Trump's administration contemplates bypassing the judiciary, bracing for a potential landmark maneuver
In an incredulous twist, the White House's claim to boundless executive power has sent chills down spines, with the cannon-fire erupting around the ignorant disregard of a judge's order to cease deportations of Venezuelan gang members. It's the 21st century and yet, some senior Trump administration aides seem unfazed by such disregard for the law. This blatant disregard has led some to question if these judges are merely too junior to challenge the actions of the president.
The administration's brazen use of wartime powers under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, during peacetime, is the latest in a series of signs that showcase President Trump's sense of overwhelming omnipotence. He bets on voters continuing to reward him for his ruthless immigration enforcement tactics, despite the challenges they pose to the Constitution. The growing standoff has become crucial, as the courts are now one of the last defenses against Trump's power after he annihilated any opposition in the Republican Party and left the Democrats powerless in any branch of government in Washington.
In a thought-provoking interview with CNN's Kasie Hunt, senior White House adviser Stephen Miller argued that since Trump is flexing his powers as commander in chief, the courts have no right to hold him to account. This defies one of the foundational principles of American democracy, upheld through the three branches of government. Miller asserted that the Alien Enemies Act, a questionable law, was "written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States." He further claimed that this authority is not subject to judicial review, including district court review.
The administration's argument has left many questioning the most basic building blocks of constitutional government, as laid out in American civics classes. The judge in the deportations case was visibly furious, investigating whether the White House ignored his orders to halt the deportations of alleged gang members and return flights carrying them to the United States. The administration argues that it did not violate the judge's order, as his oral order from the bench only stated that planes carrying individuals subject to Trump's proclamation must be turned around, but his written order did not.
Constitutional experts have weighed in on Miller's argument, stating that it clashes with the landmark Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. This case established the high court's authority, finding among other key principles that the actions of the executive branch are subject to judicial review. The administration's stance threatens to erode this foundational principle of American democracy, posing a significant threat to the balance of power in the U.S. government.
The idea that the White House chooses to disregard the decisions of judges threatens the bedrock of constitutional government, a notion that Donald Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, seemed to embrace, stating that he "doesn't care what the judges think." As the stakes grow higher, it has become apparent that the administration plans to claim almost limitless presidential power, issue after issue, in the early days of Trump's second term.
Trump bets on his Republican allies remaining passive, his Democratic opponents' weakness, and the courts' inability to halt his disruption in retrospect. In this White House dominated by an all-powerful commander in chief, officials harbor a conception of the Constitution that most Americans would not recognize. When Hunt raised the separation of powers in relation to the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants without due process, Miller replied, "Yes, separation of powers. This is the judiciary interfering in the executive function."
- The growing trend of disregarding judicial orders, as demonstrated in the deportation case, has sent a chilling effect through the political landscape, suggesting an apparent grab for almost limitless presidential power by the Trump administration.
- In a defiant move, senior White House adviser Stephen Miller claims that the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to bypass judicial review during peacetime is backed by the Act's explicit intentions to grant presidents the authority to repel foreign invasions.
- As the Trump administration continues to challenge the foundational principles of American democracy, including the separation of powers and the authority of the judiciary in checking the executive, they seem to be utilizing a 300-year-old creditline (Alien Enemies Act) to justify their actions, potentially undermining the very notions they were sworn to uphold.
