The precedents that made Trump possible

(sources available upon demand)

(From Wikipedia)

To put it mildly, Donald Trump has been quite a controversial figure since he (re)became president. His supporters praise his bold actions as “necessary”, while his opponents decry them as foul and even unconstitutional.
Sadly, had Trump been a Democrat and acted the same, the supporters and detractors would have made a 180 on their position at the exact same time. But there is no need to speculate on that sudden change since most presidents committed impeachable offenses and got away with it, leaving the field wide open from Trump and his successors.

Just look at his recent attacks on alleged drug boats using the “Department of War” arsenal. There has yet to be proof released that they indeed contained drugs, that they were heading to the US and that they were a genuine threat. The Vice-President’s very chilling attitude about accusations of an extrajudicial killing should sadly surprise no one. Barack Obama set the precedent when a drone strike from his administration killed Anwar al-Awlaki (and Trump’s killed his little sister), a US citizen, without any sort of due process since he was “collateral” damage.
Those alleged drug-carrying boats floated off the coast of Venezuela, which Secretary Pete Hegseth doesn’t exclude from a regime-change operation. Should it go forward, it would perpetuate the sad “tradition” on US meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. It betrays many of the founding fathers’ principle of non-intervention in such affairs that were of no concern for US interests – an actual “America first” policy.

A Sith Attitude toward the Judiciary

Another worrying “tradition” the Trump administration is keeping alive is railing against decisions he doesn’t like from the judiciary branch – even defying them – especially when it comes to deporting immigrants or freezing appropriated funds.
Yet another freedom he’s taking because past politicians failed to stop a president acting in similar ways. Joe Biden openly defied a Supreme Court’s decision and used all sorts of legal contortions to keep canceling student debts. Richard Nixon, on his side, withheld funds from programs he didn’t like. It nearly triggered a constitutional crisis – Congress controls the purse – that ended in a law that created, among others, created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

However, the pinnacle of the “You’re with me or against me” attitude goes to Franklin Roosevelt. His New Deal created all sorts of economic control that the constitution never gave the government. So when it was struck down by the Supreme Court, he intended to “pack the court” with more judges as to dilute the influence of those who peskily applied checks and balance to his actions. Even to this day, many Democrats resort to this idea whenever the present “conservative” court comes to a decision they don’t like – forgetting that Republicans will one day nominate those judges.

You’re not Welcome Here

Finally, going back to immigration, Trump’s actions on the matter shouldn’t come as a surprise. Not only has he constantly campaigned on expulsing “illegals” for all three of his campaigns, but he’s just repeating what several of his (would-be) predecessors campaigned on/acted upon.
Just look at Obama, many of whom nicknamed the deporter-in-chief. Using who would become Trump’s immigration czar, he deported nearly three million people out of the country, himself using laws enacted by W Bush, for supposed national security reasons, and (Bill) Clinton, who restricted immigrants’ defense. And on the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary didn’t seem to show much more mercy, although she softened her stance in 2016.
This immigration problem is certainly a bipartisan once since, for far too long, immigrating to the US has been nearly impossible. I can certainly attest to it; without the repel of DOMA, I had absolutely no way to become a citizen of the US. A situation two of my colleagues at work, even after ten years, are still facing.

In short, as long as presidents and Congress are not held accountable for their questionable actions, they will keep acting recklessly and ignore the constitution when it pleases them. We need to take off our partisanship blinders and realize that both main sides of the isle violate the constitution, and that cheering your team when they do it will make you regret it when the other one does it.
Otherwise, we’ll eternally get stuck in a vicious cycle where presidents arbitrarily restrict gun rights without due process, believe that the three branches of government are a pen, a paper and a telephone and commit acts of war without Congressional approval. And use the Justice department to go after political opponents.