Do Presidents Need to Know About the Constitution?

One of my political science mentors suggested that before walking out onto the West Portico of the U.S. Capitol to take the Oath of Office, every president-elect should be required to sit down and write out the entire Constitution.  This would guarantee the new president had familiarity with what he or she was about to swear an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend.”

That seemed like a fanciful proposal.  I wondered how important doing this really is - until recently.  In an interview with President Trump by NBC’s Kristen Welker, the following exchange took place:

 KRISTEN WELKER:

Your secretary of state says everyone who’s here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?                                               

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.                                               

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.                                               

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials.                                  

KRISTEN WELKER:

But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?                                               

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. 

A president who says “I don’t know” about his responsibility to uphold the Constitution and also seems to lack understanding of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments should give us great pause. A president should not leave that up to his lawyers, whose desire may be to find a way to make “legal” whatever he wants to do.

Later in the interview the President, who has floated the possibility of a third term, also seemed unclear about the 22nd Amendment:

KRISTEN WELKER: 

Are you seriously considering a third term, Mr. President, even though it’s prohibited by the Constitution?                                                

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else.

The Constitution names three requirements to be eligible for the presidency: be a natural born citizen, at least 35 and a resident for at least 14 years.  Understanding the Constitution is not required.  In the early years of the republic, that knowledge was undoubtedly assumed as candidates were present at the creation and prominent architects of the Constitutional system. Electors for president were chosen by state legislatures (the “people” were not trusted with this important task) who also understood the Constitution.

Today all eligible citizens get to run for office and vote, so the assumption of Constitutional understanding is debatable.  One survey found that only 39 percent of adult citizens can pass the civics test required of immigrants seeking naturalization. Only 22 percent of eighth graders in 2022 scored at or above the “proficient” level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress civics test.  Just 45 percent correctly understood how the Electoral College works.   

The need to understand the Constitution and its demands on public officials is central to preserving democracy, yet candidates for the highest offices in both the legislative and executive branches are almost never tested by reporters, debate moderators or their opponents to demonstrate such understanding.  Similarly nominees for presidential appointments, who take the same oath, are rarely subjected to rigorous tests of their Constitutional knowledge. The supposition that people who’ve risen to prominence already know this is belied by the test results of students, many adults and, sadly, the current president.

The only way to test this knowledge is through oral examination. There is no guarantee that written responses to questions would be prepared by the candidate/nominee instead of their lawyers.  Such a test could be conducted in a debate, interviews by reporters and/or, for nominees, congressional committee hearings.  The flavor of such an oral examination is illustrated here by sample questions for a presidential candidate.  The focus is not on policy or “hot” topics usually asked in such venues, often to generate juicy sound bites, but by specific questions about the Constitution:

·       In the Federalist Papers, James Madison described the Constitution as a response to the danger of the tyranny of the majority.   What did he mean, and how does the Constitution address this problem?

·       What is your understanding of the 5th and 14th Amendments and how will they guide you in your official duties?

·       What does it mean for you as presidet, as stipulated in the Constitution, to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed?”

·       How do you interpret the Tenth Amendment and how will that shape your presidency?

Americans take pride that any child can grow up to be the president.  That does not mean that anyone should be without a sound understanding of the Constitution.

Photo Credit: Anthony Garand - unsplash