Quinta Jurecic writes:

Donald Trump wasted little time after the election in claiming an “unprecedented and powerful mandate” and floating a series of extreme proposals with varying degrees of legal dubiousness. The president-elect has already winkingly suggested that he might stay in office for an unconstitutional third term, indicated that he intends to end the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, and said that he plans to deport U.S. citizens. If the mood on the right is triumphant, the atmosphere among those opposed to Trump has been despairing, as though nothing can be done to hold him back from what he has planned. A representative headline in Slate read “Is the Law for Suckers, Now?”

It’s tempting to conclude that the answer is yes. The country elected a man who has been indicted four times, essentially wiping away any chance that he might face criminal accountability for his effort to hold on to power after losing reelection in 2020. The Supreme Court, in issuing its shocking immunity ruling this summer, seems newly on board with the idea that the chief executive can more or less do whatever he likes. What do legal restrictions and constitutional processes matter in the face of a politics that has lost any semblance of reason?

A great deal, in fact. The country has come a long way from the starry-eyed early days of the Russia investigation, when Trump’s opponents purchased votive candles printed with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s face on them and dreamed of a criminal prosecution that might end Trump’s presidency. Sure, the law is not a magic wand to save America—but neither is it entirely useless. Acknowledging the threat that Trump poses to American democracy does not require accepting that he is unbound by law. On the contrary, taking the risk seriously requires taking seriously the legal and political mechanisms available to prevent the worst of Trump’s intended abuses. [Continue reading…]