is Is the President of the United States exempt from the rule the law?

Is the President of the United States allowed to exempt himself from the requirements of laws applicable to other – ordinary – people?

“Narcissistic individuals also use power and entitlement as evidence of superiority… As a means of demonstrating their power, narcissists may alter boundaries, make unilateral decisions, control others, and determine exceptions to rules that apply to other, ordinary people.” (Beck, 2004, 251)

The President, among all citizens, is NOT above the law.  The rule of law is a sacrosanct foundational principle of our democracy.  Our government is led by an elected leader, not a unilateral strong-man dictatorship.

We have all marveled at Donald Trump’s admiration of strong-man dictators, from Vladimir Putin, to Saddam Hussein, to Kim Jong Un.   Why does he admire dictators who are unconstrained by the rule of law in the exercise of their power?

“Out of their vehement certainty of judgment, boundary violations of all sorts may occur, as narcissists are quite comfortable taking control and dictating orders (“I know what’s right for them”) but quite uncomfortable accepting influence from others” (Beck, 2004, p. 251)

It is incredibly dangerous to the foundational principles of our democracy and freedoms, for the President to believe himself exempt from the rule of law.  The very fabric of our nation is based on the rule of law applied across all Americans, including and especially our elected officials, including and especially the President.

“Another conditional assumption of power is the belief of exemption from normal rules and laws, even the laws of science and nature.” (Beck, 2004, p. 251-252)

In a Washington Post article entitled, Donald Trump’s ‘first attempt to ignore the law’ (1/10/17), Aaron Blake interviews Washington University government ethics expert Kathleen Clark, regarding Donald Trump’s appointment of his son-in-law as a senior White House advisor in seeming violation of government anti-nepotism laws.  In this article, Ms. Clark states,

“I see this as Trump’s first attempt to ignore the law, act in violation of the law, and he’s going to see if he can get away with it. We have a statute that names the president, that names the son-in-law relationship, that Congress identified a problem and enacted a statute prohibiting a president from hiring a son-in-law. President-elect Trump, in my view, is testing the waters to see if he can get away with violating what I would call this government ethics provision.” (Washington Post, 1/10/17)

As a psychologist, I am prohibited by professional standards imposed on me by the American Psychological Association from providing “opinions on the psychological characteristics of individuals” unless I have conducted an “examination” of the individual.

My questions to my professional colleagues, and to the American Civil Liberties Union, are:

As a public political figure, has the President expressly and voluntarily exposed his psychological characteristics for public scrutiny and comment, waiving the need for a personal “examination” as the basis for an opinion?

Do the public statements and public actions by the President of the United States, as a public political figure, represent a de facto “examination” on which to base opinions regarding the psychological characteristics of the President?

And if I, uniquely among my fellow Americans, am prohibited from commenting on the psychological characteristics of the President of the United States, does this violate my rights of free speech in a democracy through limiting my ability to bring full persuasive power of reasoned argument to the political discourse?

Can I say that the President is arrogant.  No.  Arrogance is a “psychological characteristic,” and I cannot express an opinion regarding the President’s psychological characteristic of arrogance without conducting a personal “examination” of the President to determine if he is arrogant. 

All other Americans can say that the President is arrogant.  I am not allowed to say that because I have knowledge directly applicable to discussion surrounding this characteristic.

Can I say that the President is thin-skinned in response to criticism?  No.  Being thin-skinned is a a “psychological characteristic,” and I cannot express an opinion regarding the President’s psychological characteristic of being thin-skinned without conducting a personal “examination” of the President to determine if he is thin-skinned in response to criticism. 

All other Americans can say that the President is thin-skinned in response to criticism.  I am not allowed to say that because I have knowledge directly applicable to discussion surrounding this characteristic.

I am prevented by my professional organization from engaging in the political discourse in a free democracy because I have knowledge directly applicable to the nature of discourse.  I am therefore prevented by my professional organization from bringing the full power of reasoned persuasive argument to my political opinions.

Since I am a psychologist with knowledge about psychopathology, I will not offer an opinion regarding the psychological characteristics of the President.  Yet as a faithful and loyal American, the dangers to the foundational principles of our democracy and freedoms are clear and demand that I speak in their defense.

I cite the professional literature.  I leave it to the reader to decide if the professional literature applies to the actions and statements of the President of the United States because I have not conducted a personal “examination” of the President, so I am prohibited from commenting on the psychological characteristics of the President.

The United States is a nation of law.  No one is above the law.  No one is exempt from the rule of law.  

According to Beck, the narcissistic personality “may alter boundaries, make unilateral decisions, control others, and determine exceptions to rules that apply to other, ordinary people.” (Beck, 2004, 251).

There comes a time when all faithful and loyal Americans must speak up in defense of our freedoms.  The evenly applied rule of law is a sacrosanct principle of our democracy and our freedoms.  Donald Trump represents an existential threat to the foundations of our democracy and liberties.

I could explain why I hold this opinion, but I am prevented by my professional organization from bringing the full persuasive power of reasoned argument to the political discourse because I have knowledge.

Yet, for me, the threat to the foundational principles of our free and democratic society is real, and time has come to speak with the full persuasive power of reasoned argument in the defense of our liberties .

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857

From Theodore Millon:

“Under conditions of unrelieved adversity and failure, narcissists may decompensate into paranoid disorders.  Owing to their excessive use of fantasy mechanisms, they are disposed to misinterpret events and to construct delusional beliefs.  Unwilling to accept constraints on their independence and unable to accept the viewpoints of others, narcissists may isolate themselves from the corrective effects of shared thinking.  Alone, they may ruminate and weave their beliefs into a network of fanciful and totally invalid suspicions.  Among narcissists, delusions often take form after a serious challenge or setback has upset their image of superiority and omnipotence.  They tend to exhibit compensatory grandiosity and jealousy delusions in which they reconstruct reality to match the image they are unable or unwilling to give up.  Delusional systems may also develop as a result of having felt betrayed and humiliated.  Here we may see the rapid unfolding of persecutory delusions and an arrogant grandiosity characterized by verbal attacks and bombast.” (Millon, 2011, pp. 407-408).