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.
The Constitution says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” No administrative power was given to either the Judicial, (especially not independent judges—non-existent at the time) or Legislative branches. There exist only one person elected by every citizen voting in the United States and that is the President. He executes the laws of the land as passed by the Legislative Branch. No unelected bureaucrat or district judge has ANY independent authority This was upheld until recent times. (Article II, Section I).
Trump signed Executive Order 14215 entitled, “Ensuring Accountability for all Agencies,” Feb. 18, 2025, restoring ALL executive power under the president of the U.S. as it was pre 1935. It argues that under Franklin Delano Roosevelt this authority had been “scattered between independent boards, commissions and agencies that have proliferated since the Roosevelt administration.” With 443 government agencies such is necessary for the government “to be truly accountable to the American people.” This power “must be supervised and controlled by the people’s elected president.”
By the early 1970’s the federal government had become so big and sprawling that the Deep State, then called the Establishment, desired a different system to disperse the funded money authorized and originating “in the House of Representatives“(U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1). Normally Congress paid little attention to the money once allocated. They had previously, in 1913, allowed the Federal Reserve System (a private corporation) to create money on demand, debt they then repaid by their inflated currency. It seemed to work for everyone not on a fixed income—retirees mostly, who would soon die anyway.
On November 3, 1961 the Deep State, again then called the Establishment, pushed for even more control over allocation by creating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Congress’s allocated money would go to it and be distributed by it. A portion—gradually even a majority of it—could go to any cause they liked that had not been approved by Congress— so long as the cause voted on by the House got some of the money. The money spawned Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Some NGOs were members of Congress whose loyalty could be rewarded by kickbacks. It became self propelling—they proposed and pushed the legislation. That is believed to have made many members of Congress millionaires on public servant salaries—especially Democrats as they saw federal gift giving as enticements, thus recruitments, to their party. Mostly they funded themselves and their left of center causes.
Two things inhibited their intended total control, the Gold Standard, which they were pleased to have Richard Nixon remove in 1974, and an uncontrolled U.S. president as he could, discover their fraud and veto USAID payments to unworthy causes as President Trump and Elon Musk are now doing. The Deep State’s answer to this possibility was The Empowerment and Control Act of 1974. They saw power in the administrational dispersement, after Congress’s allocation, and wanted that removed from the president to themselves. They succeeded until Donald Trump.
President Trump wants this act revoked and the power presidents had prior to 1934 restored to the Executive Branch as was followed our first 146 years. Until then, in keeping with his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, he is creating a constitutional crises through executive orders constitutionally cancelling billions of dollars going to causes never actually approved by Congress as stipulated in Article I, Section 7, Clause I.
His Executive Order 14215 entitled, “Ensuring Accountability for all Agencies,” Feb. 18, 2025, restores ALL executive power under the president of the U.S. as it was pre 1935. It argues that under Franklin Delano Roosevelt this authority had been “scattered between independent boards, commissions and agencies that have proliferated since the Roosevelt administration.” All is returned under the management of the White House. Such is necessary for the government “to be truly accountable to the American people.” This power “must be supervised and controlled by the people’s elected president” (X22 Report, Ep. 3576b, Feb. 19, 2025, 45:00).
How many federal agencies are there? Forbes counted 443, most of which are controlled by the Deep State, not the president with his executive authority given him by the Constitution (“How Many Federal Agencies Exist? We Can’t Drain The Swamp,” By Clyde Crews Jr., July 5, 2017). Most of these under FDR and since are difficult to justify constitutionally as written and most originated after 1971 when Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard.
Nobody yells louder then Senator Elizabeth Warren about what Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, is finding in its government audits. The adage, “He who yells the loudest has the most to lose,” may come true for her. Senator Warren’s annual salary as a public servant is $285,000, yet her net worth is $67 million. She never ran a business, nor produced or manufactured anything. DOGE reports, almost 160,000 civil service employees are now millionaires up from fewer than 70,000 when Biden took office four years ago.
Trump’s Executive Order reads in part, “All executive departments and agencies including, so-called independent agencies shall submit for review all propose and significant regulatory action to the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. ‘The White House, not the agencies, not the Deep State swamp creatures, will provide interpretation of the law. This in particular is going to stop agencies like the EPA from using their interpretation of law, to increase their regulatory power.’ The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the Executive Branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinion on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the context of their official duties. No employee of the Executive Branch, acting in their official capacity, may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including, but not limited to, issuance of regulations guidance, and position advance in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President, or in writing by the Attorney General.”
Translation. “Trump has promptly and fundamentally changed the Executive Branch as it has existed since 1935 in the last month to how it existed from 1789 to 1934, for 146 years. Trump just wiped out 90 years of the Deep State system.” The president is once again in charge of ALL federal agencies. Now none of these swamp creatures can make decisions or authorize anything without his say so. And he is draining the swamp. Formerly the Deep State had taken away presidential power by the Empowerment and Control Act. of 1974. Congress will need to remove that unconstitutional legislation which is likely to follow (X22 Report, Ep. 3576b, 2/19/ 2025, 45:00). Once done they will no longer control the flow of money to a myriad of harmful activities to this country and the world without presidential consent like funding gain-of-function research or illegal immigration.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 811 Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
The Constitution is very clear, “The executive Power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” One, and only one, person elected by the whole nation in two ways—the people and also by the states through the Electoral College process. He, and those who serve with him, swear by oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” He executes the laws of the land as passed by the Legislative Branch. All administrative authority come through this one person and through his office. Neither the elected Legislative Branch nor the non-elected Judicial Branch have administrative authority. No unelected bureaucrat or district judge has ANY independent authority
Under Biden judicial tyranny began almost immediately with his unlawful use of 1512(c)(2) “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” in J6 cases that prosecuted 350 (plus) Americans for their participation in Jan. 6. This was a flagrant abuse of the law to punish those who protested Biden’s “election” thus criminalizing political dissent. The worst instance of judicial tyranny was Judge Tanya Chutkan, who put all 39 of her 39 J6 defendants behind bars. Judicial tyranny was experienced by candidate Trump when four different courts simultaneous indicted him in 2024 on different frivolous charges to destroy his candidacy for President. Now judicial tyranny is again being experienced as unelected district activist judges are blocking many of Trump’s administrative functions thus stealing his constitutional executive authority.
Yet it was the latter class that engineered the four, turns out, fake indictments against President Trump to destroy him in 2024. All America viewed those public displays of tyranny of the judiciary. Actually, they did much to elect Donald Trump.
Now district judges are coming out of the woodwork to thwart or destroy his sole administrative functions. Activist judges are stealing executive authority. These (mostly far-left Deep State judges) have blocked his cut off of federal funding to aid migrants entering the country illegally, his federal resignation plan of eight months advanced pay for those choosing to retire early, his audit access to Treasury’s and other departments vita data system to assess waste and fraud, his firing 2,000 USAID workers for funding un-American activities worldwide—even terrorists organizations, his NIH grant cuts which funded gain-of-function research, and his temporarily removing funding for some public health websites said to have weaponized the health industry.
An extreme case is Judge Amir Ali, a last November Biden appointee, who just ordered President Trump to release billions of foreign aid immediately (“Judge orders temporary reversal of Trump admin’s freeze on foreign aid,” By Bradford Betz, Fox News, February 13, 2025) Judge Ali has no authority to even advise the president on executive issues especially foreign aid—his position has no standing without perversion of the U.S. Constitution as written.
Currently there are 94 non-elected, appointed only, district court judges serving in 91 geographical districts. To think he, or any of the other district judges, has authority to restrict a president’s constitutional authority to govern the nation given him by the WHOLE country is beyond absurd. If 94 judges, each with their individual and varied political bias’ have authority to block the president of the United States we will never have an effective president or one that could curb the bureaucracy, the budget, or destroy the Deep State. These judges have effectively disarmed the executive branch of government something our Founders would have never tolerated. Yet they have poised themselves to block everything he advocates.
Elon Musk said it best, “If ANY judge ANYWHERE can block EVERY Presidential order EVERYWHERE, we do NOT have a democracy, we have Tyranny of the JUDICIARY.” (X, on X22 Report, Ep. 3582b, Feb. 26, 2025, 50:44). He added, “What is the point of having democratic elections if unelected judges can override the clear will of the people? Well, that’s no democracy at all. The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law judges” (Ibid., Ep. 3583b, Feb. 27, 2025, 52:36).
Musk, an admitted life-long voting Democrat until Trump, may not know that the Founding Fathers did not create a democracy, they universally opposed it. They created a republic, because the majority does not, and can not, protect minority rights. Minority is defined as less than the majority not by race. A lynch mob is a democracy. One has the right to defend himself even if he is the only one in the room who believes so. It’s base is upon natural law not numbers. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights demanded by the people—even FROM THE MAJORITY.
One has the right to defend himself from violence or otherwise, even if he is the only one in the room who believes so. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights demanded by the people—even FROM THE MAJORITY.
But Musk did provide a constitutional solution to the tyranny of the judiciary problem—impeachment. But that would be way too time consuming, look bad, and be divisive for the nation. It is much better to get the matter before the Supreme Court and have a single rule nation wide on existing judicial tyranny and its usurping of constitutional executive branch authority.
However we do not have to wait until the Supreme Court can rule or even until Congress can stand together against judicial tyranny, it is law already on the books. There exists a solution right now ready for Attorney General Pam Bondi to implement. “A single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data,” something vital for the Executive Branch to know to govern fiscally and prudently. “There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 65(c), judges can issue injunctions ‘only if’ the suing party post a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But …this rule is hardly used.… Frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass. The best part? This doesn’t block activists from court, it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.” (Thepoliticsbrief.com, Dan Huff, Feb. 15, 2025. Also the kylebecker.com, Feb. 15, 2025).
The Constitution is supposed to protect the innocent. Love him, like him, only tolerate him, or hate him, no phrase in that document can justify what they did to Trump in 2024 nor gives a district judge ANY independent authority over the executive branch of the United States.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org Column # 810.
Subscribe now for free columns at this address. Help preserve our Republic while we still can by sharing this column.
