GUARDRAILS AGAINST DICTATORSHIP

Dictatorship rarely arrives in tanks or fiery speeches; it seeps in subtly, cloaked in appeals to security, order, and democracy itself. History brims with elected leaders who overstayed their welcome. They don’t seize authority overnight but chip away at restraints, weakening institutional checks until the presidency itself swells beyond its intended scope.

The rise of authoritarianism in 20th-century Europe—Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin—illustrates the peril of unchecked executive ambition. Each leader exploited crises: economic disasters, political upheaval, social anxiety. Yet none acted alone. Fragile institutions, complicit elites, and exhausted, fearful citizens enabled them. As Hannah Arendt cautioned in The Origins of Totalitarianism, authoritarianism feeds not only on overt oppression but on civic disengagement and resignation.

Today’s threats echo past alarms: attacks on independent media, demonizing opponents, weakening election integrity, undermining courts. Authoritarians manipulate law, claiming democratic legitimacy even as they corrode it. Legal technicalities often obscure their moves, allowing dangerous expansions of presidential power to appear ordinary or even necessary.

But authoritarianism also exploits psychological needs. Erich Fromm, in Escape from Freedom, described how individuals trade autonomy for the illusion of certainty and stability. Authoritarian leaders thrive by promising decisive action in exchange for obedience. The presidency becomes a locus of psychological dependency, conflating national identity with one individual’s will.

Democracy, however, demands vigilance. The assumption “it can’t happen here” invites disaster. Democracies rarely collapse abruptly; they wither gradually from neglect, manipulation, and the incremental normalization of abuses. To survive, democracy must reject passivity and institutionalize active civic engagement.

This vigilance means countering executive overreach explicitly. America’s founding was deeply skeptical of concentrated authority. Contrary to the so-called Unitary Executive theory—which wrongly posits the president as embodying the entire executive branch—the Constitution deliberately divides authority. The presidency must remain a tightly bounded office, balanced rigorously by other institutional powers and constant citizen oversight.

Yet current structural weaknesses allow excessive presidential power. The president’s role is narrowly defined by the Constitution as chief administrator and commander-in-chief during wartime—not as an omnipotent executive above scrutiny. The theory that the president singularly controls the executive branch dangerously distorts governance, opening doors to unchecked authority.

This distortion has real consequences. A rogue president, if shielded by politicized officials or complicit institutions, faces little physical accountability. Federal courts can rule presidential acts unconstitutional—but courts lack an enforcement arm. Without a concrete mechanism for enforcement, even the strongest judicial rebukes remain symbolic. Therefore, democracy requires an explicit, enforceable “ejector seat” for presidents who abuse power.

This means not only impeachment, which can falter politically, but additional constitutional or legislative provisions enabling Congress and courts to physically enforce compliance when a president refuses legal orders. Such provisions might involve temporarily transferring critical enforcement powers—such as control of security forces or law enforcement—from the presidency to a nonpartisan oversight body when presidential defiance occurs. The goal: immediate, enforceable consequences for ignoring judicial authority or congressional directives.

Moreover, democracy cannot rely on political courage alone. Systematic checks must include civilian control over all federal enforcement agencies—separated explicitly from direct presidential command when constitutional boundaries are breached. The military and federal law enforcement agencies must have clear, constitutionally codified mandates forbidding their use in presidential power struggles, ensuring loyalty to democratic processes rather than personal allegiance to one leader.

Presidential term limits must be strictly enforced without loopholes or manipulation. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency prompted America’s 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms. But additional safeguards are required to prevent subtle extensions of influence—such as family succession or informal networks of power that perpetuate presidential agendas.

Beyond institutions, democracy demands a robust civic culture. Civic education emphasizing constitutional limits on executive authority, critical thinking, and historical awareness is essential. Timothy Snyder, in On Tyranny, argues democracy is learned behavior, continually defended by informed citizens.

Power, left unchecked, corrupts. Taoism wisely teaches that strength arises from balance, not domination. An excessively powerful presidency embodies imbalance, rigidly attempting control where flexibility and responsiveness are needed. Democracies survive by empowering institutions to constantly recalibrate power toward equilibrium.

Direct democracy initiatives like Switzerland’s frequent referendums or Iceland’s citizen-led constitutional revisions after 2008 highlight effective strategies. Citizen engagement directly limits presidential temptation toward authoritarianism, acting as preventive medicine against democratic decay.

Today’s threats, however, are immediate. In the current U.S. context, particularly during Donald Trump’s second term, escalating presidential power alarms citizens. Administration-driven attacks on institutional independence underscore the urgency of stronger presidential constraints. Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with access to sensitive government operations, further demonstrates dangers inherent when unelected figures gain executive influence beyond oversight or accountability.

Therefore, under Folklaw:

The presidency shall be explicitly limited to prevent authoritarian drift. The so-called Unitary Executive theory is rejected; executive power resides broadly across independent agencies, each accountable directly to law rather than presidential whim.

Executive term limits will be strictly enforced, barring any form of indirect extension of presidential influence. Judicial independence will be constitutionally safeguarded, with courts explicitly empowered—via constitutionally codified mechanisms—to enforce compliance physically against presidential noncompliance, aided by a politically independent civilian body overseeing federal enforcement agencies when necessary.

All federal law enforcement and military units will operate under civilian control separate from presidential direction whenever constitutional violations are determined judicially or legislatively, preventing misuse of force for political ends. Transparent, enforceable mechanisms to physically remove presidents defying lawful directives will be institutionalized clearly, swiftly triggered by independent judicial rulings.

Electoral integrity and media freedom will be constitutionally secured, removing presidential ability to control narratives or manipulate elections. Civic education will emphasize constitutional limits on presidential authority, empowering citizens to detect and actively resist authoritarian encroachment through informed participation.

Thus, democracy’s resilience depends explicitly upon limiting presidential power structurally, culturally, and institutionally—ensuring no president can undermine democracy from within.