President's Orders: Breaking Laws Or Misguided Directions?

In the United States, the president is the head of the executive branch of the government and is bound by the constitution to faithfully execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress. While the president has the power to veto or sign bills into law, they are not above the law and must follow it like all Americans. However, there have been instances where presidents have allegedly broken the law or encouraged others to do so. For example, former President Donald Trump was accused of pressuring Georgia's top election official to find enough votes to overturn his 2020 election loss, which may have violated federal and state laws against election tampering and solicitation to commit election fraud. Trump has also made controversial statements and proposals, such as suggesting he might stay in office for an unconstitutional third term and indicating his intention to end the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship. These actions have raised concerns about presidential power and the limits of executive authority.

Donald Trump's pressuring of a Georgia election official to 'find' votes

On January 2, 2021, then-U.S. President Donald Trump held a one-hour phone call with Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, pressuring him to "find 11,780 votes" and overturn the state's election results from the 2020 presidential election. Trump had been defeated by Joe Biden in the election but refused to accept the outcome, making a months-long effort to overturn the results.

During the call, Trump attempted to pressure Raffensperger into reinvestigating the election results, despite being repeatedly told that there was no electoral error. Trump's repeated efforts to convince Raffensperger to find some basis to overturn the election results were perceived as pleading and threatening. At one point, Trump told Raffensperger, "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state." Trump falsely suggested that Raffensperger could have committed a criminal offense by refusing to overturn the state's election results.

Legal experts have suggested that Trump's behaviour and demands could have violated state and federal laws. On January 11, the phone call was cited in the article of impeachment in the second impeachment of Donald Trump. Raffensperger's office opened a fact-finding and administrative investigation of potential election interference, and Fulton County prosecutors opened a criminal investigation in February 2021.

Trump's many legal challenges to the election results were unsuccessful, but he repeatedly refused to accept the outcome. Audits and hand recounts revealed no evidence of fraud or any irregularity that would have changed the election results. Biden was officially confirmed as the winner of Georgia on November 19.

Trump's suggestion he could stay in office for an unconstitutional third term

During a meeting with House Republicans on Wednesday, 13 November 2024, Donald Trump suggested he would be willing to serve an unconstitutional third term as president. Trump's exact words were:

> "I suspect I won't be running again unless you say, 'He's so good we've got to figure something else out',"

This suggestion alarmed many, as it would be prohibited by the 22nd Amendment, which limits a commander-in-chief to two four-year terms of office. This amendment was approved by US Congress in 1947 and ratified in 1951.

In response to Trump's suggestion, Democratic lawmaker Dan Goldman plans to seek a formal resolution rejecting the idea. Goldman intends to file a motion specifically mentioning Trump and reiterating the two-term clause from the 22nd Amendment.

Trump has made similar comments in the past, indicating his willingness to violate democratic norms and remain in power beyond the limits set by the Constitution. During the 2020 campaign, he suggested he could be "entitled" to "another four" years after winning a second term. Additionally, in 2018, he praised Chinese President Xi Jinping's potential lifetime term in office, stating, "maybe we'll give that a shot someday."

While some Republicans have insisted that Trump was "joking" about serving a third term, his comments have prompted serious concern among Democrats and critics, who view them as a threat to democratic values and the rule of law.

Trump's intention to end the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship

In 2024, President-elect Donald Trump stated his intention to end birthright citizenship, a policy that has been in place for decades, as soon as he took office. Birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, states that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a US citizen. This includes children born to someone in the country illegally or on a tourist or student visa. Trump and his supporters argue that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming a US citizen.

Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship would involve issuing an executive order on his first day in office, directing federal agencies to require that at least one parent be a US citizen or lawful permanent resident for their children to become automatic citizens. This would mean that children of people in the US illegally would not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer-funded welfare benefits.

Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree that Trump's proposal is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The only group that is not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and thus does not attain birthright citizenship is children born to foreign diplomats who are protected by sovereign immunity.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has previously upheld the right to birthright citizenship. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the US to Chinese parents, who were prohibited from becoming US citizens at the time, was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. This precedent was further reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1982, stating that there is "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' [...] between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Despite the clear text of the Constitution and judicial precedent, Trump and his supporters argue that undocumented immigrants and their children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and therefore do not qualify for birthright citizenship. However, this argument has been refuted by legal scholars who point out that undocumented immigrants are subject to federal and state laws and are required to pay taxes, renew their driver's licenses, and can be deported for violating immigration laws.

Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship faces steep legal hurdles and would almost certainly end up in litigation. Even if he were to issue an executive order, it is unlikely to succeed as it would require a constitutional amendment to change the 14th Amendment.

Trump's plan to deport U.S. citizens

In 2025, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants have raised concerns about the potential violation of citizens' rights and the rule of law. While Trump has not explicitly mentioned deporting U.S. citizens, his aggressive approach to immigration and willingness to bypass legal processes have sparked fears among some. Here is an analysis of Trump's plan and its potential implications:

Trump has pledged to seal the U.S.-Mexico border and begin mass deportations on "day one" of his second term. He aims to deport all immigrants in the U.S. illegally over four years, including those with U.S. citizen children. To achieve this, he intends to declare a national emergency and utilize the U.S. military, partnering with state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.

The financial and logistical challenges of mass deportations are significant. The American Immigration Council estimates that deporting all undocumented immigrants over a decade would cost $88 billion annually. Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, has acknowledged the need for extensive funding and resources, which the Department of Homeland Security currently lacks. However, Trump has insisted that there is "no price tag" on carrying out the deportations.

Trump's plan has been criticized by immigration advocates and civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They argue that Trump's actions will "change the very nature of American life for tens of millions of Americans." Additionally, there are concerns that Trump's willingness to bypass the traditional legislative process and his administration's pursuit of policies that may violate citizens' rights set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach and the erosion of democratic norms.

Trump's previous actions as president have also raised concerns about his commitment to upholding the law. The House Jan. 6 committee has referred Trump to the Justice Department for potential prosecution on four charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his role in the Capitol insurrection. Legal experts have also argued that Trump may have broken federal and state laws by pressuring Georgia's top election official to "find" votes to overturn his election loss.

While Trump's plan does not specifically mention deporting U.S. citizens, his aggressive approach to immigration, willingness to bypass legal processes, and disregard for democratic norms have sparked fears that his actions could ultimately threaten the rights and freedoms of all Americans, including citizens. The potential consequences of Trump's plan remain uncertain, but they highlight the ongoing tensions between his administration's pursuit of hardline immigration policies and the protection of civil liberties in the United States.

Trump's claim that he could shoot someone and escape legal consequences

During his presidency, Donald Trump claimed that he enjoyed immunity from criminal investigation and could not be prosecuted. This claim was echoed by his lawyer, William Consovoy, who told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Trump had immunity from prosecution until he left office. Consovoy stated that prosecutors would be powerless to act even if Trump shot someone. This statement was in response to Circuit Judge Denny Chin's question on the matter and reflected a previous comment made by Trump himself, who boasted that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes from his supporters.

Trump's assertion of presidential immunity was challenged in court by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who subpoenaed Trump's tax returns and other financial records as part of a criminal probe into Trump and his family business. Trump sued to block the subpoena, arguing that a sitting president could not be subject to criminal investigation. However, Vance's office argued that there was "no such thing as presidential immunity for tax returns." Ultimately, the case reached the Supreme Court, which declined to intervene, allowing Trump's sentencing to proceed.

As a result of the legal proceedings, Trump received an "unconditional discharge" for his 34 felony convictions related to falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment. This sentence meant that Trump avoided jail time and fines but still had a criminal record. Despite his attempts to delay and overturn the conviction, Trump became the first sitting or former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime and sentenced.

Frequently asked questions