Posted on 03/27/2025 4:09:29 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
But other democracies provide a roadmap for courts to prevail over attacks from the executive branch.
Just two months in, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is aggressively challenging judicial constraints on its power, risking a showdown—and constitutional crisis—in which the executive branch seeks to make court orders optional.
This month, the U.S. executive branch blatantly defied a federal judge’s order to temporarily halt the deportation of migrants to El Salvador. The president himself called for the impeachment of the judge who issued the order, along with other judges. In one of the 139 legal cases filed against the Trump administration as of Wednesday, a federal judge described the president’s executive order to overturn birthright citizenship as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The Trump administration’s attacks on the judiciary lack recent precedent in the United States, yet they follow a clear and troubling pattern. In democracies around the world, elected leaders are challenging legal constraints on their power: Just look at Brazil, India, Israel, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, and Turkey, to name a few.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
Other points to consider is that the Biden administration is responsible for over 230 Federal Judicial appointments.
Consider also that Biden had none - zero - nada judicial challenges while in office. Donald Trump has over 40 court orders against him since just January.
Consider also there are nearly three times more Federal Judges than there are members of Congress and the Executive Branch. Combined.
The US suffered a severe coup d'état, a Palace Coup in 2024, and now as we live and breathe - an attempt for a Judicial Coup in 2025.
Checks and balances’ require that the courts be checked and balanced.
50 USC
CHAPTER 3—ALIEN ENEMIES
Sec.
21.Restraint, regulation, and removal.
22.Time allowed to settle affairs and depart.
23.Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges.
24.Duties of marshals.
§21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
§22. Time allowed to settle affairs and depart
When an alien who becomes liable as an enemy, in the manner prescribed in section 21 of this title, is not chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, he shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of his goods and effects, and for his departure, the full time which is or shall be stipulated by any treaty then in force between the United States and the hostile nation or government of which he is a native citizen, denizen, or subject; and where no such treaty exists, or is in force, the President may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.
§23. Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges
After any such proclamation has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
§24. Duties of marshals
When an alien enemy is required by the President, or by order of any court, judge, or justice, to depart and to be removed, it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which he shall be apprehended to provide therefor and to execute such order in person, or by his deputy or other discreet person to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President, or of the court, judge, or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim
That’s current law.
“Whenever there is...any...predatory incursion is perpetrated...against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event,
“all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized,
“shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.”
677 presidents, as Clarice Feldman put it.
Do We Have 677 Unelected Presidents?
American Thinker ^ | 16 Mar, 2025 | Clarice Feldman
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4304590/posts
So, it's not a problem when the judicial branch seeks to make Presidential decision-making optional?
“Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.”
“...a federal judge described the president’s executive order to overturn birthright citizenship as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
And then there’s the ‘blatant defiance of the judge’s order to not deport violent criminal gang members by not turning the airplanes around. Andrew seems to think that unelected judges are really the ones to rule over an elected President.
Court “orders” which do not conform to statutes or the Constitution are not only “optional”, they are forbidden.
“Consider also that Biden had none - zero - nada judicial challenges while in office.”
Doesn’t some entity need to file suit with the court in order for the judiciary to intervene? IF that’s the case, why didn’t our side do so?
Foreign Policy is Leftist and has an unelected bureaucrap readership.
The Constitution still exists. The Constitution is still a valid balance. The issue? Interpretation. Literal interpretation is the solution.
Then only change the constitution when both houses have large margin to Amend the Constitution.
President Trump is on the right course. He is eliminating the off-the-books-accounting and the made-up out-of-thin-air rules composed by unaccountable bureaucraps.
Eject the lying leaches in all three branches.
Totally end the 4th branch.
This time, unlike the phonies promoted by the Dem media for anything in the first Trump term or his fighting to survive against their lawfare in 2023-2024, this actually is tending toward a constitutional crisis.
The Dems want to tie up Trump like the Lilliputians in Gulliver’s Travels.
What if among the dozens of gang members being set up for deportation it is ruled that each individual one gets a paid lawyer and several individual court appeals, each appeal with a long delay due to overbooking.
Disaster.
No judicial entity, besides the SCOTUS, can force behavioral change nationwide with a judicial decision.
Only SCOTUS has the right constitutionally and any court created by Congress lack such right.
They did, many times. The courts denied standing to those who filed lawsuits - most notably saying that state legislatures, 27 states, and Donald Trump himself had no standing to legally challenge election fraud and electors chosen by provisions other than what the state legislatures legally enacted, as required in the US Constitution.
I liked the article. Thank you.
That said, I don’t think I see things the way the author does.
The difference is that the author only discusses Courts defending the national constitution.
I’m not at all clear that the standoffs in Brazil and Israel that he reviews are really constitutional standoffs. They look like establishment vs. “disliked change” standoffs.
That’s what the current Trump vs the Courts standoff involves, unwelcome (in out-of-power minds) change. The Judges are not defending the Constitution. They are defending stable norms and prevailing government arrangements.
Of course, being on Free Republic, I welcome the change and support Trump as the change agent. With that perspective I really want the Courts to get out of the way of working for a better country.
Who is this idiot Andre w O’Donohue?
They have it backwards. it's the judiciary's attacks on the executive branch.
The judiciary is not the supreme governing body of our government.
“That’s the sticky wicket in this thing. Some of us can’t find that power in the Constitution.”
The founder’s certainly did not intend for Congress to have the ability to stop Executive Authority with the use of courts created by Congress.
I learned about Marbury vs Madison in high school.
Our teacher was highly sceptical of John Marshall’s decision and we spent a lot of time talking about it.
Marshall made a huge power grab and got away with it.
later
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.