No Kings? Sic Semper?

Rallies large and small were held throughout the country (and even in Quebec, for some strange reason) on Saturday bearing the slogan “No Kings.” These protests were directed at President Trump in opposition to a number of his policies and, to be frank, his public persona. Estimates put the number of events at around 2,700 and participants as high as 7 million.

Trump responded with postings of himself in a crown and some expect him to dress up as a king for Halloween. He certainly knows how to drive people crazy.

There are several things to consider when trying to understand what is going on.

Historical Significance

We will not know the significance of these protests for years, but we can see that they pick up on important imagery. “No kings” is a cry going back to the birth of republican Rome in 509 BC when Lucius Junius Brutus expelled the Tarquin kings, leaving us with the line, “Sic semper tyrannos” (so always with tyrants).

Brutus’ descendant, Marcus Junius Brutus, used this principle to kill Julius Caesar to prevent him becoming a king. The Latin motto was adopted by the state of Virginia, and John Wilkes Booth cried it out before shooting President Lincoln.

Opposition to kings has a long history in republicanism. It also has a long association with assassinations, which are disturbing in light of the two attempts on Trump and the murder of Charlie Kirk.

What Are They Protesting?

As with any large political movement, the No Kings rallies are hard to define. There is a general feeling on the left that President Trump is acting in an authoritarian manner, meaning he is not abiding by the proper procedures of government and the separation of powers.

The problem with this position is that (1) it is hard to maintain on the merits and (2) this is really part of a conservative criticism of the administrative state that most people who oppose Trump would not otherwise accept.

The accusations of authoritarianism largely have to do with immigration, on the one hand, and the extent of executive authority, on the other. On both topics lawsuits have been brought against the Trump administration. While they were often successful in the lower courts, they have mostly been decided in Trump’s favor at the Supreme Court.

Since January alone, the Court has received 26-28 cases (the counting is difficult because they are sometimes conflated) and the Trump administration has won all but three. His administration has abided by the decisions in every case it has lost. Some people might not like that win/loss record, but it is not authoritarianism.

There is, however, a larger issue of the “Imperial Presidency,” that is, the rise of executive power especially since WWII. Everyone can agree that the federal government has expanded greatly in the post-war period. Conservatives have generally lamented this and liberals cheered. Unusually for a conservative (some might want to put that in scare quotes), Trump and his administration have used that expanded power.

The Administrative State

When we talk about the expansion of government we are talking about the “administrative state.” This refers to all the “three letter agencies” that have been established in the last eighty years, for the most part. This includes the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), DOE (Department of Energy), etc. (et cetera, which isn’t an agency but for convenience should be).

A major criticism of these agencies is that, while Congress established them in law, they are parts of the Executive branch, all of the powers of which are invested into the single human being of the President. (Technically, as President of the Senate, the Vice President is a member of Congress.)

Also, in many cases the legislation was written with a lot of details to be filled in later. That is to say, there are a lot of lines that read, “The Secretary shall determine…” That gives a lot of leeway to the people running the agencies. But again, technically, the president runs the agencies and delegates his executive powers to the secretaries. The Senate must approve the appointment of those secretaries, but once approved they must obey the president and he can remove them at any time he wishes.

Once case at the moment has to do with the CPA (Consumer Protection Agency), which in the legislation says the president cannot remove board members. The question is whether this violates the principle of separation of powers. The Constitution is clear that Congress makes the laws (legislates) and the President enforces the laws (executes them). The Supreme Court has been very deferential to the powers of the presidency as a result.

Impact of the Protests

There are only a few elections this year of significance: mayoralty of NYC, governors of Virginia and New Jersey. The protests might have an effect on these, but it is unclear.

The real issue for the “No Kings” protestors is the midterm elections next year. The entire House of Representatives are up for election and 1/3 of the Senate. Remember that the House impeaches and the Senate votes to convict. If the Democrats win the House next year (the Republicans have a 2-seat majority at the moment) they will certainly try to impeach him again. Unless there is a major shift in the Senate, the impeachment will come to naught.

The biggest challenge for the “No Kings” protestors is that Pres. Trump was duly elected and has not violated the Constitution. They don’t like him or what he’s doing, but he isn’t a king. After the protests he even thanked those who turned out for protecting his position as president and told them how pleased his is to remain their president for the next three and a half years. Yes, he knows how to drive them crazy.