Time to use the word “I” when it comes to Trump’s actions

A few months after Donald Trump returned to President, he issued so many executive orders and declarations on domestic and foreign policy that he overwhelmed intellectual and emotional energies to fully appreciate their impact.

Whether you approve the direction he wants to take the country or not, he has been appointed officially elected (and this time, following a peaceful transition of power) where many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge in his ideological obsessions and advances policies that benefit the economic class that “stricken him to the dance.”

But what about executive orders beyond the limited authorities that are banned for the presidency? Or are those who are contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the meaning of the law and the constitution, and are they responsible?

Saying goodbye to democracy, and at our freedom, we accumulate in the same hands, “whether Tyranny’s definition is justly prominent, whether it is just a minority, many, or many.”

On January 20th, Trump took the presidential oath, “faithfully enforced the Presidential Office” and “preserved, protected and defended the US Constitution.”

But when asked three months later if he agreed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement, Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker that he wasn’t so sure. “I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer.”

The Constitution states that “without a legitimate process of law, a “person” is “deprived of life, freedom, or property.” It says “people” rather than “citizens.” Naturally, the Supreme Court held that everyone in the country (both citizens and non-citizens alike) had certain fundamental rights.

When Welker reminded the president of the rights guaranteed by this constitution, Trump argued that this would only slow him down.

And then there was the summary deportation to the infamous terrorist prisons in El Salvador, and perhaps elsewhere. Some people have admitted it was wrong, even US citizens and Trump officials.

This helps explain why democracy demands independent judiciary. This requires an independent judiciary to confirm the actions of the enforcer (from the local police to the president) to ensure that the government’s allegations are accurate and are free of errors.

A recent well-known example, Kilmer Armando Abrego Garcia is a Salvador who married three American children and American citizens who have lived in us since 2011. He was given a protected status in 2019 by an immigration judge.

The Trump administration originally admitted that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered the United States to return the Supreme Court, which he unanimously supports the order. At the time of this writing, the Trump administration did nothing to promote his return. The president even said he could do that, but he wouldn’t.

The government now argues that Abrego Garcia’s deportation is not wrong, and he claims to be a member of Salvadoran gangster MS-13, but refuses to provide evidence to support his claim.

As if to underscore the light empt on constitutional rights, Deputy Director Stephen Miller recently said the Trump administration is considering suspending habeas protection to block the right of immigrants to challenge detention before being expelled.

“The Constitution is clear,” Miller argued: Habeasants “may be stopped at the time of invasion” – ignores that only Congress can suspend this constitutional right.

There are other examples of presidential rebellion against the law (e.g., illegal water storage of congress-approved appropriations) and constitutional freedom. Therefore, it is time to insert the word “I” (must berth each) into citizens’ conversations.

I’m not naive. The bullet each is unlikely to be imminent either. For now.

As future historians point out, the dishonor of this period is that whether the President threatened Congress with silence or praised his overly vast use of power, the legislative department renounced its supervisory responsibility. For now, Congress is happy to look the other way around.

Nevertheless, we must begin to insert “perfect crimes” into citizen conversations.

Otherwise, they will conspire to accept that this president’s extraordinary behavior is a new normal for future presidential evaluations.

Howard L. Simon was executive director of the ACLU in Florida from 1997 to 2018. He lives in Gainesville and is president of the Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation.