American Constitutionalism at 250: The Roberts Court and the Evolution of a Unitary Executive

The Kraynak Institute for the Study of Freedom and Western Traditions will celebrate Constitution Day on Sept. 17 with a Constitution Day Panel Discussion, “American Constitutionalism at 250: The Roberts Court and the Evolution of a Unitary Executive.”

The abuses of King George III helped ignite the American Revolution and establish the principle that America would have “no kings.” Yet the weak executives created by the state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation also appeared, to many of the Framers, to threaten republican government. The Constitution therefore established a unitary executive possessing defined powers within a system of checks and balances—an office designed, in Hamilton’s words, to combine “energy” with “safety.”

Today, many believe that the presidency has become unmoored from those constitutional restraints—and that the second presidency of Donald J. Trump has placed the nation on a path toward presidential autocracy. President Trump has used military force without prior congressional authorization; employed the pardon power on an extraordinary scale and for purposes critics regard as self-protective; asserted sweeping authority over the federal government; and undertaken a highly personal transformation of the nation’s capital. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts and has substantially enlarged presidential authority to remove the heads and members of independent agencies.

Others contend that President Trump and the Supreme Court have, for the most part, merely restored the energetic executive envisioned by the Framers. On this view, presidential control of the executive branch promotes democratic accountability rather than autocracy, and the constitutional system continues to impose meaningful limits. The Supreme Court has rejected the president’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, held that emergency-powers legislation did not authorize his sweeping tariffs, and prevented him—at least during ongoing litigation—from removing a governor of the Federal Reserve.

These competing views of constitutional authority result from different interpretations of executive power with vastly different implications for a wide range of policies including tax and finance, foreign affairs, removal of officers and immigration as well as for how America governs itself as a democratic republic. A panel of Colgate faculty will discuss these contemporary constitutional developments and their practical effects on American life and governance.

Luke Bierman (moderator) — Visiting Professor of Political Science

Annie Benn — Assistant Professor in Political Science

Dong (Carl) Cheng — Assistant Professor of Economics

Stephanie Miner — Charles Evans Hughes Visiting Chair of Government and Jurisprudence in the Department of Political Science

Valerie Morkevičius — Associate Professor of Political Science; Director of the International Relations Program