In his new book, Brown political science professor Corey Brettschneider argues that a second Donald Trump presidency is a danger to American politics itself.
Brettschneider sat down with The Herald to discuss his latest work: “The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It.”
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity
What was your motivation for writing this book?
Brettschneider: I wanted to do a deep dive into the question of whether or not we had ever seen a moment in history similar to Trump's presidency. You often hear people say that what we're seeing is unprecedented.
But it's not completely unprecedented. There are aspects of it that are new, but in some ways, the danger that Trump was really illustrating was part of a structural problem of the Constitution itself. I wanted a book that fully explored the dangers of the Constitution. I didn't want to just illustrate the threat; I wanted to think about hope too
By then, I realized hope was not going to come from the Supreme Court. It has to be actions from the people, and that's why this is a book not just written for lawyers or judges. It's written for all Americans to try to understand that the future of our nation is in our hands
Early in “The Presidents and the People,” you argue that, since its inception, America was vulnerable to authoritarianism because of a lack of judicial precedent. Does judicial precedent result in stability?
Brettschneider: I wouldn’t say that it’s just tradition that can help create stability, but a history of democracy helps. The main argument of the book is that the traditional checks and balances don't work, and that impeachment and the Supreme Court have failed to check rogue presidents.
Our system of government is really an experiment that could have failed from the beginning. We've faced crises of democracy before, and we've recovered, but the way that we've done it is through this tradition of citizens actively reclaiming a democratic constitution.
It could be that we’re at the moment where American democracy doesn't survive. Unfortunately, that’s definitely a possibility.
You mentioned impeachment. Do you think that the impeachment process needs to be reformed?
Brettschneider: I think the process failed during Trump’s second impeachment. Obviously, he was impeached in the House, but the most important vote was the trial in the Senate, which would have disqualified Trump from running again. We wouldn't be facing the threat to democracy that we're facing now had he been convicted in the Senate.
The framers envisioned a process where we'd be nonpartisan enough to recognize when conviction was necessary. I’m open to reform within impeachment itself. But as you know, I do think the real check here is people reclaiming the constitution for themselves through elections.
Are there any modern-day examples of citizens standing up against authoritarianism?
Brettschneider: I’m often asked this. But that’s not for me to say or predict. It's something that has to just happen. Americans tuned in to the January 6 committee. They see Trump's threat to democracy in the current moment. It's not enough to just oppose Trump. It's about reclaiming a right to dissent, to equal citizenship and the idea that no person — even a president — is above the law.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision extending broad immunity for presidential actions, President Biden laid out potential reforms for the court, one of which is an 18-year term limit. Would this help preserve or restore the integrity and independence of the court?
Brettschneider: I see the point of it, but I don’t see how term limits are going to bring about a lot of change in the near future. The radical suggestions of adding justices who are going to restore some of our basic rights and get rid of some of the decisions that undermine democracy, like the immunity decision that you mentioned, are more direct reforms.
The immunity decision is what I really care about. I’m glad that Biden’s putting a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate immunity for current and former presidents on the agenda.
Before the ruling by the Court this summer, it was de facto DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president. Do you think that’s acceptable?
Brettschneider: No. The Biden administration could get rid of that policy tomorrow through an executive order. That DOJ policy can be wiped away. It’s really the legacy of the Nixon era. This has nothing to do with Trump. It’s Biden’s own failure, and I’d love to see Vice President Kamala Harris commit to the idea of removing that policy, were she to win in November.
The vice president is in charge of certifying the election per the 12th Amendment. If former Vice President Mike Pence had been harmed on January 6, you write that a constitutional crisis would have ensued. Can you take our reader through a roadmap of what would happen if a vice president were to be killed while certifying an election?
Brettschneider: January 6 wasn't just a riot at the Capitol. It was an attempt to take advantage of the weakness of the Electoral College. Now, how were they going to do that? The 12th Amendment vaguely gives the power to the vice president to certify each state’s electoral votes.
John Eastman, a (former) law professor and Trump aide, theorized that Pence could use the 12th Amendment to determine which states’ votes were valid and which weren't. The plot concocted by Eastman aimed to pressure Pence to certify the votes. If this occurred, the election would have been thrown to the House of Representatives under the rules of the Electoral College, and they thought they had the votes to win. When you had a walking threat to democracy like Donald Trump, it could have worked.
When you add in the possibility that Pence himself could have been killed during the riot, that just throws the certification of the vote into chaos. I'll repeat your point that the vice president, under the 12th Amendment, is supposed to certify the votes. What if there is no vice president? There might have been a constitutional crisis, or the vote might have gone to the House, and Trump might have pulled off a win.
Teddy Fisher is a staff writer who studies International and Public Affairs and is passionate about law, national security and sports. He enjoys playing basketball, running and reading in his free time.
