Could a President Trump be checked and balanced?

Paul Ryan says that if a President Trump were to do something illegal, such as ban immigrants on the basis of their religion, he, as Speaker of the House, would sue him.  Ryan seems to be floating the possibility that a President Trump might not be so bad because he could be controlled by the law.  Congress and the courts could keep him in line.  Do you think Trump could be checked and balanced?

After the jump, an argument that he couldn’t.  Do you agree?

From Robert Kagan, Would checks and balances stop Trump? Don’t bet on it. – The Washington Post:

Will the Republican Party that made Donald Trump its nominee protect us from Trump when he is president? Even as they call him a “textbook” racist and acknowledge his scant regard for the rule of law, Republican leaders assure voters that the U.S. system of checks and balances will contain their candidate’s authoritarian impulses. Congress and the judicial system will keep Trump under control.

History and recent events suggest that is a risky proposition. Inflamed popular passions and overreaching presidents have at times not been checked. Presidents have ignored Supreme Court rulings, and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and1918, Jim Crow, the mistreatment of German Americans during World War I and of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, and the investigations of Sen. Joseph McCarthy all showed how a frightened, angry or simply bigoted majority could deprive individuals of their rights despite the Constitution’s checks and balances. That those rights were eventually restored is no cause for satisfaction: The damage done was permanent.

[Keep reading. . .]