Expanding Executive Power: A Republic, Not a Monarchy
How the modern presidency is drifting toward the very monarchy the framers feared.
The men who wrote the Constitution were trying to thread a needle. Fresh from a revolution against a king, they understood the dangers of unchecked power, but they also knew a leaderless nation was doomed. So, they created a single president in Article II, but they surrounded the office with powerful checks: a Congress to write the laws, a judiciary to interpret them, and a system designed to stop any one person from becoming a tyrant. James Madison put it bluntly in Federalist No. 47, warning that putting all power “in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
That warning from two centuries ago doesn’t feel like a history lesson anymore. It feels like today’s news.
The whole system was designed to keep any one part from getting too powerful. Congress controls the money and the power to go to war. The courts are supposed to be a backstop against anyone, including the president, who oversteps the Constitution. The president, for all their power, was never meant to be a king.
Of course, this balance has been tested. Lincoln pushed the limits of his authority to save the Union. FDR dramatically expanded the government’s reach to fight the Great Depression. Nixon tried to put himself above the law during Watergate. In each case, though, the system held. Congress fought back. The courts stepped in. The public demanded accountability. The guardrails of our democracy bent, but they never broke.
Donald Trump’s time in office isn’t just another test of the system; it’s a full-scale assault on its limits. He’s declared national emergencies to get around Congress, fired off executive orders to ignore laws he didn’t like, and publicly attacked any judge who ruled against him. He’s treated the Department of Justice not as an independent body, but as a personal law firm to protect his friends and go after his enemies.
This isn’t just chaos; it’s a strategy. The goal is to systematically weaken the other branches of government, discredit anyone who tries to provide oversight, and centralize power in the Oval Office. It’s about fundamentally changing the job of president itself.
Then came the Supreme Court. The 2024 decision in “Trump v. United States” blew a hole through the principle of accountability. In a 6-3 vote, the Court granted former presidents sweeping immunity from criminal charges for anything they did as part of their “official” duties. This effectively shielded Trump from being held accountable for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the January 6th insurrection. The majority claimed this was necessary to let presidents do their jobs without fear of political prosecution. Critics saw it for what it was: the creation of a presidency above the law—the very thing the Founders fought to prevent.
This decision did more than just protect one person; it reshaped the presidency for everyone who will ever hold the office. It didn’t stop there. By allowing a president to fire the heads of independent agencies at will, the Court also began dismantling the regulatory guardrails that keep government agencies from becoming tools of pure political power. At the same time, the executive branch is using its authority to punish critics—law firms, universities, news outlets—testing the very limits of free speech.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just a debate for constitutional lawyers. It’s a five-alarm fire for our democracy. When a president can act without consequence, a rot sets in. Government agencies become weapons. Speaking out becomes risky. People start to wonder if the rule of law is just a suggestion, applied to some but not others. The basic trust that holds the country together begins to come apart. A president who can’t be held accountable isn’t a co-equal branch of government; they’re a ruler.
This isn’t a time for passive alarm; it’s a time to act. Congress needs to find its spine and pass laws that draw clear lines around presidential power. The courts need to remember their role as a check, not a rubber stamp. But most of all, we, the public, have to understand that democracy isn’t a spectator sport. It has to be defended, especially when the threat is coming from the inside.
Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government we had. “A republic,” he said, “if you can keep it.”
The question is no longer theoretical. We are all being asked, right now, if we can.