The U.S. Constitution was our founding fathers’ best effort to create a system where the “will of the people” could prevail. They established a congress of representatives of the people to provide that will. Of course, that only yielded the will of the congressional majority not of all people. Still, that was greatly preferred over the will of a monarch or ambitious president.

 

How ironic, then today, when “all the president’s men” and women quickly accuse federal judges of thwarting “the will of the people” when they rule against orders by our would-be autocrat President Donald Trump,

 

“Each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people,” proclaimed Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently.

 

It’s time to call BS on that. Without a supporting act of congress, Trump’s orders simply represent his will and that of his minions.

 

Indeed, his orders are no more the will of the people than were Joe Biden’s orders. Perhaps less. Trump won the 2024 presidential election with 49.8% of the total vote, a plurality. Biden won the 2020 election with 51.3%, a majority.

 

Our constitution represents the best example of an enduring will of the people. One month and 236 years ago, nine of 13 states ratified the new constitution putting it into effect. By 1790, the remaining states also voted to ratify thereby providing unanimous state support. Very little in government these days gets unanimous support.

 

Consider Trump’s “big beautiful bill,” his top priority. It passed the congress by the slimmest of margins yet represents the current will of the majority in congress. When implementing the bill’s provisions, Trump and minions can lay claim to the will of the people as determined constitutionally by the congress.

 

Still to come is the expected showdown between Trump and the constitution regarding Trump orders lacking congressional authority. The U.S. Supreme Court will be required to choose between Trump’s current will and the enduring will embodied in the text of the constitution.

 

Among those may be a Trump challenge to the so-called spending clause in Article I that relegates spending power to the congress; impounding funds authorized by congress would be the cause. Another may be Trump’s attempt to revise birthright citizenship as set forth in the 14th Amendment. A third could come from a Trump decision to seek a third term as president in contravention of the 22nd Amendment. And so on.

 

Let us hope that judges will continue to uphold the enduring will of the constitution.

 

Crawford is the author of “A Republican’s Lament: Mississippi Needs Good Government Conservatives.”