The Constitution and its amendments are documents that seek to protect democracy from the threats that abuse power, prioritize one group above another, or disrupt the balance of power between branches of government — including the removal of checks on the executive branch. In recent history, we have seen examples of countries where representative governments have crumbled, such as in Venezuela and in the Philippines, among others, as legal and political checks on leaders were chipped away, one by one.
The drafters of the Constitution predicted this weakness of human nature and structured the Constitution to protect against any person or group taking too much power from the people of the United States. The laws and principles outlined in the Constitution were designed to protect and prevent the U.S. from gradually blurring the lines between democracy and authoritarianism — where a leader or group takes opportunistic steps to hold more authority than what is laid out in our Constitution.
Rule of law
Healthy democracies honor the rule of law and strive to abide by its principles. These principles, when honored, allow the government to serve the common good and protect citizens from consistent patterns of abuse of authority. The Constitution embodies the rule of law — discussed at length by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78 — that no one, not even a president, is above the law.
More specifically, the rule of law is a principle under which all people, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are openly distributed to the people, enforced equally on all citizens, adjudicated by an independent judicial branch, and respectful of guaranteed individual rights. Healthy democracies abide by a respect for constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and their laws being enforced equally — even against powerful and popular leaders. In a stable democracy, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges act in accordance with their sworn oath, independent from the undue influence of politicians.
Abuse of power
U.S. presidents are entrusted with powers that they alone can employ.
The Constitution allowed for these individual powers with the assumption that parties and voters would elect the most ethical candidates wanting to serve all citizens within their constituency. However, even the founders knew the possibility for corruption was real, and, consequently, they created checks and balances within a three-branch system that still operates today.
Independent adjudication
The Justice Department’s role is to uphold the rule of law. Even though it is part of the executive branch, the Justice Department strives to act independently from politics because of the rule of law. This provides vital protection against abuse of power.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has fallen short of this ideal on multiple occasions.
The investigation into the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s revealed blatant abuses of the Justice Department by President Richard Nixon, specifically his directing the department to investigate his political enemies. A president or political leader directing the Justice Department to target their political enemies is a clear breach of the rule of law and an example of weaponizing the department for political gain.
The rule of law keeps the powers of government in check. In the case of Nixon, the rule of law prevailed, and guardrail policies were put in place to avoid future abuses of power by the executive branch. The department’s mission statement today identifies upholding the rule of law as the first duty.
An independent prosecutorial service also ensures it can investigate and prosecute political actors and leaders if needed. Kristy Parker, a prosecutor at Protect Democracy, declares, “In our rule-of-law based system, it is wrong to use the power of law enforcement to retaliate against a political opponent, but it is equally wrong to refrain from investigating or prosecuting someone because of their political status.”
Here lies the balance designed in a rule-of-law-based concept: It is not the responsibility of the Justice Department to consider political status or the ramifications of prosecution or investigation on partisan politics. Its core priority is independently enforcing and upholding the rule of law equally while also being accountable to the president as part of the executive branch.
Equally enforced laws for political actors
Under a rule of law system, the laws are equally enforced, and no one, not even a president, member of Congress, or judge is above the law. Holding high-ranking officials accountable for crimes and law violations accords with the principles of the rule of law and is commonplace in democracies, including the U.S.
Politicians are held accountable to the law just like everyone else, and it is the responsibility of law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of committing a federal offense. Ultimately, it is improper for the Justice Department to refuse a prosecution based on partisan politics, and it is equally improper to initiate a prosecution based on partisan politics — all prosecutions must be motivated by facts and the law.
However, Article 2 of the Constitution recognizes the president’s “unrivaled gravity and breadth” of duties. In the 2024 Trump v. United States 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the president is immune from criminal “prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” In other words, the court, for the first time, ruled that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official presidential acts. The 2024 ruling states that this decision protects presidential decisions from being distorted by the threat of future litigation. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
The American Bar Association’s “Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function” train prosecutors to practice “independent judgment in the performance of prosecution function.” They also state: “A prosecutor should not use improper considerations, such as partisan or political considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion.” It is the responsibility of local and federal prosecutors to charge cases based on facts and law while avoiding improper political and partisan considerations.
“. . . in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
In a rule of law system, the government has the responsibility of upholding the law, protecting the rights of citizens, and preventing abuses of power. But the citizens also have the responsibility of abiding by the law. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ 12th Article of Faith declares, “We believe in obeying kings, rulers, presidents, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
As Latter-day Saints attempting to live this article of faith, we are law-abiding women. We aspire to live among each other and those outside of our faith in peace. Part of living peaceably requires that we obey, honor, and sustain the law. Exercising our constitutionally guaranteed political rights, like speech and assembly, are one way we honor the law. In this way, we become part of the oversight mechanisms considered by the drafters of the Constitution.
A healthy democracy like the U.S. strives to honor the principles of the rule of law. In the event that one person, group, state, or branch of government abuses its power or tries to take too much power, there are guardrails in place to keep political power balanced and our political leaders from authoritarian rule. When the U.S. has fallen short of the ideals laid out in the rule of law and political leaders have broken laws, abused authority, and weaponized the government, these oversights have taken effect and the rule of law has prevailed.
The importance of maintaining a vision of the rule of law and honoring the oversights, guardrails, and policies must be observed, because the future of our government and maintaining democracy is more important than any one political actor.
This article was written by Natasha Rogers and Sherilyn Stevenson, researchers and writers for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.