The Constitutional Crisis: “I Don’t Know” and the Erosion of Due Process

“Do you think you’re following the law?” Welker asked.

“I’m going to just follow what the lawyers say,” Trump replied.

The President’s casual dismissal of the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, encapsulated in his “I don’t know” response, represents a fundamental failure to grasp, or at least acknowledge, a core tenet of American jurisprudence. The Fifth Amendment’s protection extends to all “persons” within the United States, irrespective of citizenship status. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring that even noncitizens facing deportation have the right to a fair hearing and legal representation.  

His statements reveal a dangerous disregard for the rule of law and a potential willingness to prioritize executive expediency over constitutional safeguards. By suggesting that due process is an impediment to his immigration agenda, he undermines the very foundation of the legal system, which is designed to protect individual rights against arbitrary government action.  

The President’s reliance on his lawyers to navigate legal complexities does not absolve him of his constitutional responsibilities. The oath of office requires him to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, not merely delegate its interpretation to legal counsel. His “I don’t know” response, therefore, is not a mere gaffe but a potential abdication of his sworn duty.  

Furthermore, his desire to expedite deportations, particularly in cases involving alleged gang members, raises serious concerns about potential violations of due process. The use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law intended for times of war, to justify swift deportations without proper legal proceedings is a radical departure from established legal norms. This approach risks depriving individuals of their fundamental rights and setting a dangerous precedent for future administrations.  

Options for Removal: Impeachment, the 25th Amendment, and Beyond

Given the gravity of the President’s statements and their potential implications for the rule of law, it is essential to explore the available options for his removal from office. GOP members of the House are already starting to talk of Impeachment going into the 2026 elections. Are there enough Republicans to vote with all of the Democratic members to impeach the President at this point? Consider all the other options. Here’s the list:

1. Impeachment:
   • Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides for the impeachment and removal of the President for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  
   • The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, while the Senate conducts the trial and votes on removal.  
   • The threshold for impeachment is a simple majority vote in the House, while removal requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.  
   • The President’s statements, particularly his apparent disregard for due process, could be argued as a “high crime or misdemeanor” if they are deemed to constitute a deliberate violation of his constitutional oath.
   • However, the process is highly political, and the outcome depends on the prevailing political climate and the willingness of lawmakers to act.
2. 25th Amendment:
   • Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides for the removal of the President if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”  
   • This provision requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the President incapacitated and notify Congress.
   • Congress can then vote to confirm the President’s incapacity, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses.  
   • While the 25th Amendment is primarily intended for cases of physical or mental incapacity, it could potentially be invoked if the President’s actions are deemed to demonstrate a clear inability to fulfill his constitutional duties.
   • Invoking the 25th Amendment is a very difficult process, and the bar for doing so is very high.
3. Electoral Defeat:
   • The most democratic and constitutionally sound method of removing a sitting president is by exercising the voting rights of the people.
   • If the people disagree with the president’s actions, they can elect a new president.
   • This is the most common way that a sitting president leaves office.
4. Resignation:
   • The President could resign from office.
   • This is an unlikely event.

The President’s statements regarding due process represent a serious challenge to the rule of law and the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. The options for his removal, while available, are politically complex and fraught with uncertainty. The impeachment process is inherently political, and the 25th Amendment is a rarely used and difficult procedure. Ultimately, the most effective means of holding the President accountable may lie in the hands of the American people, who have the power to elect a new leader, despite the fact that few want to wait until 2028. Voting in a dominant number of Democrats in the 2026 election would at least hold some power against the President, but it’s unlikely that there would be enough to hold a super majority over the President.

Citizens have an obligation to take action. Your time is right now.