The United States has been around for 250 years. It has proven to be resilient, surviving a horrific civil war, a number of deep depressions, and numerous eruptions of racial violence. An admirable achievement for a nation of such divergent regions and people.

The achievement results in large part from the founding fathers creation of a division of powers. In their wisdom, they wrote a constitution that established three independent branches of government: a legislature for law-making, a presidency to administer the law, and a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. The branches would balance out the power of government and serve as checks on each other.

The greatest potential for a breakdown in the balance has been the presidency. Giving one man presidential power is always a risk. Men crave power and given a little are inclined to seek more. Fortunately, Congress (the legislature) and the Supreme Court have generally fulfilled their roles of curbing presidents who found the constitution too confining.

But the nation suddenly faces a perfect political storm. Coincidence has conspired against the republic. The most authoritarian president in the country’s history has arrived just at a time when the Court strongly supports a unitary president.

Both houses of Congress have majorities from the president’s own party. And never has a party more obsequiously supported its leader. As for the Court, three of its members were appointed by this very president in his first term (as if in preparation for his second term.)

This ultra-conservative Court accepts the “unitary executive theory” which accords broad powers to the president. Most members consider themselves “originalists,” that is they believe the constitution must be interpreted exactly as the founders originally intended. And they insist the founders intended such a powerful president.

At least one constitutional scholar begs to differ. And not just any constitutional scholar. Professor Caleb Nelson, who teaches at the University of Virginia, is himself a prominent originalist, and he states that the founders had no such intention.

On the contrary, he insists that the constitution gives Congress broad authority over the executive branch. He points out that, “more than one [founding father] warned against interpreting the Constitution in the expectation that all presidents would have the sterling character of George Washington.” Donald Trump clearly does not.

Professor Nelson warns about “legalizing the full exertion of a tyrannical disposition” and expresses concern that the Court “appears to be moving toward a sweepingly pro-president position.”

So there it is. A sweepingly pro-president Supreme Court coincides with a president of tyrannical disposition. The world watches and lays odds on whether the noble American experiment with republican government will stand or fall.