Simone Lawson
The United States Constitution has faced several challenges and amendments since its inception. One notable example is the Twenty-second Amendment, which limits the number of terms a person can serve as President to two. This amendment was ratified in 1951, following concerns about Franklin D. Roosevelt's extended tenure as president during World War II and the potential for executive overreach. More recently, the Trump administration has been accused of challenging constitutional norms and assuming powers historically vested in Congress. These actions have raised concerns about the rule of law and the system of checks and balances in the US government.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of times a person can be elected to the office of President of the United States | Limited to two terms |
| Eligibility conditions | Someone who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting more than two years is prohibited from being elected president more than once |
| Term limits on elected officials | Discussed since the first debates surrounding the Constitution’s ratification |
| Presidential terms | Determined by the people through the Electoral College system |
Explore related products
$7.99 $7.99
What You'll Learn
Trump administration's assumption of congressional powers
The Trump administration has been accused of challenging constitutional norms and the rule of law in the United States. Through a series of executive orders, the administration has assumed powers that have historically belonged to Congress, including control over federal agencies and spending. This has been described as an unprecedented challenge and a threat to the system of checks and balances that is fundamental to American democracy.
One example of this assumption of congressional powers is the Trump administration's attempt to exert control over independent agencies. In February 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14215, titled "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies." This order has been widely criticised as an illegal power grab, with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other Democratic groups filing a lawsuit arguing that the order unlawfully extends presidential control over agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC), undermining their mandated independence.
The administration has also been accused of usurping Congress's constitutional power through its actions on spending and other areas. For instance, the administration's decision to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization (WHO) has been challenged by public health experts and bipartisan lawmakers, who argue that it violates congressional mandates on global health commitments. Additionally, Trump's use of executive orders to target foreign nationals, including students and researchers, for immigration enforcement has been seen as an overreach of executive power.
Furthermore, the judicial and legislative branches have been accused of acquiescing to the transfer of powers to the executive branch. The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority including three Trump nominees, has issued orders enabling Trump to fire independent regulators and access sensitive Social Security data, despite laws passed by Congress to the contrary. While some argue that the courts will ultimately decide on the extent of Trump's powers, others see this as a dangerous precedent that undermines the balance of power between the branches of government.
In response to these actions, House Democrats and other groups have launched a multifaceted effort to protect American citizens and democratic institutions. They are fighting back through legal challenges, legislative action, and community engagement. The outcome of these efforts remains to be seen, but experts warn that the Trump administration's assumption of congressional powers has troubling implications for American governance and the rule of law.
Property Line Fences: What's Allowed?
You may want to see also
Unchecked presidential authority
The US Constitution is based on a system of checks and balances, which ensures that no one person can decide on their own what the Constitution means. However, the Trump administration has been seen as a challenge to this principle, with the White House assuming powers that are typically vested in Congress, such as control over federal agencies and spending.
Trump has also sought to dismantle the internal checks and balances that limit presidential power, by asserting his right to fire members of agency boards without "cause". He has dismissed several chairs of federal bodies, including the National Labor Relations Board, and has withheld Congressionally appropriated federal funds. These actions have been contested in court, with some arguing that they pave the way for other unconstitutional actions, such as threats against agencies and the firing of federal workers.
Trump's administration appears to be guided by the ""unitary executive theory", which contends that the president's authority has few legal limits. This has been reflected in his use of executive orders, such as one purporting to end birthright citizenship, which was in defiance of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v Casa, Inc. has also been seen as expanding presidential powers, by narrowing the power of federal judges to issue injunctions against executive actions that violate the Constitution.
Furthermore, records from the Bush administration have raised concerns about the unchecked emergency powers that presidents might claim during crises. These include the suspension of habeas corpus, implementing an internet kill switch, and censoring news media. While these powers have not been leaked or deployed, they indicate a potential threat to Americans' constitutional rights and civil liberties.
The US Constitution's Dark Legacy: Slavery's Extension
You may want to see also
Threats against federal agencies
While there are many instances of people challenging the Constitution, there are also instances of threats against federal agencies and their workers. Federal law enforcement agencies are often the target of threats. Threats against federal judges and prosecutors have more than doubled in recent years, with threats against federal prosecutors rising from 116 to 250 from 2003 to 2008, and threats against federal judges climbing from 500 to 1,278 in the same period. This has prompted hundreds to get 24-hour protection from armed U.S. marshals.
There have also been incidents of actual violence against the IRS, including people ramming cars into IRS offices, setting them on fire, and taking out hits on IRS employees. The 2010 Austin plane crash was one of the more high-profile incidents.
Threatening government officials is a felony in the United States, and threatening the president is a separate felony. Cases are investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Secret Service. Threatening government officials and judges can count as terrorism and obstruction of justice. The specifics of what the threatener can be sentenced under depend on the specifics of the case. The United States Sentencing Guidelines take a number of factors into consideration when determining the recommended penalty, including the person's intent to carry out the threat, the possibility of inciting others to violence, and disruption to the government function.
Threatening federal officials' family members is also a federal crime. There are three elements to the offense of making an illegal threat: there must be a transmission in interstate commerce, there must be a communication containing the threat, and the threat must be to injure another person.
In addition to threats against individual officials, there have also been concerns about the weaponization of federal agencies against the American people. In January 2025, the White House issued an order to address the previous administration's weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community against those perceived as political opponents. The order directed the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to review the activities of all departments and agencies and identify any instances of misconduct or activities that appeared to be inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States.
In terms of challenges to the Constitution, there have been various instances where individuals or groups have taken legal action or spoken out against perceived infringements on their constitutional rights. For example, during the Trump administration, there were efforts to require state and local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE, which were declared unconstitutional by most lower courts. Additionally, the Biden administration was criticized for colluding with big tech companies to censor dissenting opinions on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, which some argued violated the First Amendment.
In another case, the ACLU argued that imposing a harsher sentence on a defendant due to their inability to purchase a home impinged on the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. Furthermore, they argued that eliciting inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving misleading information about their rights and applying coercive pressure violated the defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment.
In a case involving Allah, four federal judges agreed that his treatment during pretrial detention violated his constitutional rights. However, he lost his case due to the doctrine of qualified immunity, which prevents government agents from being held personally liable for constitutional violations unless the violation was of 'clearly established' law. This doctrine has been criticized for undermining constitutional rights and justice.
Intelligence Activities: Constitutional Challenges and Concerns
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$24.1 $29.99
Firing federal workers
In 2025, former and current federal workers described to the Washington Post the chaos and mass firings under the Trump administration, which left them feeling devalued, demoralized, and scared. The administration's plan to reclassify and fire federal workers was challenged by unions representing US government employees. The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to slow Trump's effort to reclassify up to 50,000 federal workers and make it easier to terminate them.
Trump's order was described by AFSCME's president, Lee Saunders, as "a shameless attempt to politicize the federal workforce." The lawsuit aimed to force the OPM to continue enforcing the Biden administration rule, which shielded federal workers from being stripped of job protections. Trump's order, issued in March 2025, sought to revoke collective bargaining rights from approximately 950,000 federal workers. The union coalition argued that the order constituted unconstitutional retaliation and violated the Fifth Amendment by nullifying legally binding collective bargaining agreements without due process.
The National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM) celebrated a victory when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, halting the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle union protections for federal workers. NFFE National President Randy Erwin stated, "The Constitution protects the right of federal employees to join a union and has been supported by Presidents of both parties for decades."
Despite the challenges, the Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that President Donald Trump did not have to rehire senior officials he fired from two independent federal labor agencies, upholding his firing powers. The court's unsigned opinion stated that the Constitution vests executive power in the president, allowing him to remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.
Alien and Sedition Acts: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Withholding federal funds
The U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause grants Congress the "power of the purse," meaning it has the authority to control government funds. This is reflected in the clause's wording: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The Take Care Clause, on the other hand, delegates the task of spending approved funds to the President, requiring the chief executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The process by which a President withholds or delays spending on programs authorized by Congress is called impoundment. While the practice dates back to Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, it has been controversial due to the potential conflict between the executive and legislative branches.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the President lacks the inherent constitutional authority to impound or withhold funds appropriated by Congress. In Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838), the Court ruled that executive officials could not withhold funds mandated by statute. This precedent was reaffirmed in Train v. City of New York (1975), where the Court unanimously held that President Nixon's attempt to withhold funds allocated to the city under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments was unlawful.
In response to President Nixon's impoundments, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) in 1974. The ICA established a clear and public procedure for Presidents to request that Congress reduce or eliminate funding. It allows the President to withhold funds for up to 45 days while awaiting congressional action, after which the funds must be spent as specified.
Despite the ICA, debates about the President's power to impound funds have persisted. The Line-Item Veto Act, which allowed the President to cancel items of appropriation, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 as unconstitutional, reinforcing the conclusion that Presidents cannot unilaterally withhold funds.
In recent years, the Trump administration faced criticism for freezing funding to states, particularly for programs such as healthcare, food assistance, and environmental protections. Democratic legislators in several blue states introduced bills to withhold federal payments, arguing that the federal government was delinquent in providing funding owed to them. However, legal experts noted that these bills faced significant hurdles due to the Constitution's supremacy clause, which grants precedence to the federal government.
Controversy Over Lecompton Constitution in Kansas
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Franklin D. Roosevelt challenged the constitution by serving as president for almost 13 years, which raised concerns in Congress about a possible risk of executive overreach. Roosevelt's victory in the 1944 election led to the Twenty-second Amendment, which limits the number of times a person can be elected to the office of President of the United States to two terms.
Trump, with the support of several conservative legal theorists and judges, asserted his right to fire members of agency boards without "cause." He also assumed powers that are historically vested in Congress, including spending and control of federal agencies. These actions were seen as a challenge to the rule of law and constitutional norms.
Challenging the constitution can have troubling implications for American governance. It can sideline Congress, paving the way for other unlawful and possibly unconstitutional actions, such as threats against other agencies, the firing of federal workers, and the withholding of Congressionally appropriated federal funds.
