Trump rejects the obligation to execute his job faithfully, writes Andrew P. Napolitano. His loyalty is to himself, not to the words or the values underlying the U.S. Constitution.
President Donald Trump at an Army Navy football game in Baltimore in December 2025. (White House / Daniel Torok)
In a scene in Robert Bolt’s famous play A Man for All Seasons, about the treason trial of St. Thomas More, More argues with the attorney general of Wales about the law. The attorney general says he’d cut down all the laws in England to get to the Devil.
More reminds him that the laws were written to protect us from those who’d cut them down, because, More asks, when the Devil turns round and seeks you, where would you hide, the laws having been flattened?
Answer: nowhere.
The recent statement of President Donald Trump in an interview with The New York Times that on the international stage only his “own morality” and his “own mind” can restrain him is a direct repudiation of his oath of office because it effectively cuts down the laws.
It profoundly rejects the restraints imposed upon him by the U.S. Constitution which he has publicly sworn to preserve, protect and defend, and by the treaties to which the U.S. is a party, and by appropriate federal statutes.
The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the federal government and restrain it. In the process of establishment, it has delegated all legislative power to the Congress and the executive power to the president. In so doing, it has intentionally kept each out of the work of the other.
Only Congress can raise taxes and declare war. Only the president can enforce the laws and wage the wars that Congress has declared. The judiciary has the final say on the meaning of the Constitution and federal laws.
This is the system of checks and balances, with powers circumscribed and restraints imposed so as to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch at the expense of either of the other two; and thereby — at least theoretically — protect personal liberty.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It requires that every office holder and government employee — local, state and federal — swear allegiance to it. That allegiance is not only to the words in the Constitution and its 27 amendments, but also to the values that are manifested by those words.
Moreover, treaties to which the United States is a party by virtue of presidential assent and Senate ratification are also the supreme law of the land. Treaties of course cannot contradict or purport to nullify anything in the Constitution, but they can — like the Geneva Conventions — regulate and restrain American foreign policy.
Fidelity to Rule of Law
The U.S. Capitol at night. (Diane Krauthamer, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
All of this constitutes basic, sound constitutional jurisprudence, well-woven into the fabric of our history. There are, of course, numerous ways to interpret the Constitution; and the definitive interpretations can even change over the passage of time.
It took nearly 60 years for Plessy v. Ferguson, which approved state-imposed racial discrimination under the separate- but-equal doctrine to become Brown v. Board of Education, which declared that separate is inherently unequal. The same is the case for abortion.
It took 50 years for Roe v. Wade, which held that the right to privacy protected the mother’s ability to abort her child, to become Dobbs v. Jackson, which held that abortion is a matter of health and safety and these are inherently state concerns.
But some values can never change without materially undermining the scheme of government established by the Constitution. Foremost among those unchangeable values is fidelity to the rule of law. When the president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, he agrees to follow the law, whether he agrees with it or not.
When the president takes the oath, he promises to execute the office “faithfully.” James Madison feared a cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back moment if the word faithfully were not in the oath.
Now back to Trump. By claiming that “on the world stage” — language used by the reporter who questioned Trump, not by Trump himself — only his mind and morality can restrain him, he has revealed by his own choice of words what his presidential behavior has already manifested.
He obviously rejects the obligation to execute his job faithfully. His loyalty is to himself, not to the words or the values underlying the Constitution.
Thus, when his own mind disagrees with a restraint on him — like, only Congress can impose taxes and only Congress can declare war — he will opt for fidelity to his own mind over fidelity to the Constitution and his oath to preserve, protect and defend it.
He has imposed sales taxes on the American people and he has directed the military to kill innocents on the high seas and to conduct an invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the recognized Venezuelan president and his wife.
In the process of these events, he has unilaterally extracted billions of dollars from consumers who pay for his sales taxes that he calls tariffs, and his troops have unilaterally murdered hundreds of innocents — on speedboats and fishing boats in international waters, while asleep in military barracks in Caracas and inside the Venezuelan presidential compound.
He has also announced that the U.S. will steal oil from the ground under Venezuelan sovereign land; and he even proclaimed himself to be the acting president of Venezuela.
The American Republic is based on the Constitution. It presumes that when a person takes an oath of fidelity to it, the person did so without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
In the course of our history, we have had presidents murder innocent civilians, incarcerate innocents based on race and knowingly lie us into wars. And we have survived as a nation.
Now this.
This is a public rejection of the structural norms of government unseen in our history. If unchecked, America will never be the same as the nation suffers at the mercies of the presidential “mind.”
And the laws cannot protect us because this president has cut them down to crush whatever self-denominated devil comes into his crosshairs.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, was the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and hosts the podcast Judging Freedom. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit here.
Published by permission of the author.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Please Donate to CN‘s Winter Fund Drive 
I find it interesting that US Presidents claim that they are allowed to break US laws in order to do their jobs, while the Presidents of other countries are arrested and hauled into US courts.
Recall a sitting president…
In the United States, there is no legal mechanism to “recall” a sitting president through a popular vote or citizen petition. While recall elections are available for certain state and local officials in 19 states (such as governors in California or Wisconsin), these powers do not apply to federal offices.
Under the U.S. Constitution, a sitting president can only be removed before their term ends through the following processes:
Impeachment and Conviction: The House of Representatives must first “impeach” (formally charge) the president with a simple majority vote for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The Senate then conducts a trial; removal occurs only if two-thirds of the senators present vote to convict.
The 25th Amendment: This allows for the removal of a president who is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. This process is typically initiated by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet.
Resignation: A president may voluntarily choose to leave office, as Richard Nixon did in 1974.
Next Election: The primary way for voters to “recall” or remove a president from office is by voting for a different candidate at the end of their four-year term.
“recall a sitting president”
This would be the best and a true democratic process to remove a sitting president.
Constitutional amendments have been proposed in the past to allow for federal recalls, but none have been approved by Congress. For a full list of all U.S. Presidents to “recall” from memory, you can visit the official White House presidential gallery
Its a lot to ask for sure to allow The People to have the option (authority) to do their own will and not have pocket stuffing shills doing it.
No U.S. president has successfully implemented a system of pure direct democracy (really love this phrase), several have used rhetoric emphasizing the power of “the people” against entrenched interests:
“Theodore Roosevelt and other Progressive Era figures advocated for mechanisms of “popular democracy” like the initiative and referendum, which allow citizens to bypass state legislatures and enact laws or veto existing ones directly. Roosevelt often took his case to the people directly, using the media as a “bully pulpit” to pressure Congress and advance his “Square Deal” domestic policies, promising fairness and challenging trusts.”
Try Try Again..
“get on it”
An english expression “start working on it immediately” or “deal with consequences “.
hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a5IrAGLdvI
A recall can only be conducted by the voters; in the case of PotUS & VPotUS, that means the Electoral College. These officers we are not elected by the people, but by the States, with the people merely choosing who votes on behalf of their States (the Electors.) The method currently used by all but 2 States are a perversion of the original intent, which was individual Electors being chosen on their own merits – the wisest & most trustworthy citizens, who would act as moral free agents in using their best judgement to cast their votes for whomever they felt was the best qualified person. Now they are appointed by partisans & are generally are forbidden by law to use ANY judgement, forced to cast their vote mechanically for a designated candidate. I always thought having the runner-up becoming VP was a good idea, providing a check on PotUS over-reach, and giving Congress an opportunity via impeachment to correct a mistake. The DRs tried to fiddle an election to get both offices, and almost screwed themselves in the process. This was because each elector got 2 votes (which couldn’t be cast for candidates hailing from the same State.) The 12th Amendment was passed to address the issue, imperfectly, by separating the votes – 1 for each office. Now, if a PotUS is removed for cause, we just get more of the same from a handpicked successor.
It seems to me the Constitution has been viewed as optional by many presidents for a long time. The problem is, when economically powerful interests are able to capture all our institutions as they have done, the document has no teeth. It describes ideals to live by, but how can it be enforced when bankers have an iron grip on the government?
I think we’ve been screwed since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Act. That was a fatal attack on US sovereignty by European bankers.
Our government has not been run according to the constitution for a century. In my opinion this president is breaking the British “rules based order” to retake control of our constitution. You guys leave so much about the actual game being played by the international fascists and bankers. Tell the real truth.
Uhh, if by ‘retaking control’ you mean shredding it for use as TP, you would be correct. Biggest issue is Congress abdicating its Constitutional responsibilities, unconstitutionally delegating them to the Executive branch. Allowing Agencies to create Regulations that have the force of law is delegating its exclusive legislative power – NOTHING in our Constitution authorizes that. A host of evils arise from this practice (which corrupt elements absolutely LOVE): regs that are good for We the People, but business hates because they are then forced to act responsibly, can be reversed at the stroke of a pen by a new Admin. Unlike laws, which require bribing 1/2+1 of both Houses + PotUS, Regs can now be corruptly changed by purchasing PotUS & a small number of bureaucrats.
It is impossible for anyone with the slightest integrity, to stomach any of the genocide, criminal warmongering, corruption and gestapo murders of the Trump regime.
The surprise is not that Kevin Rudd resigned as ambassador to the USA, but why he did not quit sooner.
hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jJexMf9nM
Of course the problem is not just Trump, who is merely the latest, most vulgar and depraved face of the USA, it is their entire Krony Kapitalist Kleptocracy that is sucking the blood out of ordinary USAnians and the whole World, an obscene parasite.
Their fake democracy and faux legal systems (eg kangaroo court prosecution of Maduro) are theatrical frauds and only REVOLUTION can bring about any real change.
hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMMDgtb87o
My prediction: when Rudd leaves the USA, the gloves will come off. He will vigorously push for Oz to distance itself from the USA and economically cozy up to Asia and even BRICS.
That is the ONLY sane policy for any Australian patriot who is interested in the wellbeing of ordinary Australians.
Trump doesn’t need a ballroom, he needs a padded room:
hxxps://www.winterwatch.net/2026/01/big-brain-trump-acting-the-fool-at-oil-exec-pow-wow/
Is 250 a long time ?
In school , when young , it coincided in thoughts , as if biblical in a hearing of some past great-great relative of past, in dinosaurs , bones and long gone seas of ice that passed , context .
A decimated forest needs more than one life of a man to understand ?
Can one pass a thoughtful vision to one who’s not yet here to make him understand ?
Will the trees speak of the language of the uninterrupted land or of voice of the untouched hand ?
Trump had his finger’s crossed.
One of my all-time favorite quotes:
R. Bolt, A Man for All Seasons, Act I, pg. 147 (Three Plays, Heinemann ed. 1967), as quoted in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 195-196 (1978), hxxps://goo.gl/tQ5HCL (construction of “virtually complete” major dam halted to protect the endangered Snail Darter; “[t]o sustain that position, however, we would be forced to ignore the ordinary meaning of plain language”).
The Dust Bowl during the depression .
As if the sand grains knew where to run and hide ?
See that crack , like locusts the grains whistle through , better yet , march right in the front and straight out the back through closed or open door .
Hand in hand the wind clutched sand swirls around from front to back , never hit the barn door as they attack .
The poor donkey and mule , now , heads hanging low , not to look into the cyclone’s eye , really meant no harm .
Is is just prospects of life on the farm ?
It’s one of mine, too.
The term Voyager seems much clearer now ?
To view the voyager as the intentional seeking wanderer daring to cross the borders.
Yet the one who knows what chance may be found on the other side , with his history of accounts .
Is he , in a sense , a fellow traveller who chooses to stay at home ?