The Artifice of Power
Part 3: When Courts and Constitution Become Enemies
How the administration's war on reality threatens the foundation of American democracy
Stephen Lawton
June 23, 2025
This is the final part of a three-part series examining how the Trump administration governs through constructed reality rather than empirical evidence. Part 1 showed how polling data, economic research, and grocery bills become "fake news." Part 2 revealed the $5.6 trillion fiscal fantasy behind the "Big Beautiful Bill." Today, we examine the ultimate stakes: what happens when constitutional governance itself becomes optional.
When federal judges—including Reagan appointees—unanimously call your executive orders "blatantly unconstitutional," and your response is to continue the policies while attacking the courts, you've moved beyond policy disagreement into constitutional crisis.
When you sign 157 executive orders in less than five months—more than any president in history—while claiming to restore "constitutional governance," you've weaponized the language of democracy against democracy itself.
When you invoke 18th-century wartime laws to bypass constitutional protections, then frame judicial oversight as "partisan obstruction," you've declared war on the constitutional system that constrains presidential power.
This is the logical endpoint of the reality construction we've traced through polling data and fiscal policy: the systematic rejection of constitutional constraints as partisan inconveniences rather than democratic guardrails.
Executive Order Avalanche: Historic Governance by Decree
Trump's second presidency represents the most dramatic expansion of unilateral presidential power in American history. The numbers alone tell a story of governance that bypasses democratic deliberation in favor of executive decree.
The Unprecedented Scale
Record-Breaking Executive Action:
157 executive orders as of June 5, 2025 (less than 5 months in office)
143 executive orders in first 100 days—shattering FDR's 1933 record of 99
26 executive orders on first day alone—another presidential record
Additional actions: 40 memoranda, 65 proclamations
Historical Context:
FDR's previous record: 99 executive orders in first 100 days during Great Depression
Obama's first 100 days: 19 executive orders
Biden's first 100 days: 24 executive orders
Trump 2025: 143 executive orders in first 100 days
The significance: Trump has issued more executive orders in 5 months than most presidents issue in entire years. This isn't presidential leadership—it's governance by unilateral decree.
The Scope of Constitutional Overreach
The executive orders haven't just been numerous—they've systematically tested the boundaries of presidential authority:
Major Constitutional Challenges:
Attempted to end birthright citizenship through executive order (14th Amendment)
Invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act for immigration enforcement (constitutional scholars unanimous in opposition)
Declared national emergency to deploy military for domestic law enforcement (Posse Comitatus concerns)
Withdrew from international agreements without congressional input (treaty power questions)
Policy Areas Addressed Unilaterally:
Immigration system overhaul without legislative input
Federal workforce restructuring through Schedule F reclassification
International trade policy through emergency declarations
Environmental regulation rollback via executive action
Federal diversity programs elimination across all agencies
The pattern: Rather than building legislative consensus for controversial policies, the administration bypasses Congress entirely through executive action that tests constitutional limits.
The Judicial Resistance: When Courts Enforce Law
The administration's executive order blitz has triggered an unprecedented wave of legal challenges—and an even more unprecedented pattern of judicial unanimity in blocking unconstitutional actions.
Universal Judicial Rejection
The Court Response:
Federal judges have blocked multiple Trump executive orders as constitutionally impermissible
Three separate appeals courts upheld preliminary injunctions against immigration policies
Reagan appointees among those calling administration actions "blatantly unconstitutional"
No federal judge has upheld the administration's most aggressive constitutional claims
Judge John Coughenour (Reagan appointee) on birthright citizenship order:
"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind."
The significance: When federal judges across the political spectrum—including those appointed by Republican presidents—unanimously reject your constitutional interpretations, you're not operating within established legal bounds.
Specific Constitutional Violations
Birthright Citizenship (14th Amendment):
Constitutional text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens"
Administration claim: Can redefine citizenship through executive order
Judicial response: Unanimous rejection as textually impossible
Alien Enemies Act (1798 Wartime Law):
Legal requirement: Only applies during "declared war" or "invasion by foreign nation"
Administration claim: Immigration constitutes "invasion" justifying wartime powers
Judicial response: Consistent rulings that immigration ≠ military invasion
Military Deployment (Posse Comitatus):
Legal constraint: Military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement without congressional authorization
Administration action: Deploy troops for immigration enforcement
Constitutional concern: Militarization of domestic policy without legal authority
The Administration's Response: Attack the Courts
Rather than comply with constitutional rulings, the administration has systematically attacked judicial authority:
The Delegitimization Strategy:
Frame judicial review as "partisan obstruction" rather than constitutional duty
Attack individual judges as "activist" when they enforce legal constraints
Continue unconstitutional policies despite court orders
Claim executive authority that exists nowhere in constitutional text
Stephen Miller's approach: Dismiss judicial constraints as "procedural delays" rather than constitutional requirements.
The broader pattern: When courts enforce constitutional limits, attack the legitimacy of judicial review itself rather than accept legal constraints.
Immigration: Constitutional Law vs. Administrative Convenience
The administration's immigration policies provide the clearest example of how constitutional constraints get reframed as partisan obstacles when they interfere with preferred policies.
The "Invasion" Fiction
Legal Reality:
Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to "establish uniform Rule of Naturalization"
14th Amendment guarantees due process to "any person" within U.S. jurisdiction
Supreme Court precedent requires individualized proceedings for deportation
Administration Claims:
Immigration constitutes "invasion" justifying emergency wartime powers
Due process requirements can be suspended during claimed "emergency"
Executive branch can unilaterally redefine constitutional terms
The constitutional problem: The Framers understood the difference between immigration and military invasion. Calling immigration an "invasion" doesn't grant wartime powers any more than calling a tax a "fine" eliminates constitutional limits.
The Alien Enemies Act Abuse
Historical Context:
1798 law designed for actual warfare with foreign nations
Used only 3 times in American history: War of 1812, WWI, WWII
Supreme Court precedent requires genuine state of war with foreign government
Trump Administration Usage:
Claims Venezuelan gang activity constitutes foreign "invasion"
Bypasses normal deportation procedures through claimed wartime authority
Ignores judicial rulings that gang crime ≠ foreign military invasion
Federal Judge Response:
Unanimous judicial ruling: Gang activity does not constitute foreign invasion under 1798 law
Constitutional requirement: "Declared war" or military invasion by foreign nation
Legal reality: Domestic crime cannot be redefined as foreign invasion for constitutional purposes
The Deportation Assembly Line
Constitutional Requirements:
Due process guarantees individual hearings for deportation proceedings
Equal protection prohibits selective enforcement based on national origin
Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
Administration Practices:
Mass deportations without individual due process review
Targeting based on national origin rather than individual circumstances
Workplace raids in schools, hospitals, churches despite traditional protections
The Constitutional Problem: Due process isn't a procedural inconvenience to be bypassed for efficiency—it's a constitutional guarantee that applies even when inconvenient for administrative goals.
The War on Truth: Expertise as Enemy
The administration's rejection of constitutional constraints mirrors its broader approach to any institution that provides inconvenient evidence—including scientific expertise, economic analysis, and legal scholarship.
Systematic Expertise Rejection
Economic Research → "Accounting Gimmicks"
Reality: Multiple institutions (CBO, Tax Foundation, Penn Wharton) reach similar conclusions
Administration response: Dismiss economic science as partisan bias
Result: Policy-making independent of empirical evidence
Constitutional Law → "Activist Judges"
Reality: Reagan appointees call administration actions unconstitutional
Administration response: Frame judicial review as political obstruction
Result: Governance independent of legal constraints
International Law → "Foreign Interference"
Reality: OECD warns of economic and democratic deterioration
Administration response: Dismiss international expertise as anti-American bias
Result: Isolation from global governance norms
The Alternative Authority Universe
The administration has constructed parallel sources of authority that contradict established institutions:
Legal Alternative Authority:
Claims constitutional powers that exist nowhere in text or precedent
Continues unconstitutional actions despite unanimous court orders
Operates through claimed rather than actual legal authority
Economic Alternative Facts:
Projects impossible growth rates to justify fiscally irresponsible policies
Dismisses all contrary analysis as methodologically flawed
Makes policy based on preferred numbers rather than empirical evidence
Scientific Alternative Reality:
Rejects climate science despite overwhelming scientific consensus
Dismisses public health expertise during ongoing health challenges
Operates independent of scientific method and peer review
The Pattern: When any source of expertise contradicts preferred policies, construct alternative sources of authority rather than adjust policies to match evidence.
The Greene Factor: When Truth-Tellers Have Credibility Problems
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's role as primary defender of administration "truth" gains particular significance given her documented ethical and credibility issues.
The Palantir Insider Trading Scandal
The Timeline:
April 7-8, 2025: Greene purchases Palantir stock ($77-92/share)
April 11, 2025: ICE awards Palantir $29.9 million surveillance contract
April 17, 2025: Contract announced publicly
May 2, 2025: Stock reaches $124/share (60% gain)
The Ethical Problem:
Greene sits on House Homeland Security Committee overseeing ICE
Stock trades occurred days before major government contract announcement
Substantial financial gains from non-public information access
Greene's Defense:
Claims financial advisor controls all investment decisions
Says she learned about trades "in the media"
Denies any advance knowledge of government contracts
The Credibility Issue: When someone with documented ethical problems becomes the primary defender of administration "truthfulness," it reveals something about the administration's relationship with accountability.
The Conspiracy Theory Background
Greene's History with Truth:
QAnon associations: Promoted theories about "Clinton-led cabal" without evidence
9/11 skepticism: Questioned established facts about terrorist attacks
School shooting denial: Cast doubt on documented tragedies
COVID-19 conspiracy theories: Promoted medically dangerous misinformation
The Pattern: Greene has a documented history of promoting false information, then attacking critics as purveyors of "fake news."
When the administration's primary truth defender has a track record of conspiracy theory promotion and potential insider trading, it exemplifies the broader credibility crisis.
Constitutional Democracy vs. Administrative Convenience
The administration's approach to constitutional governance reveals a fundamental philosophy: when constitutional constraints interfere with preferred policies, abandon constitutional constraints rather than adjust policies.
The Systematic Pattern
Step 1: Claim Unprecedented Executive Authority
Invoke emergency powers for non-emergency situations
Claim constitutional interpretations that contradict text and precedent
Operate through asserted rather than actual legal authority
Step 2: Attack Institutions That Provide Constraints
Frame judicial review as partisan obstruction
Dismiss legislative oversight as political harassment
Attack institutional legitimacy rather than accept institutional limits
Step 3: Continue Unconstitutional Policies Despite Court Orders
Maintain operations blocked by federal courts
Delay compliance while appealing obvious legal violations
Treat constitutional requirements as procedural suggestions
Step 4: Construct Alternative Sources of Authority
Claim historical precedents that don't exist
Create legal interpretations unsupported by scholarship
Operate through constructed rather than actual constitutional authority
The Democratic Stakes
This approach threatens the foundational principle of constitutional democracy: that government power must operate within legal constraints.
When constitutional limits become political obstacles:
Separation of powers breaks down as executive claims legislative authority
Judicial review becomes "partisan obstruction" rather than constitutional duty
Rule of law transforms into rule by executive preference
When expertise becomes enemy:
Evidence-based policy becomes impossible when evidence gets dismissed as bias
Democratic accountability fails when shared facts disappear
Constitutional interpretation becomes political rather than legal
When reality construction replaces constitutional compliance:
Democratic governance requires shared understanding of legal constraints
Presidential power expands beyond constitutional limits through claimed authority
American democracy risks transformation into something entirely different
International Perspective: How the World Sees American Democracy
International observers are watching the Trump administration's constitutional approach with alarm and concern for global democratic stability.
Democratic Backsliding Indicators
Freedom House Concerns:
Executive power expansion beyond constitutional limits
Judicial independence threats through systematic court criticism
Rule of law erosion via non-compliance with court orders
International Association of Constitutional Law Warning:
Emergency power abuse for non-emergency situations
Constitutional interpretation stretching beyond textual bounds
Democratic norm violations that threaten institutional stability
Global Democracy Implications
Alliance Relationship Concerns:
NATO allies question American commitment to rule of law
Democratic partners worry about U.S. constitutional stability
International agreements threatened by unilateral executive action
The Broader Stakes: When the world's oldest constitutional democracy governs through reality construction rather than constitutional compliance, global democratic stability becomes questionable.
The Ultimate Cost: When Constitution Becomes Optional
The Trump administration's approach to constitutional governance represents the logical endpoint of governing through constructed reality: when empirical evidence, economic research, and mathematical facts become "fake news," constitutional constraints inevitably follow.
The Progression of Reality Rejection
Stage 1: Polling and Public Opinion
Dismiss unfavorable data as "fake news"
Create alternative metrics that support preferred narratives
Result: Governance independent of democratic feedback
Stage 2: Economic and Scientific Evidence
Attack research institutions as politically biased
Construct fantasy projections that contradict empirical analysis
Result: Policy-making independent of evidence-based analysis
Stage 3: Constitutional and Legal Constraints
Frame judicial review as partisan obstruction
Claim constitutional authority that exists nowhere in law
Result: Governance independent of legal limitations
The Pattern: Once truth becomes optional for political convenience, constitutional democracy becomes optional for administrative convenience.
The Authoritarian Drift
Historical Precedent: Every democracy that has collapsed into authoritarianism has followed this progression—first attacking shared facts, then attacking institutional constraints.
Contemporary Examples:
Hungary: Orbán's systematic attack on media, courts, and constitutional norms
Poland: PiS party's assault on judicial independence and rule of law
Turkey: Erdoğan's transformation of democratic institutions into personal power tools
The American Version:
Media becomes "fake news" when reporting unfavorable facts
Courts become "activist" when enforcing constitutional limits
Congress becomes "partisan" when exercising oversight authority
Constitution becomes "outdated" when constraining executive power
The Warning Signs: When all democratic institutions that provide constraints get reframed as partisan obstacles, democratic governance itself is under threat.
The Complicity Problem: When Enablers Enable
The administration's reality construction succeeds not just through presidential action, but through systematic enablement by officials who know better but choose institutional loyalty over constitutional duty.
The White House Staff
Stephen Miller's Role:
Knows the legal constraints (former DOJ attorney)
Constructs legal justifications for clearly unconstitutional actions
Attacks judicial authority when courts enforce constitutional limits
Result: Legal expertise weaponized against legal constraints
The Cabinet Enablers:
Secretary of Homeland Security implements policies blocked by courts
Attorney General defends constitutional interpretations that contradict precedent
Agency heads comply with clearly illegal directives rather than resign
The Professional Civil Service:
Career attorneys draft legal memos justifying unjustifiable positions
Federal bureaucrats implement policies they know violate constitutional requirements
Government experts provide alternative analyses that contradict their professional judgment
The Congressional Republicans
The Oversight Abdication:
House committees refuse to investigate clear constitutional violations
Senate Republicans provide political cover for executive overreach
Congressional leadership attacks courts rather than defend constitutional separation of powers
The Fiscal Enablement:
House passage of legislation that adds $2.4 trillion to deficits while claiming fiscal responsibility
Senate consideration of bills that contradict basic mathematical reality
Budget committee approval of projections that no credible economist supports
The Judicial Appointment Strategy
The Long-Term Plan:
Appoint judges selected for ideological loyalty rather than constitutional expertise
Create alternative legal interpretations through carefully chosen test cases
Build judicial support for expanded executive power through personnel changes
The Current Problem: Even judges appointed by Republican presidents are rejecting the administration's constitutional claims as obviously invalid.
The Future Concern: What happens when enough ideologically loyal judges get appointed to provide legal cover for constitutional violations?
The Media and Information Ecosystem
The administration's reality construction depends on a supportive information ecosystem that amplifies constructed narratives while dismissing empirical evidence.
The Propaganda Infrastructure
State Media Functions:
Fox News provides alternative economic analysis that contradicts research consensus
Right-wing podcasts dismiss judicial rulings as partisan rather than constitutional
Social media influencers attack expertise while promoting fantasy-based policy analysis
The Echo Chamber Effect:
Supporters consume information that reinforces constructed reality
Contradictory evidence gets filtered out as "mainstream media bias"
Constitutional violations get reframed as patriotic necessity
The Mainstream Media Problem
False Equivalence:
"Both sides" coverage treats constitutional violations as political disagreements
Expert consensus gets presented as "one perspective" rather than empirical reality
Mathematical impossibility gets framed as "policy debate"
Normalization Process:
Record executive orders become "active presidency"
Constitutional violations become "aggressive governing style"
Reality construction becomes "political messaging"
The Accountability Failure: When media treats systematic constitutional violations as normal political behavior, democratic accountability mechanisms break down.
What's at Stake: American Democracy Itself
The Trump administration's comprehensive reality construction represents more than political theater or policy disagreement—it threatens the basic foundations of truth and constitutional governance that make American democracy possible.
The Crisis About Truth Itself
Shared Truth Requirements:
Democratic debate requires shared factual foundations
Constitutional governance requires shared understanding of legal constraints
Evidence-based policy requires acceptance of empirical analysis
When Truth Becomes Partisan:
Citizens cannot make informed choices when systematic dishonesty replaces honest policy debate
Institutions cannot function when constitutional requirements become political preferences
Democracy cannot operate when shared reality disappears
The Ultimate Question: Can democratic self-governance survive when truth itself becomes a partisan weapon?
The Constitutional Crisis
Separation of Powers Breakdown:
Executive branch claims legislative authority through emergency declarations
Congressional oversight gets dismissed as partisan harassment
Judicial review becomes enemy action rather than constitutional duty
Rule of Law Erosion:
Constitutional constraints become procedural suggestions
Court orders become political opinions to be defied
Legal expertise becomes partisan bias to be dismissed
Democratic Accountability Failure:
Electoral feedback gets dismissed as "fake news"
Economic consequences get denied through alternative statistics
Constitutional violations get reframed as patriotic necessity
The Stakes: When constitutional governance becomes optional for administrative convenience, American democracy transforms into something entirely different.
The Path Forward: Reclaiming Reality-Based Governance
Despite the comprehensive nature of the administration's reality construction, democratic institutions retain the power to reassert constitutional governance—if citizens demand it.
Institutional Responses
Judicial Branch:
Federal courts continue to block unconstitutional actions despite political attacks
Supreme Court faces crucial decisions about executive power limits
Legal profession must defend constitutional interpretation against political manipulation
Congressional Authority:
Legislative oversight can reassert constitutional separation of powers
Budget authority can force reality-based fiscal analysis
Impeachment power remains available for constitutional violations
Civil Society:
Professional organizations can defend expertise against political attack
Academic institutions can maintain evidence-based analysis
Democratic institutions can resist authoritarian drift through institutional protection
Electoral Accountability
The 2026 Midterms:
Congressional elections provide opportunity for democratic course correction
State and local races can resist federal constitutional violations
Ballot initiatives can demonstrate public support for reality-based governance
The Informed Citizenship Requirement:
Voters must choose between reality-based and fantasy-based governance
Citizens must defend democratic institutions against authoritarian capture
Americans must decide whether constitutional constraints matter
Conclusion: The Choice Before Us
Over three parts, we've traced the Trump administration's comprehensive approach to governing through constructed reality rather than empirical evidence:
Part 1 showed how polling data, economic research, and grocery bills become "fake news" when they contradict preferred narratives.
Part 2 revealed the $5.6 trillion fiscal fantasy that requires rejecting basic mathematics to defend the "Big Beautiful Bill."
Part 3 has demonstrated how this reality construction extends to constitutional governance itself—where legal constraints become political obstacles and judicial review becomes enemy action.
The Comprehensive Pattern
The administration's approach is systematic and consistent:
Empirical evidence that contradicts preferred policies gets dismissed as bias
Institutional constraints that limit executive power get attacked as partisan obstruction
Constitutional requirements that interfere with administrative goals get redefined as procedural suggestions
Democratic accountability that threatens political power gets reframed as persecution
This isn't incompetence, political spin, or policy disagreement. It's a deliberate governing philosophy that prioritizes constructed narrative over empirical reality, administrative convenience over constitutional constraint, and political power over democratic accountability.
The Democratic Stakes
What we're witnessing represents a fundamental choice about the nature of American governance:
Option 1: Reality-Based Constitutional Democracy
Policies adjust when evidence shows they're not working
Executive power operates within constitutional constraints
Democratic institutions provide accountability for government action
Shared truth enables meaningful democratic debate
Option 2: Constructed-Reality Administrative State
Evidence gets dismissed when it contradicts preferred policies
Constitutional constraints get redefined as political obstacles
Democratic institutions get attacked when they provide inconvenient oversight
Manufactured truth serves political power rather than democratic governance
The Historical Moment
We're living through a test of whether American democratic institutions can survive comprehensive reality construction as a governing philosophy.
The question isn't whether Trump's specific policies are good or bad—it's whether American democracy can function when truth becomes optional, constitutional constraints become partisan preferences, and empirical evidence becomes political ammunition.
Every democracy that has collapsed into authoritarianism has followed this progression: first attacking shared facts, then attacking institutional constraints, finally eliminating democratic accountability entirely.
The difference is that previous democratic collapses happened in countries without America's constitutional traditions, institutional strength, and democratic culture.
We're about to find out whether those advantages are sufficient to resist authoritarian drift when it comes wrapped in the language of patriotism and constitutional restoration.
The Bottom Line
The artifice of power revealed through this analysis isn't just about Donald Trump or the Republican Party—it's about whether democratic self-governance can survive when reality itself becomes a political weapon.
When an administration can systematically reject polling data, economic research, mathematical facts, and constitutional constraints while claiming to defend democracy, we've reached a point where words have lost their meaning and institutions have lost their grounding.
The choice before us is stark: Will we demand governance based on empirical evidence and constitutional constraints, or will we accept governance based on constructed narratives and administrative convenience?
The answer will determine not just the next few years of American politics, but whether American democracy survives in any meaningful form.
The artifice of power is complete. The question is whether American democracy is strong enough to resist it.
This concludes "The Artifice of Power" series. What do you think? Can American democracy survive when truth becomes optional? How do we restore reality-based governance when institutions themselves are under attack?
Share your thoughts and this analysis. The stakes couldn't be higher—and the time for action couldn't be shorter.
Thank you for reading "The Artifice of Power." If this analysis helped you understand the current moment in American politics, please share it widely. Democracy depends on informed citizens making informed choices.
Subscribe for continued analysis of American politics, policy, and the ongoing struggle between democratic governance and authoritarian power.