Political Pistachio
|
|
|
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, an Obama appointee, in response to a case in which the plaintiffs do not have standing, ruled that President Trump’s efforts to deport criminal alien invaders to be unconstitutional. Boasberg is not a stranger to using unconstitutional judicial actions to go after Trump. In his role as the head of the FISA Court he made sure that only weak penalties were applied to a member of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team which was directly connected to the FBI’s unlawful actions associated with the Russiagate false attack against the President, as well as ensuring a renewal of the FBI’s FISA powers.
The Trump administration sent three planes carrying more than 200 illegal criminal aliens out of the United States and while the planes were in the air Boasberg issued an order calling for President Trump to turn the planes around. Trump did not recall the flights. The ruling came from a lawsuit launched by far-left groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward who rushed to court in a desperate bid to shield illegal aliens from deportation. However, the organizations bringing the lawsuit lack standing which would require that those bringing the lawsuit were directly injured by Trump’s actions. In an attempt to achieve standing they named in the lawsuit the illegal aliens as plaintiffs, but the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution strictly forbids the federal courts from taking any cases by citizens or subjects of a foreign state.
The argument against Trump was that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in an unconstitutional manner because the wartime measure has been only used historically during wartime, and the removal of hostile foreign nationals is “unprecedented” and “unlawful” during peacetime. However, their argument is a false one, which I will explain in a moment.
The court’s ruling temporarily called for a halt of deportations for the individuals named in the lawsuit and was designed to set the stage for an extended legal battle that would prevent all deportations while the matter was being settled in the federal court system.
From a constitutional viewpoint Judge Boasberg has not only stepped beyond his authorities by taking the case in first place because the Eleventh Amendment forbids federal courts from taking cases with citizens or subjects of a foreign state as plaintiffs, but also as a member of the judicial branch he has illegally interpreted the law in question in a manner that is not within the text of the law. The law does not require actions taken to deport hostile foreign nationals only during wartime (which for some may even be defined as only being appropriate if a declaration of war is in place). In 1798 when the Alien Enemies Act went into effect hostile foreign nationals under the purview of that law were being removed from the United States and at the time a state of war for the United States was not in place. In short, it was a period of peacetime. War was being waged in Europe between European Powers, and there were fears of its influence spilling over upon American shores, but the United States was not at war at that time. We were in between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and the two Barbary Wars were not fought until 1801-1805 and 1815-1816. So, at the time of the establishment of that law hostile foreign nationals were being deported during peacetime making the very basis of the argument that what Trump was doing was “unprecedented” and “unlawful” a false argument at its core. The argument at the time was primarily regarding Tories, who were those who were still loyal to the British Empire.
The ruling was also unconstitutional regardless of whether or not the Alien Enemies Act was being used improperly because all of those being deported were undeniably in the country illegally. Unlawfully crossing into the United States without navigating proper immigration procedures according to federal immigration laws that are on the books is a crime, and the President of the United States has the authority to deport those individuals no matter what. That is the reason for the existence of ICE and the Border Patrol. The Constitution grants the issue of immigration to the federal government and the job of the President, using his executive departments and agencies, is to carry out the laws of the United States. Immigration law states that unlawful entry into the United States is a crime, and therefore the President’s job is to execute those laws by deporting the persons who broke federal law when they entered into the country unlawfully.
A part of the argument being used by those using lawfare against President Trump regarding immigration is that while those “migrants” may be “undocumented,” in order to deport them they have a right to the due process of law. The Constitution is, after all, supportive of due process and the concept that everyone is “innocent until proven guilty.”
That flawed argument, however, fails to recognize that there is a difference between those who fall under the full jurisdiction of the United States (citizens), those who are in the United States under conditional terms (holders of documents like a resident alien card, student visa, or other kind of visa) and those who have entered the country unlawfully. Constitutional provisions do not apply equally to all people in the United States. The Preamble of the Constitution, after all, tells us that the document was presented for “We the People of the United States,” not in the United States. Naturalization and migration is addressed in Article I, Section 8 and Section 9, giving to Congress the authority to make the rules regarding those issues through legislation, including who may be prohibited from entering and what the protocols regarding immigration would look like. Congress has done that. In Article II of the Constitution the President is “vested” with the executive power, and is called to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States,” which is accomplished through the various departments and agencies that fall under his supervision.
The federal bureaucracy that operates inside the executive branch is the hired help who are in place to serve the President and carry out the instructions of the President of the United States regarding executing the laws of the United States which is what his executive orders are all about. The courts, however, in the Constitution have been given no authority regarding how the President runs the executive branch. Aside from a few congressional powers which enable the Senate to ratify treaties and confirm appointments, and for Congress to use their legislative powers to create or decommission particular agencies or departments, the operations of the executive branch belongs completely to the President of the United States. If he wants to increase or reduce the number of personnel, choose how much of the appropriated funds actually get spent, and require them to come to work rather than work from home that is completely up to the President. The courts have no authority whatsoever to micromanage his job, or request that he report to the courts why he did something or produce the evidence he may or may not have that reveals if the deported aliens are murderous criminals or not.
The Judicial Branch also has no enforcement authority, so there is no penalty for “defying the courts” by the President. The enforcement arm of the federal courts is the executive branch. If the President chooses to tell a judge to pack sand, and he’s going to do things inside his executive branch the way he wants to regardless of their activist judicial rulings, he is completely legally and constitutionally entitled to do so. Thomas Jefferson established the precedent in 1803 when the United States Supreme Court ruled he was required to deliver a commission for a judicial seat to William Marbury. President Jefferson defied the court’s decision, and then proceeded to work with Congress to repeal the Judicial Act that Chief Justice John Marshall’s Supreme Court was using as a basis of their ruling. A third of a century later the United States Supreme Court ordered President Andrew Jackson not to proceed with his plans of relocating Indian tribes from the Southeast United States to Oklahoma, but Jackson responded, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now, let’s see him enforce it.” In both cases when the President of the United States “defied” the courts, there were no impeachment articles filed against the President, nor could the courts do a thing about what the President was doing. The courts may not, under no circumstances, dictate to the President how to carry out his job as President of the United States. If he is acting in a manner that is outside the constitutionality of his office, then it is up to Congress to impeach him, or up to We the People and the States to make sure he’s not reelected. Otherwise, how the President carries out the duties of his office is up to him.
For his unconstitutional ruling and attempts to interfere with the Office of the President of the United States, Judge Boasberg should be impeached and removed from office upon conviction by the Senate. I am not the only one to call for his impeachment. President Trump and members of Congress have voiced the same. In fact, those calls for the removal of Boasberg from the federal bench have led to a response from the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts, who issued a statement. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” The problem is, the call for impeachment of Judge Boasberg is not because he simply disagreed with President Trump; Judge Boasberg violated the Constitution which is not only maladministration of his office, but a violation of the oath he took to defend and protect the same. Trump is operating constitutionally, and Judge Boasberg is not, and the latter should be impeached and removed from the federal bench for his unconstitutional actions.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Inflation has been a top concern of the American people as long as I can remember. Gas lines in the seventies and out of control inflation that topped out during the presidency of Jimmy Carter led to the election of President Ronald Reagan who through his free market policies we enjoyed decades of less inflation than what we suffered through during the seventies. Since then, the inflation rate did its typical rollercoaster rises and falls, but nothing crazy. Then, Obama and Biden did a number on our economy, and inflation went up during both of their regimes.
When Donald Trump took office, the Democrats and their leftist allies screamed about Trump’s plans with tariffs and federal spending, arguing that inflation would go up, and then claimed the high egg prices were Trump’s fault, too. I heard a few Democrat political pundits say, “We’ll see how the economy looks in 6 months, and then give our opinion,” as if the Trump effect would take at least six months to start moving the needle.
In a poll by NBC News during Biden’s presidency 67% of those surveyed reported that consumer prices were surpassing their wages and 71% believed the America’s economy was heading in the wrong direction. Their concern? The cause? Inflation.
The Democrats’ policies made matters worse, and they disagree with anything the GOP might cook up, so in their minds among the few things that they could hang their attacks on was the economy. “It’s the economy, stupid,” and since they had no answer for twelve of the last sixteen years, surely Trump would not be able to pull off bringing down inflation in four years, much less the next six months.
News Flash: Two months into Trump’s presidency, things are economically turning around and inflation and the price of eggs is heading downward.
OH, THE HORROR!!!!
Epoch Times, 2025 March 22: US Annual Inflation Slides to Lower-Than-Expected 2.8 Percent
Trending Politics, 2025 March 11: Eggs Drop to Pre-Trump Prices, Dismantling Media’s Favorite Talking Point
Ace of Spades HQ, 2025 March 11: Inflation is Cut by More Than Half in Trump’s First Month in Office
Epoch Times, 2025 March 17: U.S. Retail Sales Rebound in February After Sharp Drop to Start in 2025
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
|
|
|
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The lawfare against President Donald Trump has extended into his presidency. Using the courts to oppose the policies of President Trump is nothing new. According to Fox News the number of injunctions against Trump in each of his two terms in office exceed the number of injunctions applied individually to any of the other Presidents of the United States since the launch of the new millennium, and more than half of the entire total since 1963. Why? Because the purveyors of the slow march towards an authoritarian nationalistic centralized communitarian government bent of centrally engineering the lives of Americans over a period of more than two hundred years believes its goals of fundamentally transforming America into something the Founding Fathers never envisioned is finally within reach and Trump poses as an existential threat to their destruction of American Liberty and greatness.
A separation of powers exists within the text of the United States Constitution. While the words “separation of powers” are not present in the Constitution’s language, the concept is laid out at the beginning of each of the first three articles through the use of the word “vested.”
- All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
- The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
- The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The word vested means:
- To be legally transferred
- Exclusionary
- Irrevocable
In other words, all legislative powers belong to the legislative branch, executive powers belong to the executive branch, and judicial powers belong to the judicial branch. That means that each of the branches of government possesses their own powers, and may not interfere with the powers of the other branches. There are some exceptions and rules that apply in order for our system to properly operate and for checks and balances to be applied (Advise and Consent powers of the Senate, Vice President as President of the Senate, and the Exceptions Clause powers which allow the Congress to serve as a check against the Federal Courts – to name a few); but none of those things include allowing the courts to dictate to the other branches how they operate, any enforcement powers possessed by the courts, nor for the courts to operate as if it has any powers as a final arbiter over the functions or actions of the other branches.
Even if the courts did have a say over President Trump’s operations as head of the executive branch, with their rulings challenging his policies they have repeatedly even violated their own rules that they have historically operated under. Those three keys to judicial activities in the mind of even the most leftist-minded jurists in the legal system have historically included:
- Justice is blind (jurists must operate apolitically)
- Consistency
- Applying existing law
In the Trump Era the judges have been ruling based on ideology, they have operated inconsistently with past rulings and the willingness of the courts to even accept or not accept certain cases, and they have been ruling against Donald Trump even though the actions by the President have been consistent with laws on the books.
The problem is that leftist judges see themselves as the final arbiters of everything, therefore they believe they have the authority to interpret law and the Constitution any way they wish and that since the ends justify the means all three of those keys can be thrown out the window. They are a judge, so in their minds even the President of the United States must bow down at their feet. In the process they are attempting to support the narrative that Trump is some kind of dictator. Democrats have claimed President Trump is a threat to democracy, and an authoritarian who seeks to lead America into some kind of fascist nightmare; so, the courts are picking up the baton to continue that ridiculous narrative.
If they can convince the people that he’s “violating the rule of law” by “defying the courts” which allegedly makes him “lawless,” they think they can turn the tide against President Trump and regain their footing in the game of power.
The American People, however, are not buying it. The evidence stands against them. Since when do dictators seek reducing the power of the government they hold an office in? Dictators don’t do what they can to reduce federal spending, return control over a number of issues back to the States and/or We the People, and then donate his salary to charity. His accomplice, Elon Musk, who the Democrats claim is in it for power and money is operating without pay for his services, and he’s losing hundreds of millions since his attention is on government efficiency at the moment rather than having a direct hand on his various enterprises. As for the “giving breaks to their billionaire friends” claim, reduced federal spending and cutting spending on non-essential federal expenditures means less subsidies by the federal government – and subsidies is one of the ways people enrich themselves through government giveaways. If Musk and Trump were trying to enrich their buddies, wouldn’t they be increasing subsidies?
From a constitutional point of view, President Trump has been operating perfectly constitutionally, while the federal courts and the Democrats with their antics are the ones who are violating the Constitution.
Fortunately, the court of public opinion realizes exactly that.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Joy Reid’s History and Civics Lesson
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Former MSNBC Host Joy Reid was on the air with Don Lemon (who was stupid enough to laugh along as she garbled her idiocy) and launched into a nice little history lesson about what it would take to gain Canada as the 51st State, and the wars we’ve engaged in with the country to the north. The problem is everything she said was wrong, except perhaps the comparison of Canada’s size geographically as compared to that of the United States. A video of that exchange can be found here:
A couple of articles about it can be found here:
Here’s the transcript of what Joy Reid had to say, and a bullet point by bullet point response by me.
“Grumpy Trump let’s talk let’s talk.
First of all you can’t make Canada the 51st State without going to war with them1 and let me explain how that happened, how that worked out the last time we tried to go to war with Canada2… they burned the White House3 to the ground4 in 1814 and won the war. Canada beat us in the War of 1812.5 They probably like their chances against us we’re not going to beat them in a war because we have never been able to do that6. You’d have to occupy a country8a that is equivalent of the size of the United States7 in which the top 2/3 of it is uninhabited frozen forest land that touches the Arctic.8b You know how that worked out when the Nazis tried that with Russia9 which is the equivalent of Canada on that part of the world? We going to lose. We don’t have enough troops to occupy10. They are a country of 39 million people11 who are who have about as many guns per capita as we do12.”
Trump never said anything about invading Canada, and his comments are basically just a suggestion and a negotiation tactic. Obviously, Canada would not have the opportunity to become a State unless the people of Canada voted in favor of it. The more likely scenario would be provinces seceding from Canada and then applying for statehood.
* The Mexican-American War, despite arguments calling it a war of expansion, was actually a war of liberation in which the United States came to the aid of Texas who sought to become a U.S. State (and had at that point, the year prior to the start of the war) and other territories that were being ravaged by Mexican Dictator Santa Anna, and other dictators who took the mantle, as the leadership changed during the war.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary