Nearly all cultures and religions recognize some version of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you. Fairness is the foundation of legitimate interrelationship between people.

What makes the United States special is that it was founded on the requirement that government abide by the Golden Rule. No matter how much power one might have at one’s disposal, it is granted formally and temporarily by the people, and can operate only within the bounds of written law. 

The Constitution opens with a commitment to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. All actions of the government it creates must align with that shared civic purpose. 

The Ninth Amendment adds a vital, transformational innovation: Because rights are natural and universal, and not granted at the whim of powerholders, rights need not be explicitly enumerated in written law to enjoy full protection. In other words, no human right can be violated on a technicality. 

The great innovation of American law is the requirement that no one use power against someone else in a way that is unjust or unfair. Irreversible harm to innocents is a criminal act; abuse of power is a criminal act; no one has authority to abridge the right to seek legal redress. Even the President can be prosecuted, under the Constitution, for criminal abuses.

In the 21st century, the U.S. does not stand alone in this, but in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, such comprehensive safeguards against corruption and tyranny were exceedingly rare. For that reason, and because some would let these safeguards fail to advance factional interests, it is still important to look back to that time, to understand the concerns the framers of the nation’s founding charter had about the risks of a return to tyrannical abuse of high office.

In The Federalist Papers number 47, James Madison—a future President who is recognized as the chief architect of the Constitution—wrote: 

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Presidents are not stronger, more effective, or more patriotic, when they insist on ignoring or reducing the power of the legislature and the judiciary. Lawmakers who conspire with partisans to redraw the boundaries of legislative districts to make it easier for their party to win are not upholding the Constitution. Judges who put personal ideological preferences or partisan leanings above genuine justice and the rule of law, are not serving honorably.

It is clear that Madison is also warning that if one party or ideological faction holds a majority of legislative seats and seats on the Supreme Court, as well as the Presidency, that group of people cannot simply do what they want, because of that common bond. They are, just as they would be if they were from competing factions, obliged to oppose unjust or unlawful actions attempted by their allies.

The American system of government was structured to honor in practice the fact that the American people have a right to be served by the most ethical and service-oriented leaders—even if they mistakenly elect someone who fails to meet that standard.

In the republican democracy of the United States of America, it is not possible to be a legitimate public servant if you work against equality and justice. This is clearly written: 

• The Constitution exists to “establish Justice”;
• The 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection”.

The ideological movement that describes itself as “anti-woke” and opposes efforts to foster inclusion, equity, and diversity, claims its purpose is to reduce unfairness and discrimination. In practice, however, this movement has shown itself to use that claim as cover to elevate unqualified partisans, and to promote targeted discrimination and injustice. 

Aiming for greater diversity across a range of non-elective personal traits means the process or team in question is opening up to a wider pool of talent, rather than disqualifying people who are qualified because of physical attributes they cannot control. Reducing diversity has the converse effect—narrowing the overall pool of talent and prioritizing attributes that have no bearing on ability or character. The deliberate suppression of diversity is an inherently corrupt act.

To deprive someone of a position they have earned through decades of honorable service and persistent excellence is injustice. To do so because they do not share the skin color, gender, or ideological predisposition of the current occupant of the Oval Office, defies the founding logic of the republic. It contravenes rights both written and transcendent, and it falls outside the scope of core constitutional responsibilities assigned to the office of the President of the United States.

Ideology often poses as a shortcut to freedom and justice, but it is not. Ideology is the substitution of bias for good faith problem solving. Enforcing “proper ideology”, as the Vice President has been asked to do, is direct action against freedom and justice.

Whether the President likes it or not, every human being is endowed with universal, unalienable rights, which have legal primacy over any desires he might have. The office of President does not free the officeholder from the rule of law; it makes the officeholder more subject to the law than any other person. That is the meaning of the oath.