I’ve been writing a lot about the Constitution lately, and the frenzy in the media on whether President Trump directed the Attorney General Pam Bondi to target James Comey, Tish James, and John Bolton for prosecution, a question that functions to socialize progressive presumptions about Executive Power, illustrates the importance of understanding the Constitution.
As I have argued, rather than an authoritarian takeover of the federal government, Trump is returning the Republic to its rational foundation. To wit, in the original constitutional framework of the United States, the office of the President is conceived as a singular and unified executive authority, embodying multiple roles. I have written about them before, but in light of the “No Kings” nonsense out on our streets last weekend, it is worth reviewing the inventory. (See “No Kings” Redux—There They Go Again.)
The “Vesting Clause” of Article II of the Constitution grants all “executive Power” exclusively to the president, placing all executive branch officials under their direct control. This means that the framers intended the President to serve not only as Commander-in-Chief but also the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), charged with administrative matters and the faithful execution of the laws. More than this, as the preceding makes clear, the President is also the Chief Magistrate of the United States.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President holds supreme command over the armed forces. This provision ensures civilian control of the military while providing for a decisive and unified direction in times of conflict. Congress retains the powers to declare war and appropriate funds, but the actual conduct and leadership of the armed forces lies exclusively with the President.
In his role as CEO, the Constitution establishes the President as the central administrator of federal authority. All officers of the United States ultimately derive their authority from, and are answerable to, the President. This design reflects the framers’ rejection of the weak, fragmented executive model that had plagued the Articles of Confederation.
Equally important, and this is the crucial piece here, the President functions as a Chief Magistrate, that is, the head of the nation’s law enforcement and legal administration. The Judiciary Act of 1789 establishes the office of Attorney General, whose role is to serve as the President’s legal advisor and as his chief prosecutor. This is the reality the media obscures: the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President and operates under his authority and at his direction. Thus, the President stands at the apex of both civil administration and the enforcement of justice.
In our constitutional design, the presidency is meant to embody unity of action—a single executive, a principle known as the “Unitary Executive,” who leads the nation in war, administers its government, and stands as the chief magistrate, ensuring that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. This upshot is that, whatever communications the President had with the Attorney General concerning Comey, James, Bolton, or anybody else, is likely not untoward.
Trump was exercising this authority when he tried to get to the bottom of the Biden family’s relationship with Ukrainian oligarchs—an act for which Democrats impeached him. When Trump describes this as a “perfect phone call,” he is right (see The Conspiracy to Overthrow an American President; I Told You Joe Biden is Corrupt and Compromised). He was well within his scope of powers to ask those questions. (See also The Unprecedented Resort to Lawfare—Is it Desperation or Provocation?; Vice-President Biden and His handling of Classified Documents; The Urgent Necessity of Purging the Government of Deep State Actors and Warmongers.)
Progressives don’t want the President to have, in principle, the power the Constitution gives him, illustrated in the historical case Christopher Hitchens provides in the above video clip from a talk he gives on his book about Thomas Jefferson. Had there been the rogue judiciary that we currently suffer, some judge somewhere would have interfered with Jefferson’s war to stop Muslims from enslaving his fellow countrymen.
I am not imagining this. Recall that a judge ordered President Donald Trump to turn deportation planes early in Trump’s second term. James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order halting the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Despite his verbal directive to return any planes already in flight, the administration rightly proceeded with the deportations anyway. Of course, Boasberg had the advantage of a communication system that judges in Jefferson’s day did not enjoy. But had they, and had they in their brains the ideology that currently prevails in the courts, they almost surely would have demanded that Jefferson turn back the ships sent to stop the trade in humans.
The analogy Hitchens presents us with, therefore, could not be more apt for the present situation. The “No Kings” fools don’t want democracy. They seek technocracy and a judiciocracy, both under the command of the graduates of the woke university. Never mind that Trump is doing what he said he would do, that he was elected because he said he would do these things, that he won the popular vote, the electoral college, swept all swing states, and secured majorities in both the House and the Senate.
In truth, “No Kings” is an expression of a minority of Americans against the wisdom Americans expressed in November 2024. The throng substitutes protests for popular will, hoping that by documenting their presence in parks and streets, chanting slogans, holding signs, and pumping their fists in the air, a perception will be manufactured that a free and fair democratic moment was really an authoritarian moment. More than this, they wish to form in the public mind the belief that the President does not have the powers identified in this essay, clearly articulated in the Constitution of the United States.
Do the people have the right to assemble and protest? Of course. Assembly and protests are signs of a free and open society. Assembly and protests against the government are not allowed in authoritarian regimes or absolute monarchies. That they could assemble and protest tells us a great deal about the validity of the cause that brings them to march about. It also tells us that they are not defending the Constitution. The project they’ve allowed themselves to deceived into advancing is about subverting the American Republic. “No Kings” is an anti-American movement festooned in the symbols of American patriotism. However lame the attempt, it means to be a color revolution. These are the useful idiots of globalism.
The long-standing project to weaken the executive branch is part of the desire to entrench the unelected and unconstitutional fourth branch of government, what is known as the administrative state. Not just Boasberg, we see this also in the many actions taken by inferior courts in the US judiciary to usurp the power of the Executive. It’s a project to subvert the Constitution. Progressives—functionaries of the corporate state—are attempting to assume command of the Republic by undermining the Constitution. One strategy they use towards this end is confusing the public about the intent of the Framers.
(For your convenience, here are some of my essays on the matter—reaching back to 2013: The Myth of DoJ Independence—and a Note on the Writ of Habeas Corpus; Concerning the Powers of The US Constitution—And Those Defying Them; The Judicial Usurpation of Article II Powers and the Rise of the Universal Injunction; Posse Comitatus and the Ghosts of Redemption; Jefferson’s Warning on the Peril of Judicocracy; Quelling the Rebellion; On the Road to Civil War: The Democratic Party’s Regression into Neoconfederacy; The New Confederates and the Return of States’ Rights; Lawfare Against the People Continues. When is Congress Going to Act? The Insurrectionist Myth.)
freedom and reason 