The irony of the moment could not have been lost on members of Congress. Both chambers of lawmakers convened in a historic, joint session and heard an English King, on April 28, on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, invoke the majesty of Magna Carta as a stern and much-needed reminder for the nation’s legislators that, in the long sweep of Anglo-American legal history, executive power has been subject to checks and balances, ever since King John, in 1215, accepted the demands of the Barons at Runnymede.
For many, there is fear that the 800-year-old Magna Carta, justly viewed as the “Tree of Liberty” for Anglo-American rights and freedoms, a bulwark against executive tyranny, and what Sir Edward Coke described as “such a Fellow that he has no Sovereign,” has disappeared into the mists of time. King Charles III, the second British monarch to address Congress, was seemingly reassuring Americans that that need not be the fate of checks and balances as a constitutional restraint on presidential power.
In his address to Congress, King Charles observed that the “U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.” Magna Carta declared that all within the English kingdom, including the King himself, was subject to the law of the land and guaranteed due process of law, trial by jury and various fundamental rights. King Charles noted with pride that Magna Carta influenced the English Bill of Rights in 1689 which, in turn, influenced the U.S. Bill of Rights.
In 1776, the Continental Congress, filled with heart, edginess and courage, besieged King George III with a lengthy list of grievances in various letters and petitions and, ultimately, the Declaration of Independence. The many grievances against King George III included his failure to assent to the laws and constitution of England, his willful violation of colonists rights, his efforts to render the military independent of and superior to civil power and cutting off trade with foreign nations, as well as attempts to render judges dependent on his will alone and obstruction of justice, among other repeated usurpations and injuries. For America’s founders, these grievances, among others, were sufficient to abandon diplomatic efforts at reconciliation with England and marked a turning point in the history of the British Empire and the nascent movement to create an American republic.
In one form or another, these grievances and others similar in tone, tenor and offense, have been advanced by Democratic officials, legal scholars, historians and millions of Americans against President Trump, whose steady usurpations of power reveal a contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, the Bill of Rights and a penchant for authoritarian rule. The many injuries that he has inflicted on our constitutional democracy have been aided and abetted by the feckless Republican majority in both houses of Congress. The Republican majority has abdicated its constitutional duty to enforce checks and balances against President Trump, despite its obligation to defend the Constitution and the expectation, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, that legislative members would possess the personal and political “ambition” to fend off presidential aggrandizement of its powers. The unwillingness of the Republican majority to defend the doctrines of enumeration of powers and separation of powers suggests it is oblivious to both the principle laid down 800 years ago in Magna Carta and the critical importance of checks and balances. Without restraints, President Trump has crushed constitutional boundaries and usurped congressional powers.
Lost in the mists of time, or in the memory of the majority in Congress, is Madison’s explanation in Federalist 51 that, to prevent executive aggrandizement of power, Congress was granted “the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.” As he explained, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interests of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” At this juncture, congressional Republicans have lost the ambition to defend the Constitution, and, in the process, they have surrendered the institutional rights and powers that the founders believed distinguished the lawmaking branch. Perhaps King Charles’s words will remind Congress that it has a duty to check the executive.
David Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, a non-profit organization created to promote the Constitution, gender equality and civic education. This column is made possible with the support of the South Dakota Humanities Council, South Dakota NewsMedia Association and this newspaper.
Leave a Reply