Not long ago both major political parties agreed on the phrase illegal alien, defined as “A foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.” Hillary Clinton was once a strong advocate for deportation. She said in a 2008 immigration campaign speech, “I think we’ve got to have tough conditions. Tell people to come out of the shadows. If they have committed a crime, deport them. No questions asked! They are gone!! If you are here illegally you should be deported. If they’ve been working and are law abiding, we should say, here are the conditions for you’re staying. You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes and you have to try to learn English and you have to wait in line” (Hillary Clinton’s deleted 2008 Immigration Speech: Tough Stance on Border Security and Reform, YouTube).
At one time Hillary Clinton was more opposed to illegal immigration then Donald Trump. Her fiery speech given in favor of deportation in 2008 was almost scrubbed from the Internet but we finally found a copy. “If they have committed a crime, deport them. No questions asked! They are gone!!” She yelled to her audience. If they have been law abiding and still want to remain they need to pay “a stiff fine,” back taxes, learn English and wait in line she waved her arms with emphasis.
President Bill Clinton signed into law, “The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. He asserted that the legislation strengthened “the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally.” Section 133, “Acceptance of State Services to Carry Out Immigration Enforcement,” authorized the Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies called Memorandums of Agreement to enforce its provisions (Scholars, HOW AMERICA’S 1996 IMMIGRATION ACT SET THE STAGE FOR INCREASINGLY LOCALIZED AND TOUGH ENFORCEMENT,” January 9, 2018). Draconian next to Joe Biden’s flying in criminal illegal aliens into our cities and housing them at taxpayer expense.
All presidents of the US from Benjamin Harrison to Trump (23 presidents) have each deported thousands to millions of illegal aliens for at least 137 years with little or no judicial opposition until Donald Trump (source, Department of Homeland Security and Cato Institute). It has always been mostly a non-issue with respect to constitutional authority of the executive. As far as we can tell no injunctions were issued against the practice because of two reasons 1) Illegals have never had any due process rights because they were not citizens and, 2) the judicial branch cannot tell the executive branch how to execute the law any more than the executive branch can tell the judicial branch how to rule on a law—they are separate but co-equal branches. This, until President Trump, because the Deep State weaponized immigration to purchase potential voters with gift giving (free medical care, social security, housing, jobs, food, and even eventually citizenship). We have reported on this over the years. Illegals have become the Democrat Party’s constituents. Both Chicago and New York City Democrats learned this in 2024, their party cared more about illegals than they. Trump is destroying their plans to make aliens citizens then voters.
The nation is in constitutional crisis. We were invaded by up to 21 million foreigners, all illegals by the above definition and therefore not citizens and as such have no due process rights. Someone breaking into our home has no right once in to argue with us as to the conditions of his departure. All have broken the law by illegal entry and many of them are criminals. Unless challenged the Deep State will create a permanent Democrat majority with beholding illegals.
If we allow the judicial branch to destroy the executive branch as co equal but separate from it, we damage the Constitution, probably irreparably. Also, if courts can’t function as designed by the Constitution, their is no justice. The Black Robbed Judicial Coup d’état is real. Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested for obstructing an immigration operation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Supreme Court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts who could reign-in the district judges but has sided with activist judge—James Boasberg in particular—and is openly against Congress using its constitutional impeachment powers on judges. The Supreme Court is divided with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh holding to the Constitutional line while Sonia Sotomayor openly encourages resistance to ICE. A divided court is paralyzed.
No one is above the law made famous by Democrats applies also to activist Judges. Judge Hannah Dugan, the Milwaukee County Circuit judge who was arrested by the FBI on Friday, April 25, was charged in federal court on two charges, obstruction and concealing an illegal alien from arrest. FBI Director Kash Patel posted this picture with faces blurred on X. The Black Robed Judicial Coup d’état is real but will justice really follow?
Congress can impeach these rogue judges but has been infiltrated by Deep State legislators who have assisted and many are active in preventing the laws of the land from being enforced by ICE to remove illegals—even attacking law enforcement. Therefore the House may not be able to get impeachments through the Senate as required. Still, the Court or Congress should solve the issue.
Trump has three choices 1) Let the executive branch be nullified by the judicial branch with the resultant damage to the Constitution, which he cannot do as he is sworn in as the nation’s chief protector of the Constitution, 2) Totally ignore the 677 district judges who have no constitutional jurisdiction outside their districts, and their unconstitutional injunctions, as did President Andrew Jackson when he said “the Supreme Court has made the law, let them enforce it” or, 3) Implement Art. I, Sec. 9, Cla. 2, Writ of Habeas Corpus which he must do if the other branches do not act on their constitutionally required checks and balances to preserve the document.
Trump won’t move before the people are shown that Congress won’t / can’t impeach Deep State justices or the Supreme Court won’t bridle its district rogue judges and perhaps even Sotomayor. He has already asked the Supreme Court to save the Constitution by reigning them in. He might even wait until after the mid-terms to let the new Congress do it. When those two options are exhausted, and the people see that they are exhausted, they will support his having to implement the suspension clause of the Writ of Habeas Corpus which reads “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” We witnessed a four year long invasion with some small communities actually occupied by the Tren de Aragua gang and with the rise in murder, rape and serious crime— public safety was absolutely affected.
In the meantime Trump popularity and the public’s willingness to pursue deportation is growing. Democrats themselves support deportation of criminals 69%, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 821 `Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
A few weeks ago we published, “Before 1913 No One Paid Income Taxes, Tariffs Covered Everything.” Actually we have always had tariffs as the Constitution requires “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” and, “The Congress shall have Power: To lay and collect Taxes, Duties Imposts and Excises…” with duties being a synonym for tariffs (Article I, Sections 7 and 8). But 124 years later, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, America replaced the tariff tax on countries selling their products in the United States as the primary source of revenue for the federal government with a forced income tax on its own residents. Today most paying are taxed a fourth of their income.
Canals, shown in red, were a major source of transportation in the Old Northwest 1820-1860. Two north south canals from Lake Erie traversed Ohio to the Ohio river continuing South to the Mississippi River then to the Gulf of America. The most famous of all the canals was the Erie Canal carrying goods from the Great Lakes to Buffalo, New York then 363 miles East to the Hudson River than South to New York City and the Atlantic Ocean. Commerce to and from New York City necessitated their going to skyscrapers to accommodate the traffic. Tariffs funded all this including the skyscrapers. There was no federal income tax until 1913. Americans kept all their earnings. The same was so of four transcontinental railroads that followed.
The first concern of the newly formed Republic was how it would fund itself differently than had their former British government, as an object of economic control which fed their rebellion. They passed the Tariff Act of 1789, “which levied duties on imported goods to raise revenue and protect American industries from foreign competition” (TRUMP’S TARIFFS Constitutional, or Executive Overreach?,”New American, March 24. 2025, p. 21-22). Such funded a series of canals in or through the Appalachian mountains, the most famous being the Erie Canal linking the Great Lakes with the Hudson River and the Atlantic Ocean, 363 miles long in an unprecedentedly efficient waterway. We had four transcontinental railroads, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War. We had schools, colleges, subways, an army and navy. Tariffs funded the Industrial Revolution and Americans kept all their earnings which stimulated the economy.
Many believe this still realistic if we do three things. 1) Remove the trillions in waste and fraud identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk. 2) Require all federal spending to stay within the constitutional list Article I, Section 8. 3) Return to the tariff as our source of federal income excepting “unavoidable wars,” as George Washington admonished in his famous Farewell Address.
It was Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, that ushered in the fourth branch of government, the federal bureaucracy, that necessitated a gigantic federal budget. “Beginning with the New Deal, the entire complexion of the executive branch changed, as president Franklin D. Roosevelt effected an unprecedented revolution … a permanent entrenched, professional government bureaucracy to impose continuity.” He “set up a welter of new government agencies tasked with regulating every aspect of Americans’ lives, organs that could effectively legislate without the encumbrances of legislative process, and which were ‘apolitical’ – that is, unaccountable. All of this was accomplished by FDR via executive order, particularly during his fabled ‘First 100 Days,’ which featured an effusion of executive orders and proclamations without precedent, along with an enormous volume of enabling legislation passed by a supine Congress” (“President or King,” The New American, March 24, 2025, pp. 9-10).
Roosevelt created “69 new government regulatory agencies” now referred to as the alphabet soup agencies. No president changed the government and Constitution more in his first 100 days in office than he. It was indeed a bloodless revolution leaving us thereafter at the mercy of Big Government. Moreover, he put these —not under legislative branch authority but the executive—where they operated virtually “free of accountability….This sprawling regulatory regime, wholly illegitimate by any constitutional standard, has been inserted into the executive branch…[this] completely restructured the executive branch and redefined the powers of the presidency without even the formality of a constitutional amendment.” Roosevelt’s first 100 days in office established “an unprecedented executive power grab that utterly —and illicitly— transformed the entire federal government and laid the foundation of modern Big Government” (Ibid.).
Donald Trump emphasized the tariff in his first term and is presently making it ever more dominant in the economy today. With it he believes we can gradually end federal income taxes altogether—as was once the case for more than half of our history. He would also like to investigate and audit the Federal Reserve, with a view of removing it, which serves as an open-ended credit card for the Deep State allowing it to create money at will for its nefarious projects and purposes. The most visible consequence of it is inflation which destroys the value of everyones money especially retirees on fixed incomes and may prevent the young from ever owing a home of their own.
Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt virtually created the Big Government regulatory state wholly illegitimate by any constitutional standard. He created “69 new government regulatory agencies” and served four terms in office. He controlled the legislative and executive branches of government. The media and his party swooned over him. After him his own party supported a two term limitation on the office. If we ever had a dictator in office it was him. Ironically, President Trump is called by them a dictator for trying to undo his/their regulatory state. This makes Trump the only dictator in history advocating less government and taxes.
There is considerable evidence that the Deep State, then called Internationalists, abandoned the tariff for their federal income tax and the open-ended credit system of the Federal Reserve or Central Bank. These hatched the same year, 1913. Trump’s America First Policy is a return to protectionism and a rejection of the past—even present— move toward globalism.
Trump believes that “America has been taken advantage of through unfair trade practices which have weakened America’s “manufacturing, led to job losses, and made the country too dependent on foreign suppliers—particularly China.” He would like “to reduce our reliance on foreign nations for essential goods.” (TRUMP’S TARIFFS, p. 22). He believes he can do this and restore the tariff as the nation’s majority source of income as it once was, leaving the people untaxed.
Some are critical, as am I, as the Constitution gives only Congress the “Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”—not the president. But that authority too was transferred by FDR to the Executive Branch by his signing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (Ibid., p. 23). So Trump is not violating the Constitution by initiating tariffs as used by both parties for ninety years.
But that is a small issue next to Trump’s attempt to reveal and destroy the ‘secret combination’ now commonly called the Deep State and Congress seems unable to impeach even a single rogue judge. We’ll correct Mr. Trump later. Other than Kennedy and Reagan, Trump is the only president willing to take a bullet to remove the Deep State.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 820 `
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 236 years old. The first 124 of these years we had no federal income tax and handled our national expenses quite well, most of those years without a national debt. Today most are assessed a fifth to a fourth of their gross income. Prior to 1913 we kept what is now taken from us. We first advocated a return to this system on Dec. 13 2013,“Blows to Liberty 100 Years Ago Still Impact You” (LibertyUnderFire.org).
The then existing Deep State, then called Internationalist, prompted this. They wanted this financial “water faucet” that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people. They created a private corporation, the Federal Reserve, and pushed for the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which now funded the government from the taxpayer, an internal source, rather than by tariffs from other countries, an external source.
What would you spend it on were it not taken from you? Normally not on the basics such as food, housing, and utilities as they likely are covered in what you are allowed to retain. You would spend the extra fourth of your salary on hundreds of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services.
Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Likely! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds as we have reported—so corrupt is the system.
Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce little consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another person to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.
What largely brought about the vast give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 112-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, their respective parties, and the then existing Deep State, then called Internationalist, did this to us. They wanted this financial “water faucet” that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people.
Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: 1) to tax, 2) pay the debts, 3) provide for the general welfare and 4) provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to grow their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or spend—still doesn’t.
General welfare then meant everyone equally (general) as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list in the Constitution. I ask my students what would happen if they took one lollypop to kindergarten and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged welfare group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Answer, because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding. The solution to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt as might be supposed. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway. The fourth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a plethora of jobs for those who wished to work and give them no excuse not to. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford and generate with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.
One side benefit of tariffs is that it stimulates domestic production and industries giving them an advantage.
I have a friend who freely admits that he became a Democrat as a young man because they offered more. His departure from the Constitution began with that choice. The Democrat Party since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has always offered more freebies, confiscated from the “haves” and redistributed to the “have nots” to paraphrase Karl Marx and his socialist ideology.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. No one should be able to argue that our present approximately $36 trillion national debt (up from $20 trillion just 8 years ago) is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. It also enslaves our posterity who is required to pay it back amplified with interest charges, enabling us to bask in the sunshine of fake prosperity. Imagine what you could purchase annually with the money confiscated from you in federal taxes.
To protect prosperity and the Constitution for all, three things must happen. 1) We must identify and remove all waste and fraud in the present government identified by DOGE with ALL excess money from cancelled contracts to immediately be returned to liquidate the national debt. 2) We must remove the 16th Amendment and restore the tariff as our source of financing the federal government as it was our first 124 years. 3) We must return to Article I, Section 8 and the listed powers of government with ALL expenditures specifically tied to one of those powers. Yes this will hurt for a time, all surgeries do, otherwise we eventually self destruct as a free people.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 817
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary has no power thus is harmless, “so long as the judiciary remains, truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive.” He reasoned, 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 its capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honor but holds the sword of the community. The legislator not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizens 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 whatsoever. 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 judgment.”
Thomas Jefferson (left ) and Alexander Hamilton (right) both viewed the Judiciary as potentially harmful “to liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers” although Hamilton thought this to be improbable and Jefferson likely. Jefferson amazingly described our day and time and how through intended erosion of original intent and misuse of precedent the Judiciary could destroy the Constitution. The judiciary has become very dangerous because it is infringing on the authority of the executive branch—attempting to handcuff it.
There are“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. 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. For I agree that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’” (The Federalist Papers: No. 78, Hamilton, pp. 465-466).
Thomas Jefferson warned that “the federal judiciary can become very dangerous” if they go beyond judgement. On September 11, 1804, Jefferson told a group, “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbitrators of unconstitutional questions. Very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more. They have with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their core. Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries are to elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. Knowing that to whatever hands confided with the corruptions of time and party, it’s members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal, and co-sovereign within themselves” (X22 Report, Ep. 3604b, 24 Mar. 2025, 1:01:30).
With remarkable foresight, 24 years later, Jefferson described our day and time and how through intended erosion the Judiciary could destroy the Constitution. On September 28, 1820, he said, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the Constitution of the federal judiciary, an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and day gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing, it’s noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped” (Ibid., 1:03:00).
Biden’s Invasion of illegals allowed hundreds of Tren De Aragua and MS-13 terrorists into this country 530 flown across the border by him. It is beyond belief that activist Democrat District Judges would file injunctions to keep them or force their return to America. Chief Justice Roberts ruled District Court Judge Boasberg “lacks jurisdiction.” Citizens have Constitutional rights, invaders, alien gang terrorists, and non citizens do not!! The Judicial branch has exceeded its authority.
A year later, in August 18, 1821, he spoke of how past practice, one small perversion at a time vying from original intent, gradual in sequence, could destroy the Constitution. The courts were charged with preserving purity of doctrine. He wrote, “At the establishment of our Constitution the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous… Unheeded by the public at large, …[their] decisions nevertheless became law by the precedent. Sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working it’s chains by construction before anyone has perceived that the invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” Although aimed at the judicial branch this could be said of the executive and legislative branches as well. Past practice slightly altered can become a weapon, thus the enemy of original intent.
On October 31, 1823, Jefferson reminded his followers of what he had said 34 years earlier in 1789 when the Constitution was implemented . Then he “warned that the Judiciary, if given too much power, might ruin our republic, and destroy our rights. The new constitution has secured these individual rights in the executive and legislative departments, but not in the judiciary. It should have a stab of trial by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury. The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and minors, constantly working underground to undermine the foundation of our confederative fabric.” (Ibid., 1:04:20).
The Supreme Court must first reign in its lowest court judges which is what Chief Justice Roberts did by telling activist District Court Judge Boasberg that he “lacks jurisdiction” on Trumps deportation of Tren De Aragua and MS-13 terrorists. He needs to tell all 677 District Court Judges that their authority is within their districts only. The Executive branch must make certain its executive orders (EO) always align with laws passed by previous congresses hence, Trump went back to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify his executive orders on deportation and his EO on enforcement of The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) which mandates up-front money in injunction suits for damage caused by bogus suits that later are unconstitutional. And Congress, once again, must impeach judges that have a history of exceeding their jurisdiction and have intentionally weaponized the judicial branch against the executive branch which so many are doing now, attempting to replace executive authority with their own.
Hamilton proved right. The Judiciary has no power thus is harmless “so long as the judiciary remains, truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive branches.” But it hasn’t. Jefferson also was right. The judiciary has become very dangerous because it is infringing on the authority of the executive branch—effectively replacing it.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 816
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
As of March 23, 2025 there have been a total of 127 injunctions since 1963: Obama 12 , Trump 1st term 64, Biden 14, Trump in February had 15 alone (“15 Injunctions Issued on Trump Policies in February,” Fox News, 23 March 2025). That number rose to 30 injunctions by the end of Trumps first 8 weeks, compared to 64 total for Trumps first term (X22-hereafter not cited-Ep. 3604b, 24 March 2025,1:00:52). The Left argues, “See, Trump is trying to destroy the Constitution,” the Right, “See, he is trying to restore the Constitution from those who had previously destroyed a large part of it.” Congress should have impeached and the Supreme Count should have nullified the first injunction made by a district court judge to preserve the integrity of the executive branch of government—but neither did.
As prisoners stand looking out from a cell, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, March 26, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon.) Presumably these are the Nicaraguan Tren De Aragua and MS-13 gang members recently deported. Nicaraguan President Madero admitted Joe Biden pressured him to bring in the Tren De Aragua gang to America presumably released from his prisons and exported to America. Many were flown in by Biden. Since, Madero has made it clear he does not want these criminals returned, that is likely why they are in El Salvador. Once in the US they wrecked havoc, crime, and terror on Americans.
As we have explained before there is zero constitutional authority for a district judge to influence policy outside his district. Stephen Miller, a constitutional scholar, explained why this can not be. “There are 677 local district judges under current procedure, the president needs unanimous consent from all 677 to implement a major decision. If just one …out of 677 unelected judges, disagrees, the action is frozen nationwide. That is not democracy. That is tyranny” (Ep. 3607b, 30 March 2025, 36:29). This would destroy the executive branch of the Constitution. This is a judicial coup to do just that. This is intentional. Both these two branches can and should still do this to protect the Constitution as written. If they refuse the Constitution may never recover.
Prior to John F. Kennedy’s Administration it was known and largely practiced that national judicial influence required five of the nine Supreme Court justices to find agreement on a nationally contested and discussed issue after the ratification of three-fourths of the states amending the Constitution before it was authorized to affect the whole nation. District court judges self manufactured this power out of thin air. It is simply an end run around the Constitution to a president’s executive authority. Imagine one of 677 low level, district only, judges, acting alone, having more power than 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices acting together.
The plan of the Deep State is obvious; inundate Trump with constant lawsuits. As with their fake Russia Hoax, fake impeachments, fake indictments of 2024, the Deep State plans to time out Trump, strip him of his constitutional executive authority by challenging everything he does in slow moving courts and appeals for another 3 years and 9 months. It would take years to give every illegal alien criminal his day in court. Remember he is not a citizen but an invader. Since there are 677 district judges and at least half of these are democrats and there is no limit to the number of injunctions a district judge can initiate, Judge James Boasberg presently has four against Trump, Trump potentially could face hundreds against him, many simultaneously.
Let us summarize just one of his injunctions. In mid-air over the Gulf of America, James Boasberg ordered the two planes deporting 238 Venezuelan and 23 MS-13 gang members returned to the United States immediately (Ep. 3596b, 16 March 2025, 8:55). Both gangs had been previously classified as terrorist organizations but still had illegally infiltrated America. And while here had invaded 16 states with additional crimes including rape and murder. Venezuelan president Madero admitted Biden pressured him to bring in the Tren De Aragua gang to America presumably releast from his prisons and exported to America. Many were flown in by Biden (Ep 3591b, 10 March 2025, 11:09). Tulsi Gabbard visited the border soon after her confirmation as Director of National Intelligence and learned of “over 4,000 people who came across our borders using an ISIS affiliated Network.” A hundred of these known to be terrorists were caught by the Biden Border Patrol and all but 8 were released back into the United States, she told reporters (Ep. 3590b, 7 March 2025 12:20).
Trump had campaigned on the promise of returning all illegal aliens back to their country of origins beginning with these vicious gangs; and to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in doing so.Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads in part, “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [the Founders created a Republic—not a Democracy] and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” With 21 million plus illegals crossing our border unlawfully in Biden’s four years, most of us felt we were being invaded and Trump declared so at the time. Most of those coming during these years were military-aged males without families. We were invaded. Americans overwhelmingly voted for Trump for this promise—and two out of three support the deportation of these criminal gangs today. He has a clear constitutional duty to keep us safe, repel invasions, and protect American lives
Tren De Aragua gang presence is now reported in 21 states, almost half of America—during the Joe Biden four year tenure as president. Why? This is insanity!! Were these and the more than 24,000 single military-aged Chinese men, that we have reported on in past columns, and other groups including the Muslim Brotherhood, the “civilian force equal in size to the military” that Barack Obama said we needed? We need answers!! Was the Deep State planning revolution with these forces?
The Alien Enemies Act July 6, 1798 reads in part. “Section 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That, whenever there should be a declared war between the United States, and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory, incursion, shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened …the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of 14 years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be,… authorize[d], … to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens, who shall become liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed as alien enemies, [and]…manner and degree of the restraint, to which they shall be subject.”
We have been at war with the Deep State for many decades as the JFK files attest. The Biden Invasion weaponized immigration in their war to overthrow the U.S. government and Constitution in 2020, 2024 and planned for 2026 and beyond. Authorization to deport illegals from the U.S., as Trump is doing, has been constitutional and practiced for 227 years. America will not lose this war, and her freedom, to the Deep State.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column #815. Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
In Donald Trump’s first term in office he was impeached twice but not acquitted in either for lack of evidence. When he announced an intended run for a second term he immediately faced, and subsequently beat, four new, separate and fake indictments, some with gag orders to keep him from defending himself and from campaigning effectively while running. We called this lawfare.
The avalanche of cases against Trump, 125 in hist first two months, involve his executive and discretionary powers which are off limits to judicial interference. according to the Constitution and historical precedence. Despite this clear legal precedence Deep State activist judges continue violating the Constitution by ruling against Trumps’s executive authority. Whether they like it or not Trump has a constitutional mallet, they do not.
Now an army of low level Deep State activist district judges have stepped in front of SCOTUS to destroy Trump’s second term. They, once again, have weaponized the judiciary against him. In the first two months of this term he is facing 125 legal challenges. In his first term it was just 65 in four years (X22 Reports, March 13, 2025, 32:42). They are blocking everything. The Trump DOJ is inundated, every day with lawsuits filed by Deep State activists judges. This is way beyond the pale and the people know this and support Trump.
This is not the first time federal judges have attempted to manage executive branch authority unto themselves. The issue of federal judges having power to interfere with the Executive branch of government was specifically denied them and settled in The State of Mississippi vs. Johnson in 1867. “The President of the United States cannot be restrained by injunction from carrying into effect an act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional, nor will a bill having such a purpose be allowed to be filed.” (71 U.S. 475 April 15, 1867).
The first suit brought to the Supreme Court against a president of the United States was Mississippi vs Johnson and it was over this very issue. In it Mississippi was contending that Andrew Johnson had exceeded his executive authority by enforcing the Reconstruction Acts, recently passed by Congress. Johnson’s veto was subsequently overridden by Congress. It was to Johnson’s credit that he then felt duty bound to administer it as required of his presidency. “In an attempt to delay or prevent Reconstruction, the state of Mississippi appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Mississippi asked the Court for an injunction preventing the President from enforcing the Acts on the ground that they were unconstitutional.”
The question was, “Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?…In a unanimous decision, the Court held that it had ‘no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties’….The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were ‘in no sense ministerial,’ and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be ‘an absurd and excessive extravagance.’ The Court noted that if the President chose to ignore the injunction, the judiciary would be unable to enforce the order” (Oyez LIII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center Mississippi vs Johnson). Sound familiar?
The last part of the unanimous Supreme Court’s ruling is instructive. If the highest judicial authority in the land “would be unable to enforce the order,” how much less authority to do so would the lowest national judicial authority— a singular district judge— have? NONE.
Neither the Judicial or Legislative branches have ANY administrative authority. The Constitution gives only the president the authority to exercise the power of the entire Executive branch. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the executive office of the President. Judges have no say in who Trump hires and fires; nor his revoking security clearances, nor to nullify the results of a national election. Again, if the Supreme Court has no authority then neither do underling activist judges attempting to override the higher court.
The issue of federal judges having power to interfere with the Executive branch of government in their constitutional duties was specifically and unanimously denied them and settled in Mississippi vs. Johnson on April 15, 1867. The Constitution as written has not been followed closely for a long time. It’s only constitutional illiteracy in our generation that allows the Deep State to convince the most ill-informed that by following it, thus reducing the cost, size, and power of government, Trump is exercising dictatorial power over us. It would be the first time in history dictatorship was accomplished by that formula.
Trump answers Deep State activist judges with already existing law but not enforced. He just signed an executive order requiring that it be enforced called “Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(c),” The White House, March 11, 2025, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. … Designed to clamp down on the growing abuse of American judicial system by radical activist, judges, and far left organizations.”
It “specifically targets the reckless pursuit of frivolous injunctions which repeatedly cost taxpayers millions in disruptive Republican governance. It directs the heads of executive departments and agencies to firmly enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) which says, that ‘everyone who asks a court for an injunction or temporary order stopping the government action must first deposit money or a bond with the court. This money is intended to cover potential harm or cost to the government if a court later decides that the injunction was improperly issued.’ Trump argues that activist organizations have been abusing the courts frequently filing weak or meritless lawsuits against the government to slow down or block policies they disagree with often choosing sympathetic judges to hear their cases. These groups do not typically face consequences when their lawsuit fails. Instead taxpayers pay the costs when government policies are halted by these injunctions.”
The Memo doubles down on requiring “federal agencies to make sure that whenever someone sues the government for an injunction, the agency should request that the plaintive, the person or organization suing, provides enough money upfront to cover possible cost and damages the government might suffer if the injunction turns out to be unjustified. Agencies must work with the attorney general to decide how much money to ask for, and they must clearly justify to the amounts to the courts” (X22 Report, Ep. 3594b, March 13, 2025, 34:05).We wrote of this solution for activist district judges previously (“We have Tyranny of the Judicial,” Elon Musk, LibertyUnderFire, March 5, 2025). We think the enforcement of 65(c) will end the problem of district judges overstepping the Constitution and go far in dispelling the Deep State’s fake narrative that Trump is making up the rules as does a dictator.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 812
Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
