Happy (?) birthday America! - the Constitution and Authoritarianism

At 250 years old, the birth year of the United States of America also marked the important ratification of the US Constitution, a pillar so crucial for the persistence of a governance system already two centuries old. Yet, like a single woman entering her thirties, something more sinister looms in the background: the cementing of an administration unashamed of its publicized authoritarian ambitions. At the crossroads of two significant turns in American history, it is perhaps critical to examine their relationship, and possibly how one has 'laid the groundwork,' so to speak, for the other. To say it straightforwardly, the US Constitution and its federal branches of government have intrinsic antidemocratic dispositions that, other than being incapable of reining in the demagogic thirst of a president, buttress this overreach of executive power.

Washington Crossing Delaware (1851). From Wikipedia

The antidemocratic flaws of the Constitution, firstly, are linked to the antidemocratic motivation behind its creation. Back in the 1780s, under the Articles of Confederation, assemblymen of the thirteen states were seen by the class of landholders and merchants as easily yielding to the demands of debtors and taxpayers for relief and paper bills. The Framers of the Constitution, themselves a part of this class of minority, pushed for a new constitution that would transfer responsibilities of regulating debtors and creditors and tax collection from states to the federal level, effectively preventing the overbearing democratic compliance of the states to the population (Fresia). The Framers, representing the voice of private property, made clear their disdain for the farmers, servants, and slaves, whose thoughts and reason were inferior to those of the ‘first class’. This is said perfectly by Alexander Hamilton: “Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the Second… Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy” (Fresia). Thus, the anti-democratic origins of the US Constitution laid the foundation for its anti-democratic features. 

The most obvious difference between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution is where power rests. A major shift took place where power got transferred from the local and state levels to the national level. Article 1, sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution make invalid the independence of states in respect to war and treaty-making, creating money, and issuing credits. In the same sections, state militias would now be under the control of the national government; this federal body can develop a national army and navy, and be given the ability to regulate commerce and form national currency. Article 3, section 2 states that national laws, treaties, and judicial power are superior to those of the states. Not only were these powers stripped away from the states, but no additional Constitutional certainties were made for the lowest level of government, where participation is directly tied to everyday Americans. The implication is that power now rests in the hands of the few (the few who just happened to hold economic power and immense wealth!). This shift of authority to the minority detached further popular control of public policy issues, such as the distribution of wealth and the ability to manage the economy. That is anti-democratic. Moreover, the pillar of checks and balances, boasted by many as foundational to the thriving American democracy, too, limits democracy. The lower house of Congress (House of Representatives), enjoying direct election by the people, is counterbalanced by the upper chamber of the Senate, elected by state legislatures. In other words, public power is “checked” and “balanced” by the presidency and Senate, which are vested in the interests of corporate power. James Madison himself described the Senate as being composed of “a portion of enlightened citizens whose limited number and firmness might seasonably interpose against impetus councils” (Fresia). Furthermore, the Senate enjoys higher authority and power than the House, rendering the only chamber most closely vested in the public interest the weakest (Fresia). The third branch of government, the judiciary, only goes through the president and Senate (appointed by the former and confirmed by the latter), bypassing the House of Representatives completely (Fresia). It can be seen that even when given a voice in the federal government, the popular will is severely restricted and overpowered. 

Another celebrated feature of the Constitution is the separation of national power among the various branches. But aren't most us celebrating it for the wrong reasons? James Madison iterated the objective to "divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner that each may be a check on the other," in actuality served "the private interest of each individual" in being " a sentinel over the public rights.” The private interest watches and guards public rights through the intense check on the legislative branch, since the Framers feared most the possibility of an insurgent of the common people of the legislature than a plausible despotism of the president. This is reflected in Gouverneur Morris' assertion that “it is necessary…that the Executive Magistrate should be the guardian of the people, even the lower classes, against legislative tyranny, against the great and wealthy who in the course of things will necessarily compose the legislative body” (Fresia).

With rudimentary flaws, such as an undemocratic electoral system, president-appointed judiciary positions for life, and protection of private over public power, inherent in the sacred text of the American political system, it should be no surprise that many American presidents have tried to abuse the vast authority granted to them. The actions of Trump mark not a shocking authoritarian deviation from this, but a product of generations of gradual breach of power. Regarding the actions of Donald Trump that are clearly undemocratic, such as attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election, the fact that he was able to contend for a second term should signify everything wrong about the Constitution. Trump avoided legal consequences with the shield that is his Supreme Court Justices. As a Trump legal adviser expressed, "Hopeful Amy Coney Barrett will come through and pick it up” (Johnson). Though in the end the Justices refused to be involved, it was the Trump administration's public vocalization of possible support from the judiciary and a push for hyperpartisanship that is alarmingly authoritarian (Rodriguez). In case of Trump’s criminal record, “On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law,” said ACLU National Legal Director David Cole (ACLU). 68% of Americans, in this ruling, think the court is mainly motivated by politics, and 63% believe in placing a limitation on the number of years Supreme Court Justices can serve (Quinnipiac University Poll). The majority here disapproves of Supreme Court decisions and partisanship, but is unable to legally affect it in any way, demonstrating how antidemocratic the Constitution designed the judiciary branch to be, which makes way for authoritarian ambitions. 

Impeachment efforts throughout Trump’s first term were expectedly fruitless, with the republican senate majority showcasing blind loyalty to Trump, leading to a blockade of procedures like the introduction of witnesses and documents at the trial, something the population favoured (McCarthy). In recent senate elections, democratic candidates got 29 million more votes than republican candidates, but the Republican majority was only reduced by a few seats, since each state gets two senators no matter the population (McCarthy). The lack of popular representation in the Senate explicitly made it simple for Trump to escape impeachment and continue meddling in politics. 

Now, in his second term, these undemocratic behaviours persist to the surprise of no one. Debates have shifted to Trump’s crooked interpretations of what counts as an “invasion” or “emergency”. General consensus among experts elucidates the inefficiency of Congress and the Supreme Court in resolving the problem of interpretation, similar to how they were incompetent at handling Trump’s abuse of power in his initial term. Congress, being too polarized, can only pass symbolic bills to condemn Trump’s tariffs (which Trump could veto) while the Supreme Court can hardly maintain a facade of nonpartisanship, with the countless acquittals for Trump in the past. As Michael McConnell conveyed, “It will raise some eyebrows if the Court treats a Trump administration action differently from how it treated similar exercises of power by President Biden." It is uncertain what will happen in the next few years of the Trump administration. However, what is certain is the antidemocratic nature of the US Constitution and 21st-century American legislative, judiciary, and regulatory institutions, which have not only been insufficient at preventing the overreaching of executive power, but have enabled a president to carry out authoritarian ambitions too comfortably.

Coming back to the faith of Gouverneur Morris on a ‘good’ president, it seems that many experts today, too, cling to this belief; George Will expressed, “Neither the language of the law (constitutional or other), nor what are now shadows of norms, can substitute for what is indispensable: an occupant of the presidency whose constitutional conscience causes him or her to distinguish the proper from the merely possible.” If an effective democracy is contingent on ‘good-will’ presidents, then the US lies in between having the best luck hitherto or on the cusp of a dark path towards authoritarianism.

Sources

ACLU. “Supreme Court Grants Trump Broad Immunity for Official Acts, Placing Presidents above the Law.” American Civil Liberties Union, 1 July 2024, www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law.

Fresia, Jerry. Toward an American Revolution. South End Press, 1988.

Johnson, Jake. ““Hopefully Amy Coney Barrett Will Come Through”: Trump Legal Adviser Admits Campaign Is Pining for Supreme Court Rescue | Common Dreams.” Common Dreams, 6 Nov. 2020, www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/06/hopefully-amy-coney-barrett-will-come-through-trump-legal-adviser-admits-campaign. Accessed 8 Feb. 2026.

McCarthy, Tom. “The Great Escape: How Donald Trump Survived Impeachment.” The Guardian, 5 Feb. 2020, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/05/how-donald-trump-got-acquitted-after-impeachment.

Quinnipiac University Poll. “Americans See Federal Criminal Charges against Trump as Serious, 51% Say He Should Be Prosecuted, 62% Say Politics Is Motivating DOJ’s Case, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Supreme Court Job Approval Hits All-Time Low | Quinnipiac University Poll.” Poll.qu.edu, 21 June 2023, poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3874.

Rodriguez, Jesus. The Paper-Thin Constitutions: Paths to Authoritarianism in the United States and Venezuela. 2022.

Standford Law School. “Professor Michael McConnell Breaks down the Separation-of-Powers Fight at the Heart of the Trump Tariffs Case | Stanford Law School.” Stanford Law School, 13 Oct. 2025, law.stanford.edu/2025/10/13/professor-michael-mcconnell-breaks-down-the-separation-of-powers-fight-at-the-heart-of-the-trump-tariffs-case/.

“The Senate: Voice of the States .” Www.trumanlibrary.gov, www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/senate-voice-of-states.

Will, George F. “A Stark Lesson about the President’s War Powers.” The Washington Post, 10 Dec. 2025, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/10/stark-lesson-about-presidents-war-powers/.