament in second place, but US presidents may unilaterally publish contracts and arrange troops that exploit holes in the resolution of war forces without the approval of Congress.
Emergency forces, which in most democracy require legislative surveillance, are almost unverified in the US, allowing the executive authority to deprive property, impose sanctions and divert funds to the proclamation of the national emergency.
In contrast to democracies in which the courts actively check the executive government, the US judiciary consistently address the external affairs in external affairs, even where there are rough violations of human rights. The damn example is the judicial case of the International Palestine Children against Biden, where prosecutors sought to consider the administration of former US President Joe Biden responsible for US support to the Israeli Israeli Israeli actions in Gaza, claiming that US assistance was facilitated by the Active Genocide.
Despite the recognition of credible evidence, the court rejected the case, confirming that even in cases involving human rights violation, the executive remains legally inappropriate.
The appeal of the president of the national security has long been an excuse for the unanswered expansion of the executive. Trump, like President George W Bush, aggressively seized this precedent, using it not only for military interventions, but also to justify the domestic repression. Under the guise of national security, his administration targets immigrants and threatens to criminalize disagreement.
The absolute nature of the president’s power of pardon is also worrying. Unlike other democracies in which executive grace is subject to supervision, the US Constitution imposes significant limitations to this power. Trump took this extreme, giving pardons to political loyalists, war criminals and institutions. In the hands of the authoritarian president, the pardon becomes a tool for undermining justice and consolidation of power.
The role of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States, the court subject in charge of what is constitutionally or not, has historically played a key role in consolidating white superiority, privilege and inequality in the US.
In the court case Plessy against Ferguson of 1896, the Court gave constitutional legitimacy to racial Aparthey, the injustice that persisted in the 20th century. The legal system not only tolerated racial submission; He actively supported and implemented it.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court routinely ruined economic regulation attempts, blocking the laws on the minimum wage, the protection of labor and the implementation of the antitrust implementation on the basis of such as such measures violated the principles of federalism and the so -called freedom of the contract. These verdicts were less protected by freedom, and more about the protection of a rich elite from democratic responsibility.
It was not until the mid -20th century, especially according to the court of Warren, did the judiciary accept a discourse based on rights aimed at spreading civil freedoms and protection of marginalized communities. Designed decisions, such as Brown against the Committee on Education (1954), Gideon against Wainwright (1963), Miranda against Arizona (1966) and ROE against Wade (1973), pulled out with the principle of separate but equal in education, inserted the right to judicial proceedings and women in reproductive hooks. They, among other cases, signaled a shift to the interpretation of constitutional rights.
However, this period of court progress has proven to be short -lived. An increase in the conservative majority in the Supreme Court returned the institution to the original DNA – the favored elite to the detriment of women and minorities.
In the last two decades, the court has systematically dismantled the many gains of the revolution of the rights, returning voting rights, eroding reproductive freedom and weakening the protection of labor.
The impact of money in American politics has further strengthened this reality, ensuring that the government remains in elite interests, not the electorate. The 2010 Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United against FEC accelerated this decline by legalizing the unsettled flow of corporate money into political campaigns.
The Supreme Court also played a key role in expanding the executive. This is nowhere clearer than in the decision of the Supreme Court in 2024. In Trump against the United States, which effectively awarded the Presidents of Siroki immunity from the criminal prosecutor’s office for action, while on duty – to alleviate the isolation of the executive authority than the legal responsibility.
The court also approved the executive government almost unlimited control over the implementation of the law. In the case of the United States against Nixon (1974), the court confirmed that the executive had exclusive authority for prosecutorial decisions, emphasizing that the President and the Attorney General retained a wide discretion in the determination they would prosecute, and what accusations they should and whether to follow the case.
Similarly, in Heckler against Chaney (1985), the court explicitly found that the agency’s decision was not implementing the law – a similar prosecutor decision not to file charges – it is assumed that he cannot be examined, because he belongs to the field of executive discretion. These cases have strengthened the principle that the executive has an almost absolute discretionary right in prosecutorial matters, protected from judicial interference.
Trump used it full. He openly declared his intention to explore and prosecute political opponents, threatening the basic democratic principle of impartial justice. In constitutional democracy, no individual should live in fear of arbitrary government actions. However, the current legal framework offers little protection. Even if the target individuals are released, financial and emotional toll can be devastating.
Sobering reality
Trump is not an aberration, but a predictable product that privileges the elite, maintains global domination and protects the Presidency from responsibility. 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 American Constitution inherent in the protection against despotism has always been an illusion. From the slavery and genocide of the indigenous peoples to Jim Crow, the interns of Japanese Americans, the red fear, the “war against terrorism” and the suppression of disagreement against the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, American history reveals that power consistently trumpets justice.
The great reality is that the American Constitution, despite its tribute in American political culture, is an outdated and inadequate document to resolve the challenges of the modern world. They also wrote it for the narrow class of elites that could not imagine a diverse, industrialized and global connected society. Structural disadvantages of the Constitution-Honor’s lack of social and economic protection, its overwhelming judiciary appointed life, relying on corrosive money in politics, its deep undemocratic electoral system-the land was poorly equipped to face the 21st century crises.
This is not a transient crisis, but the culmination of a constitutional system that was not designed to protect against tyranny. The high question is no longer if the American democracy is in crisis, but what it will take to face this sobering reality.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeere.
