Fact check: How many presidents in US history have been accused of constitutional violations?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, no source offers a comprehensive count of how many U.S. presidents have been accused of constitutional violations throughout history. However, the sources do identify at least two presidents who have faced such accusations:

• Donald Trump - Multiple sources document accusations of constitutional violations, with courts ruling that he violated the law ^[1]. Sources describe his actions as "violating the law and the U.S. Constitution" ^[2] and acting "unconstitutionally" with "impunity" ^[3].
• Barack Obama - One source specifically lists "10 ways Obama violated the Constitution during his presidency," suggesting systematic constitutional violations during his tenure ^[4].

The Supreme Court's recent decision granting presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office could potentially lead to more presidents being accused of constitutional violations in the future ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question seeks a historical count, but the analyses reveal significant gaps in comprehensive historical coverage:

• No historical scope: The sources focus primarily on recent presidents (Trump and Obama) without examining earlier presidencies like those of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton - all of whom faced impeachment proceedings that involved constitutional questions.
• Definitional ambiguity: The sources don't distinguish between formal accusations (such as impeachment articles), court rulings, scholarly critiques, or political allegations of constitutional violations.
• Partisan perspectives: The sources appear to come from organizations with specific political orientations. The American Civil Liberties Union and American Progress sources focus heavily on Trump's alleged violations ^{[5] [3]}, while another source specifically targets Obama's presidency ^[4].
• Legal vs. political accusations: The analyses don't differentiate between legally substantiated violations versus political accusations that may lack judicial backing.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it assumes a definitive answer exists when the available sources demonstrate this information is:

• Incomplete: The analyses show that comprehensive historical data on presidential constitutional violations is not readily available or systematically documented.
• Politically charged: The sources focusing on specific presidents suggest that accusations of constitutional violations are often partisan weapons rather than objective legal assessments.
• Context-dependent: What constitutes a "constitutional violation" varies significantly - from formal impeachment charges to academic criticism to court rulings - yet the sources don't establish clear criteria.

The question's framing may inadvertently promote the idea that constitutional violations by presidents are easily quantifiable, when the reality appears far more complex and politically contested based on the available analyses.