Introduction: Past Mistakes and the Danger of Justification
In the realm of American politics, the idea that past presidential mistakes can justify current ones has become a contentious topic, particularly among supporters of former President Donald Trump. The argument often hinges on the notion that if previous leaders have bent or broken laws, why should today’s leaders be held to a higher standard? However, this line of reasoning falls into the logical trap known as the "two wrongs fallacy," which cautions against using past wrongs to justify new ones. Americans have historically valued the rule of law, and even those presidents who have strayed from legal norms often acknowledged their errors and sought to correct them. This chapter explores the examples of Presidents Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, and Joe Biden to highlight how past presidential actions, whether lawful or not, do not set a precedent for justifying lawlessness in the present.
President Andrew Jackson: A Legacy of Defiance and Redemption
President Andrew Jackson is frequently invoked by Trump’s supporters as a symbol of defiance against legal and political norms. Jackson’s reputation for ignoring the Supreme Court’s rulings, particularly in matters involving Native American rights, is often cited as evidence that presidents can act above the law. However, a closer examination of Jackson’s legacy reveals a more nuanced story. While Jackson famously disregarded the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, which upheld Native American rights, he later acknowledged the Court’s authority in constitutional matters. For instance, he praised Chief Justice John Marshall, with whom he had significant disagreements, as a national hero after Marshall’s death. This redemption arc suggests that Jackson, while flawed, ultimately recognized the importance of the rule of law. His actions, therefore, are a poor justification for modern lawlessness, as they demonstrate a path toward accountability rather than unchecked power.
By invoking Jackson, Trump and his supporters overlook the former president’s eventual respect for legal authority. This selective historical narrativeignoresthe fact that Jackson’s defiance was not a perpetuation of lawlessness but a momentary lapse in judgment, later corrected. A true adherence to Jackson’s legacy would involve acknowledging both his mistakes and his ultimate commitment to the rule of law.
President Abraham Lincoln: Lawlessness in Times of Crisis
Another historical figure often cited to justify contemporary presidential overreach is Abraham Lincoln. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ignored Supreme Court rulings that challenged his authority to detain suspected rebels without trial. These actions, while extreme, were taken in the context of a national crisis. However, Lincoln’s condo of actions was not without consequence or self-reflection. When the Supreme Court ruled that only Congress had the authority to suspend habeas corpus, Lincoln ultimately worked with Congress to pass legislation authorizing his actions, aligning his policies with the Court’s rulings.
Lincoln’s commitment to the rule of law is evident in his earlier statements, where he called for "reverence for the laws" to be a cornerstone of American society. While he may have bent the law during the Civil War, he did so reluctantly and with the understanding that such measures were temporary and necessary to preserve the Union. In the end, Lincoln’s actions were not an embrace of lawlessness but a pragmatic response to extraordinary circumstances, tempered by a deep respect for legal principles.
By contrast, modern justifications for lawlessness lack the urgency and moral clarity of Lincoln’s actions. His legacy serves as a reminder that even in times of crisis, the rule of law must be upheld, not discarded.
President Richard Nixon: The Dangers of Unchecked Power
Perhaps no president better illustrates the dangers of unchecked executive power than Richard Nixon. Nixon’s presidency was marked by a belief that "when the president does it, it’s not illegal," a mindset that led to rampant abuse of power and culminated in the Watergate scandal. His administration’s illegal activities, including the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-up, were an affront to the rule of law. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Nixon’s claims of presidential immunity, and he resigned in disgrace before facing impeachment.
Despite his wrongdoing, Nixon’s story does not end with defiance. In the years following his resignation, he acknowledged the gravity of his mistakes, describing his actions as a failure of leadership. Nixon’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of lawlessness, making him a poor model for justifying modern presidential overreach. His presidency underscores the importance of accountability and the need for the executive branch to operate within the bounds of the law.
By invoking Nixon’s legacy, supporters of lawlessness today ignore the lessons of his downfall. Rather than justifying modern misdeeds, Nixon’s story should serve as a warning against the dangers of unchecked presidential power.
President Joe Biden: Adhering to the Rule of Law
In contrast to the examples of Jackson, Lincoln, and Nixon, President Joe Biden’s tenure has been marked by a commitment to upholding the rule of law. Critics have accused him of ignoring Supreme Court rulings, particularly in matters of student debt relief and immigration policy. However, these accusations are largely unfounded. When the Supreme Court struck down his plan to cancel student loan debt, Biden did not defy the ruling but instead sought to find alternative legal avenues to achieve his goals. Similarly, on immigration, while Biden has faced criticism for his policies, he has continued to enforce existing laws, even when they conflict with his administration’s priorities.
Biden’s approach to governance reflects a recognition that the president is not above the law. His actions, while imperfect, demonstrate a respect for the constitutional separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. This commitment to legal principles is a stark departure from the lawlessness justified by some of Trump’s supporters.
By adhering to the rule of law, Biden’s presidency serves as a rebuke to those who would use historical examples to justify modern lawlessness. His actions highlight the difference between navigating legal challenges and simply disregarding them.
Conclusion: The American Tradition of the Rule of Law
The idea that past presidential misdeeds justify current lawlessness is a flawed and dangerous argument. While historical figures like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Richard Nixon made mistakes, their actions were often accompanied by a recognition of wrongdoing and a commitment to the rule of law. Even in the face of immense challenges, these presidents ultimately acknowledged the importance of legal and constitutional principles.
The American people have consistently rejected lawlessness, whether it comes from the executive branch or elsewhere. The historical record demonstrates that presidential overreach has been met with accountability, reforms, and a reaffirmation of the rule of law. This tradition must be upheld in the present, as the nation faces new challenges and controversies.
In the end, the lesson of history is clear: Americans do not want a government of men, where the whims of a president supersede the law. They want a government of laws, where even the most powerful are held accountable. By learning from the past and adhering to legal principles, the United States can continue to serve as a beacon of justice and democracy for the world.
