On Wednesday, the Obama administration confirmed for the first time that four American citizens had been killed by drone strikes. In a letter sent by Attorney General Eric Holder to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Holder acknowledged that the government had ordered a specific attack on one American, while the three others were killed in strikes, but were not specifically targeted.

In September 2011, American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric, was killed when he was specifically targeted in a drone strike in Yemen; another American, Samir Khan, was also killed in the attack. Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, also an American, was killed in a strike two weeks later. Finally, Jude Kenan Mohammad, who was once on the fbi’s Most Wanted list, was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, though the precise date of his death remains unspecified.

Even though the deaths of these individuals were reported by the media, Holder’s letter is the first admission of responsibility by the government. Before now, the government refused to confirm or deny its involvement. Holder said the president had told him to release these details which had, up to this point, been classified.

This admission by the government came one day before President Obama held a press conference on counterterrorism and addressed the use of drones. In his speech he prefaced his continued support for drone strikes by saying that he much preferred the capture and prosecution of terrorists. However, he gave no indication of discontinuing the use of drones.

The arguments he posed for the continued use of drones certainly made sense. It does seem reasonable that if you have the chance to prevent a known attack on your country by taking out a threat—to get him before he gets you—you should. President Obama certainly would have been, as he said, “derelict in [his] duties” if he had not taken the actions he had. Through carefully worded arguments, President Obama did seem to justify his actions. Until he said:

“For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen with a drone, or with a shotgun, without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America, and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.”

The statement was designed to address questions many had raised about whether the president would use drones on Americans at home. A “white paper” outlining the criteria for strikes on U.S. citizens, made public in February, seemed to indicate the possibility of domestic drone strikes.

But here is the fundamental question Americans need to ask concerning these policies: What guides the government’s conduct? Is it the Constitution, or an individual president?

Policymakers can argue at great length about doing “the right thing,” but at the foundation, the issue is whether it is a man’s judgment, or codified law that rules the nation. The president’s statement shows that he has taken it upon himself to determine when someone’s citizenship and subsequent rights should and shouldn’t “serve as a shield.” In the cases of individuals he considers a threat, he is taking it upon himself to act as the judge, jury and executioner. That is a huge responsibility full of potential ambiguities.

This is a dangerously slippery slope that America is headed down.

Trial by jury is one of the foundational rights in America. It puts a check on the government’s power. Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” When a government starts denying such fundamental rights, where does it end?

President Obama is essentially asking America to trust his judgment instead of letting the law decide. Two high-ranking officials said that President Obama will be involved in making every individual kill decision. Up to this point, targeted killings have been split between the cia and the U.S. military. However, now the president has decided to consolidate both programs and have it run from the Pentagon where he can be personally involved with every strike.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry comments on this in his new booklet America Under Attack:

People’s minds are getting conditioned to executive orders—which are primarily intended to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. That is the aim. President Obama’s use of drones has come under criticism because it is also expanding his grip on power. … Perhaps many or even most of the people being targeted in these attacks are threats to the United States. But I am deeply troubled by an administration so disdainful of the law that it is supposed to uphold!

All these minor actions taken by President Obama to sidestep Congress and the Constitution are indeed conditioning the minds of Americans to believe that the Constitution isn’t concrete. Many are calling it outdated. Fewer and fewer people are speaking out when constitutional bounds are overstepped. Yet what most people don’t understand is that there is no freedom without law. Without the Constitution, America will eventually end up with tyranny. There is a vicious attack being waged against the Constitution that you need to understand. If you haven’t yet, read our newest booklet, America Under Attack. It reveals the sobering details of what is happening to the rule of law in the United States.