Posted on 03/31/2025 5:28:17 AM PDT by Red Badger
Why, precisely, is a judge in Washington allowed to decide what illegal immigrants with alleged gang affiliations, who were being detained in Texas, are entitled to before they’re deported from the country they’ve unlawfully entered?
That’s what Alexander Hamilton might like to know.
Yes, Hamilton might be the one founding father that it’s OK for Gen Z liberals to like because they can spit verses from “My Shot” on command — likely because the hip social studies teacher in high school let them listen to the “Hamilton” soundtrack for extra credit.
But before he was a rapping puppet for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s take on revolutionary American history, he was actually writing stuff that didn’t involve hip-hop jams with the Marquis de Lafayette. In particular, he was one of the three authors of “The Federalist Papers,” a series of 85 essays that argued in favor of the U.S. Constitution at the time of its ratification.
And, lo and behold, he has something to say about the kind of activist jurists like U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying a 1798 law to summarily deport illegal immigrants associated with transnational gangs — in this case, Tren de Aragua, one of the most powerful gangs that’s thrived in the power vacuum created by the dysfunctional Maduro government.
“Given the exigent circumstances that [the court] has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set,” Boasberg, an Obama appointee, said in an order March 15, according to Fox News.
Boasberg continued to block any sort of removal under the Alien Enemies Act by challenging the government to prove why each individual being deported is, in fact, an “alien enemy.”
“Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all,” Boasberg wrote in a Monday ruling, according to the Miami Herald. “Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge.”
It’s unclear what these individualized hearings would look like, as per the Boasberg model, or even whether he’d then acquiesce to the deportations at that point.
In fact, it’s unclear what Boasberg is doing adjudicating this case at all, given that the aliens in question were apparently detained in Raymondsville, Texas — a cool 1,700 miles from the District of Columbia — aside from naked venue-shopping from the American Civil Liberties Union, who (because of course) is representing the Venezuelan migrants. (“You can do all that, you’ve just got to do it in the right court. And the right court was in Texas,” said Judge Justin Walker, another member of the D.C. district court appeals panel, when summarizing the government’s argument against the case.)
The Trump administration has more or less telegraphed its willingness to ignore Boasberg and his ilk to the extent possible and let the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of the mess. Is this some sort of crisis for the rule of law? Not at all, if one were to read Hamilton’s thoughts on the matter.
In Federalist No. 78, one of the most influential documents pertaining to the role of the judiciary in the then-proposed Constitution, Hamilton wrote that the courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” and cannot effectuate those judgments on its own.
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” Hamilton wrote.
“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
This view, Hamilton said, “suggests several important consequences.
“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks,” he wrote.
“It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.”
Naturally, the argument against this would be that Hamilton was writing to a much different world and audience than these United States in the 21st century.
This isn’t an argument in favor of the anti-Trump forces if one thinks about it too deeply — for example, the fact that Hamilton couldn’t have contemplated a world in which jurists would be asked to decide on whether alleged Venezuelan transnational gang members being flown to El Salvador for detention should be returned to the U.S. for a hearing would reflect poorly not on the lack of foresight Hamilton had but to those who have let America degenerate to such a state in the first place — but these things aren’t thought about too deeply, even at the bench level, which is (alas) the point here.
The Federalist No. 78 clearly and concisely stated the limits that the founders imagined for the judiciary. Anyone who alleges an original intent that goes beyond that is simply fooling themselves — and original intent is what matters. For anti-Trumpers wondering why the administration’s response isn’t a “crisis” of the rule of law by any stretch of the imagination, perhaps try looking into some Hamilton that isn’t “My Shot.”
And no, “It’s Quiet Uptown” doesn’t count, either.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
These are the money quotes IMO...
“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.”
(typed in my best Andrew Jackson voice, the founder of the Democrat Party, no Indians or slaves were harmed in typing this comment)
BTTT
I heard Levin rhetorically ask why it takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to determine the constitutional merits of a case, but a singke, lowly District Court judge can overrule the President.
I’ve been wondering about that. His rulings have no teeth. He has neither the authority nor the ability to enforce his bogus rulings.
House can impeach, investigate, subpoena him and defund his court. They certainly could make an example of him.
Because he’s aiding these terrorists, he should have his security clearance revoked.
What’s the purpose of ‘districts’ if they can rule on a nation-wide basis?
They are self-elevating themselves to be on par with the Supreme Court themselves.
That is unconstitutional.
The Constitution:
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
They need to be taken down a peg or two or three.............
As long as the executive branch enforces the orders of the judiciary, it has power. The problem is that executive branch enforces those orders, even when excessive. While Trump can refuse to enforce a judge’s orders as president, once he leaves office his predecessor is unlikely to continue that policy. Contempt fines will multiply while he is in office, and could be enforced when he leaves, or be passed on to his estate. That is the problem Hamilton’s comments do not address, and Hamilton was one of the strongest proponents of a powerful federal judiciary. The renegade federal judges are proving Hamilton’s political opponents, the Anti-Federalists, were correct in their criticisms of the constitution’s Article III power.
Illegals invaders are entitled to NOTHING from this country.
Any idea just how upset I’ll get when watching the touring Broadway production of Hamilton? I’ve committed to taking my eleven year old granddaughter to it. Am I going to have to deal with a dancing, queer Aaron Burr or such?
Hint:
Hamilton will have a very good tan........................
Our TDS, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Constitution - corporate press is a bigger problem than the democrat party IMHO.
It’s entertaining enough. It’s just not history.
That’s a large part of it, bad optics.
Biden ignored the Supreme Court and the Media swooned in ecstasy..............
These corrupt district court “judges” are not
in the Constitution, are not born in this Republic, and
hence their intruding, interference,
and their help, funding, arming,
and use of MS-13 to murder Americans.
She was telling me about “rap fights”? She’s was also telling about me the Federalist Papers and Phillip Hamilton. I hadn’t taught her about it either.
§1229a. Removal proceedings
(a) Proceeding
(1) In general
An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.
(2) Charges
An alien placed in proceedings under this section may be charged with any applicable ground of inadmissibility under section 1182(a) of this title or any applicable ground of deportability under section 1227(a) of this title.
(3) Exclusive procedures
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States. Nothing in this section shall affect proceedings conducted pursuant to section 1228 of this title
....
(4) Alien’s rights in proceeding
In proceedings under this section, under regulations of the Attorney General-
(A) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings,
(B) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government but these rights shall not entitle the alien to examine such national security information as the Government may proffer in opposition to the alien’s admission to the United States or to an application by the alien for discretionary relief under this chapter, and
....
(3) Burden on service in cases of deportable aliens
(A) In general
In the proceeding the Service has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
(B) Proof of convictions
In any proceeding under this chapter, any of the following documents or records (or a certified copy of such an official document or record) shall constitute proof of a criminal conviction:
(i) An official record of judgment and conviction.
(ii) An official record of plea, verdict, and sentence
....
(4) Applications for relief from removal
(A) In general
An alien applying for relief or protection from removal has the burden of proof to establish that the alien-
(i) satisfies the applicable eligibility requirements; and
(ii) with respect to any form of relief that is granted in the exercise of discretion, that the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion
....
(2) Removable
The term “removable” means-
(A) in the case of an alien not admitted to the United States, that the alien is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, or
(B) in the case of an alien admitted to the United States, that the alien is deportable under section 1227 of this title.
Wana bet we start seeing one judge rule against another real soon?
“It’s unclear what these individualized hearings would look like”
I’m sure alien criminals have been removed from the US after individualized hearings before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.