Stephen Miller’s recent on-air “glitch” when uttering “plenary authority” sent shivers down the spines of many, and for good reason. While CNN quickly attributed it to “crossed wires,” the incident sparked a crucial national conversation about the very foundations of American democracy. This isn’t just about a technical hiccup; it’s about a concept that, if unchecked, could fundamentally alter the balance of power enshrined in our Constitution.
The Need to Know: What is “Plenary Authority”?
“Plenary authority” refers to power that is wide-ranging, broadly construed, and often limitless for all practical purposes. In the U.S. context, “plenary power” is most often associated with the legislative branch, particularly Congress, and its control over specific issues like interstate commerce, immigration, and Indian affairs. For example, under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), Congress holds plenary power to regulate commerce among the states.
However, the idea of a single leader, like the President, wielding such absolute power is antithetical to the democratic principles of our constitutional government. Our system is built on the separation of powers and a robust system of checks and balances precisely to prevent any one branch from holding unchecked authority.
Stephen Miller’s Statement vs. Supreme Court Precedent
Stephen Miller’s assertion that the President has “plenary authority” to deploy the National Guard under Title 10 of the U.S. Code directly clashes with the established understanding of executive power and Supreme Court rulings.
Miller’s Claim: Miller suggested that the President possesses absolute power in deploying the National Guard, even in defiance of judicial orders. His statement implied a presidential authority that bypasses constitutional limitations and the separation of powers.
Supreme Court on Plenary Power: While the Supreme Court, notably in cases like Gibbons v. Ogden, has interpreted Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce” broadly, affirming its “plenary” nature in specific legislative domains, this has never extended to granting the President absolute, unchecked authority. The Court has consistently upheld the principle that presidential power is constrained by the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. For instance, the Insurrection Act, which outlines conditions for presidential deployment of military forces, is subject to legal and procedural requirements. Courts have, in fact, rejected executive claims of plenary authority when these conditions were not met.
The critical distinction is that Congress’s plenary power is derived from specific constitutional grants and is still subject to judicial review and constitutional limitations. The President’s authority, on the other hand, is executive in nature and is explicitly checked by the legislative and judicial branches. Miller’s statement, therefore, suggests a dangerous overreach of executive power that is not supported by constitutional law or Supreme Court precedent.
Take-Aways for American Culture
- Vigilance is Key: The incident serves as a stark reminder that the language used by those in power matters. We must remain vigilant and question assertions of absolute authority, especially when they contradict the spirit and letter of our Constitution.
- Understanding Our Constitution: A strong understanding of constitutional principles, particularly the separation of powers and checks and balances, is essential for every citizen. This knowledge empowers us to identify and resist attempts to undermine our democratic institutions.
- The Power of Public Discourse: The widespread online discussion and scrutiny following Miller’s statement demonstrate the vital role of public discourse and a free press in holding power accountable.
Implications for American Culture: Protecting Our Constitution Under Direct Threat
When figures in power hint at “plenary authority” for the executive, it sends a chilling echo of authoritarian regimes where leaders operate with minimal restrictions. This directly threatens the core tenets of American culture: liberty, justice, and a government accountable to its people.
The “No Kings” protests that emerged in response to similar sentiments from the Trump administration underscore the deep-seated American aversion to unchecked power. Our history is a testament to the struggle against tyranny, and our Constitution is the ultimate safeguard against it.
Call to Action: Now, more than ever, we must actively engage in protecting our Constitution. This means:
- Educating ourselves and others about our constitutional rights and the structure of our government.
- Demanding accountability from our elected officials and challenging any rhetoric or actions that seek to consolidate power.
- Supporting institutions that uphold the rule of law and defend civil liberties.
The “glitch” may have been quickly dismissed, but the underlying sentiment it revealed demands our unwavering attention. The future of our constitutional republic depends on our collective commitment to its principles.
Sources:
- Stephen Miller Sparks Suspicion After ‘Glitch’ on CNN When He Mentioned ‘Plenary Authority’
- What is plenary authority, the phrase that caused Stephen Miller to freeze up during CNN interview?
- Stephen Miller’s ‘Plenary Authority’ Remark Raises Eyebrows
- plenary authority
- Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
- The State Origins of Federal Plenary Power
