Judges do not control enforcement: The Constitution crushes the myth of judicial hegemony

Another day, and another federal judge fantasizes the king.

In a spectacular display of judicial overreach, a federal judge in California tried to override the constitutional authority of the US president. On Thursday, US District Judge William Alsapp sat in San Francisco and ordered six executives to revive the thousands of employees who were recently fired as part of President Donald Trump's legal efforts to restore accountability and efficiency within the federal workforce. The judge's decision is intended to bind the Department of Defense, the veterans, agriculture, agriculture, energy, internal, and the Treasury, as if a single unelected jurist could determine internal operations for the administrative department.

Let's clarify one thing. A single federal judge, and even those panels, have no constitutional authority to override, rebel or negate legal orders issued by the US President directed at officers within the administrative division. That claim is uncontroversial. It is a matter of constitutional design, historical precedents, and plain language for establishment charters.

The Constitution does not create three equal branches of the government. It creates three different branches. Each one is the best within its own realm. Administrative agencies are not just juveniles who are not just administrative use of federal judiciary. It is an equal power, and in many ways, it was designed to be the most active advocate of people's freedom against both legislative overreach and judicial arrogance, given its single, energetic structure.

But today, thanks to the fatal combination of legal ignorance, civil indifference and hub arrogance of justice, we have come to believe that a robe-equipped oligarch sitting on a federal bench can simply swing a small giveaway to paralyze the president. It is a heresy of the constitution.

Straighten the record.

Enforcement power is given to the president – not shared with judges

Article 2, Section 1 is transparent. “The enforcement power shall be given to the President of the United States.” It is not a proposal, not even a partial grant. It's the exclusive best. All executive bodies flow from its single office. From the Secretary of State to the Secretary of Agriculture, all officers of every executive body serve at the joy of the President and operate under his constitutional authority.

A federal judge, even the entire Supreme Court, cannot legally issue binding orders to executive officers against the president's legal orders. It violates the structural principle of separation of power. If an executive officer does not rely on the president in favor of a court's “injunction,” he is not obedient and not inferior.

The judiciary is not the enforcement committee of supervisory services.

Nowhere in Article 3 is a federal judiciary granting supervisory authority over administrative agencies. The court has one core function. Decide to properly determine cases and controversy. They do not “control” the government. They interpret the law in the context of a particular dispute between the parties. that's it. That's all.

A judicial order has no authority unless it is supported by its execution. But who will implement the federal order? Executive department. If a court order contradicts an executive order within the president's legal territory, who wins? The answer is clear in the constitution: executives – because the judges have no sword or authority to exercise it. Alexander Hamilton himself made the distinction clear in Federalist No. 78, stating that the judiciary “has no effect on the sword or the wallet.”

Historical practices prove the point

Think about how George Washington ruled. Has the federal court dared to issue an injunction against his order? Has Thomas Jefferson allowed one judge to block his execution decision? In fact, when Secretary John Marshall tried to expand judicial hegemony in Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson completely rejected the notion that the court could bind executives on all matters. He writes: (That) We are placed under the tyranny of the Olihead. ”

Abraham Lincoln was not yet president when the Supreme Court issued the infamous Dread Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857, but soon acknowledged the constitutional dangers it poses. He refused to accept the idea that the court's ruling could modify national policy, no matter how much it was cleaned. As he later declared, “If government policies on important questions that affect the whole people were to be amended to such an extent that they would not be revoked by the Supreme Court decision, people would have ceased to be their own rulers.”

that's right.

Defence of the constitution is the duty of executives.

One of the most grotesque modern lies is the idea that if a judge says “stop,” the entire administrative department must sit down and follow. Nonsense. The President vows to “preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution.”

That is, if the court is assuming that it is unconstitutional orders or seizes an enforcement body, the president will not only refuse to comply, but will be bound by the oath of doing so. Protecting the separation of power is not an option. It is the constitutional obligation of the CEO.

Judicial tyranny must be rejected

Let's be honest: what we are witnessing today is not the rule of law. It is a rule by a lawless judge. Fraudulent judges have issued nationwide injunctions against legal presidential orders, with media and bureaucrats lined up as if new commandments were derived from Mount Sinai. it's not. It's legal fiction and therefore dangerous fiction.

A judge cannot legally tell the president how to direct his subordinates. A judge cannot legally order the enforcement department. And unless the order violates a constitutional prohibition, and yet only within the scope of a particular case, including actual cases, an executive order cannot be legally invalidated unless the order violates a constitutional prohibition.

We have allowed the judiciary to violate constitutional boundaries, but now we enjoy the consequences. They are lawless courts acting like kings and spineless executives who have given up their legitimate authority. It has to end.

Conclusion: Follow the Constitution, not the Robe

A single federal judge cannot override an executive order directed to the administrative department. Not constitutional, not historical, but logical. The president is not subordinate to the judiciary. And serious students in the US government should not pretend otherwise. Judicial hegemony is a myth, a dangerous, corrosive, unconstitutional myth. And when we called it what it was: tyranny by the Black Robe.

For freedom to survive, it must reassert the original design. The president must govern the administrative department. The court must stick to their case. And people need to remember that their freedom is not subject to slipping into the permission of the judicial system. It depends on constitutional fidelity.