By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During his second term’s first 100 days, President Trump displayed a disregard for established legal principles. He expressed reservations about the notion of a government ruled by law, asserting that individuals, specifically “honest men” like himself, play a crucial role in administering it. Simultaneously, his administration actively pursued policies, including reinterpreting wartime powers for mass deportations and defying court orders, that prioritized his agenda over established legal processes. These actions, coupled with his comments on potentially circumventing legal limitations for a third term, reveal a pattern of prioritizing executive will over the rule of law.
Read the original article here
Trump’s recent comments regarding the statement “America should be ruled by laws, not men” have sparked considerable debate. He stated that he wouldn’t agree with that statement 100 percent. This seemingly simple declaration unravels into a complex examination of governance, the rule of law, and the role of individual leadership.
The core of Trump’s disagreement lies in his assertion that “men,” or presumably individuals in positions of power, are inherently involved in the administration of law. He sees himself, implicitly, as one of these individuals—an “honest man”— whose role is essential in ensuring laws are effectively enacted and enforced. This perspective, however, raises significant concerns about potential abuses of power and the very definition of a just society.
The idea that a government should be “ruled by law, not by men” is a cornerstone principle of many democratic systems. It’s the concept that everyone, regardless of their position, is subject to the same rules and legal processes. It ensures equality before the law and prevents tyranny—the arbitrary rule of one person or group above the established legal framework. Trump’s reluctance to fully embrace this principle suggests a potential disregard for these fundamental democratic ideals.
His statement reveals a potential conflict between adhering to established legal processes and exercising personal discretion. By suggesting a qualified agreement, he implies a degree of personal judgment overrides or modifies adherence to pre-established legal guidelines. This raises crucial questions about his approach to governance and his understanding of his own role as a public servant. The question becomes: under what conditions might he deem a law to be superseded by his own judgment? This lack of unequivocal commitment to the principle of rule of law is deeply unsettling.
Furthermore, the implied self-designation as an “honest man” responsible for administering justice is troubling. While leaders certainly play a role in interpreting and enforcing laws, such a declaration suggests a potential self-serving interpretation of what constitutes “justice.” This leaves room for subjectivity and biases to outweigh established legal processes, opening the door to potential corruption or authoritarian tendencies.
Trump’s comments are not simply a matter of semantic disagreement. The implication that he might disregard laws, or interpret them selectively, based on his personal judgment is fundamentally at odds with the very foundation of American democracy. The absence of unwavering support for the principle of “rule of law” creates space for potential abuse of power, favoring personal whims over established legal processes and societal norms.
The gravity of this statement is heightened by the fact that it comes from someone who has held, and potentially aims to hold again, the highest office in the land. The President is entrusted with upholding the Constitution and ensuring the fair application of laws for all citizens. A qualified commitment to this fundamental principle of governance raises significant questions about the suitability of an individual to hold such a powerful position.
The absence of a firm commitment to the rule of law is not merely a political debate; it’s a potential threat to democratic values. It’s a critical element that ensures fairness, prevents tyranny, and protects the rights of all citizens. A leader’s unqualified support for this principle should not be subject to exceptions or personal interpretations. The implications of even a slight deviation from this essential principle are profound and deserving of serious consideration. The potential consequences of a leader who prioritizes personal judgment over established legal processes are severe and cannot be overlooked. This lack of absolute conviction in the rule of law is a significant concern.