Why is it that the US’s vaunted constitutional protections, separations of powers and independent institutions we have heard so much about over the years have just dissolved like wet tissue?

Putting them in a Constitution, in founding documents may make them seem important and venerable. But stripped of all the historical baggage, they are like all procedures. They work because it is assumed that everyone understands their point, acts in good faith and with a modicum of good judgment (or tries to). Above all, they understand that one day they will be out of power and will need the protections they give to the powerless. It’s the “good chaps” theory of government.

There has been much fuss about the Trump’s administration’s decision to deport 300 Venezuelan gang members despite a court ruling preventing the deportation flight. The administration is paying (somewhat contemptuously, mind) some sort of lip service to the rule of law by claiming that the court order did not apply and/or that it would win in the Supreme Court. But ultimately it has decided that it will do what it wants and either suborn or ignore the courts calculating, cynically and accurately, that no-one much cares about gang members, let alone Venezuelan ones, or will inquire whether the individuals were gang members and that anyone who does is a ghastly woke liberal out of touch with the popular mood and the Democratic Will of the People. (Capital letters are usually essential in this sort of argument.)

But Trump has gone after an even more unpopular constituency: lawyers and, specifically, the Seattle-based law firm, Perkins Coie, which acted for Hillary Clinton. He has issued an Executive Order seeking to terminate any government contracts with the firm. Or any of its clients. This strikes at the freedom of individuals and businesses to choose their lawyers. The firm has got a temporary court order preventing this happening; the judge has said that the firm will likely win at full trial.

Attorneys-General in 21 states have supported the firm in amicus curiae briefings stating, “The order is a menacing message to attorneys nationwide: unless they advance positions or represent clients favourable to the current administration, their livelihood may be at risk and their patriotism will be called into question.”

The basis for the firm’s challenge is the famed constitutional protections. But if they – like so many procedures – are seen as nothing more than hurdles by people who do not accept that any rules should constrain them, then they are not enough. What happens if the administration ignores this court order too? What happens if it loses in the Supreme Court?

Rules-based orders are vulnerable when those in charge don’t care about the concept at all and are shameless enough to dare opponents to do…. well, what? Break the rules themselves to stop what is happening? Or vainly hope to shame someone by declaring they’ve broken rules they don’t believe in.

If the government does not obey court orders, why should anyone in the US (or anyone with any financial interest there) have any faith in any court ruling, contract or any law-based security of themselves or their property? Arbitrary behaviour like this creates insecurity and – ultimately – anarchy. It was Adam Smith who said that there is a great deal of a ruin in a nation. That may be so, but this administration seems determined to show that that ruin can happen very fast.

How do you deal with determined shameless narcissists who think “l’etat c’est moi” is the model to aspire to? Even the Romans’ answer to Julius Caesar didn’t bring the Republic back. The US seems to have skipped that phase and headed straight for Caligula instead.

Cyclefree