By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s March 4, 2025, address to Congress showcased his expansive view of presidential power, claiming unilateral authority over issues ranging from free speech to geographical renaming. This assertion of virtually kinglike power contrasts with Article II of the Constitution, which, while not granting unlimited power, establishes the president as Commander in Chief. Historical concerns, dating back to the Constitution’s ratification, mirrored contemporary anxieties about unchecked presidential authority, focusing on the potential for abuse of power as commander in chief and the granting of pardons. Ultimately, the Constitution’s success hinges not solely on its checks and balances, but on the citizenry’s ability to elect virtuous leaders.
Read the original article here
Trump is the kinglike president many feared when arguing over the US Constitution in 1789 – and his address to Congress showed it. The anxieties surrounding the ratification of the Constitution weren’t just historical footnotes; they were prophetic warnings about the potential for a president to accumulate excessive power, mirroring the very monarchy the nation fought to overthrow. The concern, voiced by prominent figures like John Adams, was that a powerful executive might eclipse the checks and balances intended to safeguard liberty. Trump’s presidency, particularly as evidenced by his addresses to Congress, appears to have realized this long-held fear.
Trump’s actions and rhetoric often disregarded established norms and traditions, instead exhibiting an authoritarian style that resonated with some but deeply unsettled others. His disregard for established procedures and his willingness to bypass institutional constraints mirrored the actions of a monarch operating without the limitations of a constitution. The very structure of power that the founders meticulously crafted was consistently tested and, at times, seemingly breached during his tenure.
The fear of a president acting above the law, or as if above the law, was central to the constitutional debates of 1789. Concerns weren’t solely about overt tyranny, but about the subtle erosion of democratic principles through the accumulation of unchecked power. Trump’s behavior, characterized by a disregard for norms and a pattern of circumventing institutional oversight, seemed to embody this very worry. His repeated assertions of absolute power, coupled with the actions of some in Congress to support rather than check these actions, further solidified the perception of an increasingly monarchical presidency.
Many viewed Trump’s addresses to Congress not as expressions of democratic leadership, but as displays of self-aggrandizement and an assertion of dominance. The tone, the content, and even the theatrics involved created a spectacle far removed from the sober, deliberative process the founders envisioned. The rhetoric often sounded not like a leader seeking compromise and consensus, but like a sovereign declaring policy.
The anxieties of the Founding Fathers extend beyond the fear of a tyrannical president. They also worried about foreign influence in the government and the potential for a leader to prioritize personal gain over national interests. Concerns about the emoluments clause, the natural-born citizen requirement, and the Electoral College, all stem from the founders’ deep-seated apprehension about corruption and the insidious effects of external pressure. Trump’s business dealings, his personal finances, and even his international connections all created avenues for this concern to be brought to the fore during his presidency.
Even leaving aside the more controversial aspects of Trump’s presidency, his very style of leadership arguably violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. The founders’ vision emphasized reasoned debate, compromise, and respect for the rule of law. Instead, his presidency was frequently marked by discord, division, and a seeming disdain for democratic processes. He seemed to thrive on creating division, and his approach consistently threatened the very fabric of American democracy.
The parallels between the anxieties of 1789 and the reality of Trump’s presidency are not perfect, yet they are striking. The founders feared a powerful executive; Trump often seemed to revel in it. The founders valued checks and balances; Trump often seemed determined to bypass them. The founders stressed the importance of democratic processes; Trump often seemed to undermine them. His addresses to Congress were often used to push policies and assert control rather than inspire a unified approach to governance.
It is argued that the deep-seated fears regarding a powerful executive, articulated during the constitutional debates, manifested themselves not only through policies, but also through a style of governance that challenged the very tenets of a democratic republic. The concerns raised in 1789 served as a poignant reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the constant vigilance required to preserve them. The actions of Congress in responding to or not responding to these actions further compounded the concerns. The lack of unified opposition strengthened the idea of the kinglike figure taking hold of the presidency.