OPINION: The Constitution - not Trump - demands our allegiance

Trump insists on unconditional personal loyalty from elected officials, federal employees and the military. Demanding such fealty is surprising from one who has taken the presidential oath of office twice, but who still remains ignorant about his duty to uphold the Constitution.

Unlike Trump, other oath-takers know or should know that unconditional, personal allegiance conflicts with their oath to support the Constitution, not the president nor any political party. Those oath-takers can see that President Trump and his administration are poised to jettison foundational principles of the American constitutional order including the separation of powers, due process and the rule of law.

Supporting the Constitution not only requires submission to constitutional authority but implies resistance to powers that are exercised unconstitutionally. Such resistance might take the form of brave individuals living up to their oath of office or courts defending the rule of law and the Constitution.

But while the Supreme Court plays a key role in interpreting the Constitution and holding a president in check, it has long been recognized that others besides the court have always been necessary to help monitor America’s constitutional order. The practice of resisting unconstitutional acts of the federal government by sounding the alarm was described by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, and that practice was often used from the beginning of our republic.

Sounding the alarm involves the people — and their state governments — identifying potential constitutional overreach by the federal government, including by the president. Sounding the alarm resistance does not invalidate the challenged measures of the federal government. Rather, sounding the alarm is intended to rally sufficient public opinion and generate political pressure to compel reconsideration of allegedly unconstitutional actions. State legislatures and individual state legislators have effectively participated in supporting grassroots movements since the 1790s to oppose unconstitutional overreaching by the federal government.

Because opposition to the Trump administration’s drastic measures is coming from blue states, it might be assumed that the call for resistance is nothing more than a partisan device without justification rooted in America’s constitutional practice. In fact, state legislative resistance to perceived overreaching by the federal government has always crossed party lines. After Federalist John Adams’ administration passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts that threatened freedom of speech, due process and freedom of the press, state legislatures mounted resistance efforts in protest. Similarly, when Republican Thomas Jefferson was president, state legislatures opposed warrantless seizures of goods and the use of state militias by the national government to enforce Jefferson’s embargo policies.

The checks and balances established by the Constitution anticipated the legitimate participation of a broader range of monitors than simply judges. From our nation’s beginning, the work of preserving and protecting the Constitution has involved state officials and the American people — along with the courts.

Compared to judicial review, sounding the alarm resistance may seem weak because it lacks the finality of a Supreme Court ruling. However, our history shows that the Court alone rarely settles the nation’s most divisive constitutional issues, especially without the broad agreement of the American people.

Sounding the alarm resistance remains a crucial part of upholding American constitutionalism. The Federal Constitution was written for the people, who are the ultimate source of legitimacy in American government. Moreover, popular sovereignty empowers the people — and their state governments — to be active in monitoring the equilibrium between the branches established by the Constitution and to challenge federal power that overreaches constitutional boundaries.

State-based resistance to perceived constitutional overreaching by the federal government has immediate relevance today and is urgently needed to challenge all unconstitutional actions of the Trump administration.