Where Have All My Constitutional Conservatives Gone?

For years, conservatives argued staunchly as defenders of two core American principles: constitutional limits on government power and the rule of law. They warned of creeping authoritarianism, condemned executive overreach, and fought to preserve the separation of powers.

In the past few months, that message has disappeared.

Since Inauguration Day, several violations of constitutional restraint have taken place. Yet those who once decried such abuses have either excused them or ignored them altogether. The same voices that once called for accountability now justify the very actions they used to oppose.

A movement that once opposed executive overreach now justifies it

Constitutional conservatives have long argued that presidents cannot bypass Congress to create new policies. And they’re right.

When Barack Obama implemented DACA through executive action, conservatives challenged it in court—and the courts were right to rule against it. The authority to create such an immigration program lies with Congress, not the president.

When Joe Biden unilaterally authorized student loan forgiveness, conservatives again challenged it—and again, the courts were right to rule against it. No president has the authority to rewrite financial obligations on their own. That power belongs to Congress.

Yet when Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to justify deporting hundreds and defied a federal judge’s order, where was the outcry?

For years, conservatives warned about the dangers of an imperial presidency. Now, many of them embrace it.

If executive overreach is unconstitutional when it expands social programs, then it’s also unconstitutional when it overrides judicial authority to deport people without due process. 

Instead of holding Trump to the same standard, many conservatives now argue that the courts should not interfere in executive matters at all. The same people who once defended judicial oversight of executive power now suggest that certain presidential actions should be beyond legal challenge.

They haven’t just abandoned their principles. They’ve rewritten them—applying a never-ending series of logic loopholes, twists, and turns to justify executive overreach when it serves their political interests.

So, where have they gone?

All I can determine is that the voices that once championed constitutional restraint have gone in three directions:

1. Some were exposed as opportunists—never truly caring about principle, only about using the Constitution as a political tool.
2. Some have gone silent—recognizing the hypocrisy but unwilling to speak out for fear of political or professional consequences.
3. Some have been pushed out—sidelined by a movement that no longer values principle over power.

The pattern is clear. If a principle is only defended when it benefits one’s own side, then it was never a principle to begin with.

The shift in principles:

Conservatism once stood for:

• Limited government
• Judicial independence
• Separation of powers

Now, it has become about:

• Expanding executive power—when it serves their goals
• Defying courts—when rulings are inconvenient
• Winning at all costs—even at the expense of established constitutional precedent and standards.

If the Constitution is an obstacle, it is ignored.
If the courts rule against them, they are dismissed as corrupt.
If legal precedent stands in the way, it is bent, stretched, or outright discarded.

This isn’t conservative – ironically, it’s a drastic liberalization of the scope of Presidential power.

Can These Principles Be Salvaged?

The principles of constitutional conservatism only matter if they are applied consistently.

• Limited government means opposing executive overreach even when politically inconvenient.
• The rule of law means respecting judicial oversight even when it doesn’t serve your agenda.
• Separation of powers means Congress—not the president—must create policy.

These values will only survive if people have the courage to challenge their own side when it drifts toward authoritarianism.

That means rejecting double standards. It means refusing to cheer for the same abuses once opposed. It means choosing principle over party, restraint over power, and law over loyalty.

Because once a movement abandons principle in favor of control, it never stops finding new ways to justify its excesses.

And if you think only your opponents will be targeted, history has a way of proving otherwise.