The Founders' Nightmares: 4 Presidential Guardrails on Red Alert
The Invisible Guardrails of Power
The common understanding of American presidential power begins and ends with the Constitution. We are taught that Article II lays out the president's formal authorities, while a system of checks and balances constrains them. But this is only half the story. The presidency is also governed by a powerful set of "presidential norms"—the unwritten or informal rules of political behavior that have acted for centuries as invisible guardrails on executive conduct.
These traditions, covering everything from financial ethics to respect for the justice system, are essential to the health of the republic. Yet, as one scholar noted, they are "rarely noticed until they are violated." In recent years, these norms have been tested and broken in ways that have made them startlingly visible, forcing a national reckoning with the true sources of presidential restraint.
This article explores four of the most critical guardrails—both written and unwritten—that have been challenged. By examining how historical fears have collided with modern political realities, we can reveal what these rules are, how they have been tested, and what their erosion means for the future of American democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The President Isn't an Owner, They're a 'Steward'
A foundational norm of the presidency is the view that the office is a temporary public trust, not a personal possession. This principle, known as the "Washingtonian model of Stewardship," was consciously established by the nation’s first president. George Washington created the template for a leader who serves as a:
"temporary 'steward of a cause far greater than themselves'"
His leadership was defined by a commitment to public service and precedents of restraint, from stepping down after two terms to using the pardon power on the Whiskey Rebellion leaders for national healing. This model became the bedrock of presidential conduct for over two centuries.
This tradition has been directly challenged by what one source calls the "Trumpian model of Personal Ownership." This opposing philosophy views institutions like the White House not as a public trust, but as "'personal assets, 'corporate acquisitions,' or his 'toys' to be owned and used at will.'" This philosophical break is not merely stylistic; it represents a fundamental departure from the republican principles that have guided the executive office since its inception, setting the stage for direct challenges to both formal and informal limits on presidential power.
2. A Founder's Chilling Prophecy About the Pardon Power Came True
The Constitution's pardon power was intended as a tool for mercy and national healing, but the Founders were deeply afraid of its potential for abuse. During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason of Virginia issued a chillingly specific warning, predicting a president might misuse the power:
"to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime."
For most of American history, this remained a theoretical fear. However, the use of clemency by President Donald Trump was described by Jack Goldsmith, Director of the Office of Legal Counsel in the George W. Bush administration, as a "systematically self-serving use of the pardon power." This behavior is a direct consequence of the "Personal Ownership" model, where the power is seen as a personal tool for reward and protection rather than a public trust for national healing.
Examples include offering "pardon dangles" to discourage figures like Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort from cooperating with federal investigators. The Mueller Report specifically identified this as an improper use of the power intended to "induce people to testify falsely or not to testify at all." Most directly, his pardoning of January 6th insurrectionists was seen as shielding from punishment individuals who had committed crimes on his behalf, fulfilling Mason’s prophecy with stunning precision and threatening to undermine the entire legal system.
3. A President's Personality Can Be Quantified—And It Predicts Their Actions
It may be surprising to learn that a president's personality traits can be quantitatively measured and compared, offering a data-driven framework for understanding their actions. Analysis of President Trump’s psychological profile reveals a significant outlier among his predecessors. According to source material, he scored:
"six standard deviations over the norm for Distrust of Others"
"two standard deviations over the norm for Need for Power"
Most strikingly, his hostile "'master beliefs' align much more closely with rogue leaders like Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein than with mainstream American presidents." These are not just abstract numbers; they create a direct, causal link to specific norm-breaking actions. This extreme distrust is not an abstract trait; it is the direct psychological root of his demand for personal "loyalty" from the FBI Director and his attacks on the Justice Department, fostering a "highly conflict-oriented worldview" that rejects independent institutions. This data-driven perspective moves beyond partisan opinion to offer a psychological explanation for a systematic pattern of behavior that challenges the norms of presidential conduct.
4. The Legislature's Ultimate Weapon Isn't Impeachment, It's Money
The Founders believed Congress’s most powerful check on the executive branch was not impeachment, but its exclusive authority over government spending. James Madison called this "power of the purse" the legislature's:
"'most complete and effectual weapon'"
The Trump administration mounted a "two-pronged assault" on this foundational constitutional power, an action consistent with a leadership profile scoring high on "Need for Power" and a desire to "manipulate the environment." The assault came from two directions simultaneously:
Spending Unappropriated Funds: The administration illegally reprogrammed billions from the Defense Department for a border wall after Congress had explicitly rejected the funding, violating the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Withholding Appropriated Funds: The administration illegally withheld hundreds of millions in military aid to Ukraine that Congress had lawfully approved, violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This dual challenge is profoundly significant. A president who can both spend money without congressional approval and refuse to spend money that has been approved faces, as one source warns, "'no limits to the budgetary powers possessed by the president.'" Such a scenario effectively nullifies Congress’s most complete and effectual weapon, realizing the Founders’ fear of an executive unbound by legislative control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Are the Guardrails Permanently Broken?
The systematic challenge to both the formal laws in the Constitution and the unwritten norms of the presidency has left the office less constrained than at any point in modern history. From the weaponization of the pardon power to the nullification of congressional authority, the guardrails designed to ensure accountability have been severely weakened.
This erosion culminated in the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, which granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts." The ruling was driven not by originalism but by a "pragmatic fear of the 'criminalization of politics.'" This stands in stark contrast to the Founders' intent, as Alexander Hamilton took it for granted in the Federalist Papers that a former president could be prosecuted. It also breaks with the modern consensus from the Watergate era, where President Nixon's own lawyers agreed a former president was subject to the law—the very premise that made President Ford's pardon necessary.
The dissenting justices issued a stark warning that this ruling risks making the president like a "king," placing him above the law. These events force us to confront a difficult question. Are the constitutional guardrails on presidential power simply "more fragile than once believed," or have recent events permanently broken them? The answer will define the nature of the American presidency for generations to come.