Today, as we stand at the edge of what may be the biggest crisis our Constitution has faced in 150 years, I looked to the past, hoping to find solace in the solutions that have kept us unified so far. Instead, I found a troubling truth—our system is not built on the inherent finality of the decisions of the Court, but rather the willingness of those in power to, for the most part, respect those decisions. When they haven’t, the system has struggled to hold.
There is no constitutional police force ensuring that the president will follow the law, a predictable weakness of rule by consent of the governed. Enforcement depends on the executive and legislative branches recognizing the Court's authority. History gives us moments of near-misses—Nixon, who ultimately complied, Gingrich, whose rejection of Separation of Powers may have cost him the presidency. And then there are moments like Andrew Jackson’s cruel outright dismissal of the Cherokee rights to land, and the subsequent trail of tears.
Today, as legal scholars whisper about the “Merryman Rule,” suggesting a president could decide for himself what is or is not constitutional, the lesson from history is clear: The Constitution is only as strong as our collective will to defend it. If we want to preserve it, we must remind those in power that they are bound by it—not just in theory, but in action.
Share this post