Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 19,604
- 35,643
- 2,430
250 Years Ago Alexander Hamilton Told Us How to Handle These Anti-Trump Judges
250 Years Ago Alexander Hamilton Told Us How to Handle These Anti-Trump Judges | The Gateway Pundit | by C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal
Those supporting judges like Boasberg should try looking into some Hamilton that isn't "My Shot" - in particular, "The Federalist Papers."
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Why, precisely, is a judge in Washington allowed to decide what illegal immigrants with alleged gang affiliations, who were being detained in Texas, are entitled to before they’re deported from the country they’ve unlawfully entered?
That’s what Alexander Hamilton might like to know.
Yes, Hamilton might be the one founding father that it’s OK for Gen Z liberals to like because they can spit verses from “My Shot” on command — likely because the hip social studies teacher in high school let them listen to the “Hamilton” soundtrack for extra credit.
But before he was a rapping puppet for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s take on revolutionary American history, he was actually writing stuff that didn’t involve hip-hop jams with the Marquis de Lafayette. In particular, he was one of the three authors of “The Federalist Papers,” a series of 85 essays that argued in favor of the U.S. Constitution at the time of its ratification.
Dr. McCullough Weighs In: The History & Future of GLP-1s
“Given the exigent circumstances that [the court] has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set,” Boasberg, an Obama appointee, said in an order March 15, according to Fox News.
Boasberg continued to block any sort of removal under the Alien Enemies Act by challenging the government to prove why each individual being deported is, in fact, an “alien enemy.”
~Snip~
In fact, it’s unclear what Boasberg is doing adjudicating this case at all, given that the aliens in question were apparently detained in Raymondsville, Texas — a cool 1,700 miles from the District of Columbia — aside from naked venue-shopping from the American Civil Liberties Union, who (because of course) is representing the Venezuelan migrants. (“You can do all that, you’ve just got to do it in the right court. And the right court was in Texas,” said Judge Justin Walker, another member of the D.C. district court appeals panel, when summarizing the government’s argument against the case.)
~Snip~
In Federalist No. 78, one of the most influential documents pertaining to the role of the judiciary in the then-proposed Constitution, Hamilton wrote that the courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” and cannot effectuate those judgments on its own.
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” Hamilton wrote.
“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
This view, Hamilton said, “suggests several important consequences.“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks,” he wrote.
“It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.”
Commentary:
Judge Boasberg whether biased or paid has made his decision. Now let him try to enforce it.
There is nothing "Democratic" about the "Democrat Party" it. It is the party of Neo-Marxist Socialists and Tyranny.
The issue that activist judges are bringing to a boil is explained in this article.
"“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever."
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”"
The Republic can only work when the three branches are composed of honest honorable people, and they All abide by the Constitution and not by outside influences. Something that Neo-Marxist Socialists find abhorrent and against their totalitarian ideology.
