With Each Injunction, The Courts Become An Unelected Ruling Class

This obstruction is far from what the framers intended.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Destroy The Judicial Branch

Americans intuitively understand that the judiciary’s primary role is to protect the rights of American citizens, not those of bureaucracies.

Trump delivers on education, but activist judges stand in the way



President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at abolishing the Department of Education and returning most of its resources to the state level, delivering on one of his biggest campaign promises. While the order is a step in the right direction, Trump alone can’t dismantle the department. Jimmy Carter first created the agency, and later, Congress cemented it into law, meaning only Congress can dismantle it. The president can’t just wave a magic wand and make it disappear.

Democrats would have you believe that Trump’s executive order is a constitutional crisis — that education is, and always was intended to be, under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply is not the case.

Today, the Department of Education operates beyond its charter, and activist judges make law from the bench.

According to the Department of Education Organization Act, the federal government never intended to usurp state and local governments' authority over education:

It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies.

The ED has metastasized into the opposite of its original intention. Instead of protecting local control, the agency has become a federal behemoth dictating curriculum, policy, and administration at every level — a total inversion of its founding purpose.

Moreover, the founding document states that “the establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the federal government over education.”

That didn’t age well, did it? Today, the federal government wields tremendous authority over what schools teach, how they operate, and who gets funding. It’s a bureaucratic monstrosity that Congress never intended to exist in its current form.

This pattern of government action straying away from its original intention is nothing new. In recent memory, the authors of the Patriot Act have bemoaned how the government currently uses the Act to broaden federal authority beyond its indented scope. However, one lesson from history always holds true: Once you give the government an inch, it takes a mile — every single time. America’s founders knew this, and that’s why they designed a system of checks and balances.

Overreach spreads to the courts

The left’s backlash against Trump’s actions on the Department of Education highlights a broader issue: government institutions, particularly the courts, overstepping their authority. Judges are increasingly issuing rulings based on ideology rather than law, using injunctions as a tool to block Trump’s policies with little to no recourse for appeal.

This is judicial activism. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not write it. Imagine a football referee deciding that a touchdown is suddenly worth 10 points instead of six — just because he feels like it. That’s exactly what activist judges are doing — changing the rules mid-game to fit their agenda.

The Constitution’s framers foresaw the potential for activist judges and offered solutions to keep them in check. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton states that judges should not have life tenure unless they maintain “good behavior,” meaning they can be removed if they step out of line. In Federalist 81, Hamilton goes farther, making it clear that judges can be impeached if they abuse their power.

History has since established precedent. In the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had to stop interfering with Cherokee land. Georgia ignored it. The judge could rule about the legality of the case, but ultimately, he lacked the final authority to enforce the law.

I’m not suggesting that we ignore the courts entirely. However, we must recognize that the judiciary was never meant to be the ultimate authority. It was designed to be the weakest branch of government — it has no army, no budget, and no enforcement power beyond its rulings. Congress holds the purse strings, and the president commands the military.

Time to restore balance

The president’s move to cut the Department of Education, along with his other major checks against our unhinged federal bureaucracy, is a step in the right direction. But it’s not enough to just trim it — we need to restore it to its original purpose or dismantle it entirely.

Likewise, we need to rein in the courts. Judges should not be legislators in robes, and it’s this unchecked power that has enabled the federal bureaucracy to mutate into its current form today. Congress has the power to check them, and it’s time that lawmakers use it.

Our founders designed a system where no single branch could dominate the others. But today, the Department of Education operates beyond its charter, and activist judges make law from the bench. We have strayed far from the system of government America’s founders envisioned.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Rogue Judges Are Turning Judicial Review Into Judicial Rule

Boasberg’s ruling is just the latest example of a judge substituting his own political preferences for executive decision-making.

Valley Girl Federal Judge Cites Broadway Play, Rips Up Constitution In Trans Soldiers Screed

Even leftists know the Constitution would never allow courts to force presidents to enlist deranged men wearing skirts. That's why they hate the Constitution.

Alan Dershowitz Explains Why ‘We Will Never Know’ If Autopen Pardons Are Invalid

'What does the Constitution say?'

History affirms Trump’s right to use the Alien Enemies Act against gangs



President Donald Trump on Friday issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Predictably, this move drew the ire of anti-borders activists, who classified it as an attempt to circumvent due process protections for illegal aliens. Critics claimed that the legislation can be used only in times of war, but do they have a legal leg to stand on? For several significant reasons, they do not.

The Alien Enemies Act was first passed in 1798 as one of four pieces of legislation collectively — and erroneously — referred to as the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” These laws were implemented in response to the undeclared Quasi-War with France — bolstering the federal government’s power to react to national security threats.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that noncitizens have no constitutional right to stay in the US unlawfully.

Contrary to popular open-border narratives, these laws were not originally universally reviled. Many Americans saw them as necessary measures to ensure the safety and sovereignty of their newly established nation. Out of the four laws, however, only the Alien Enemies Act survived; the others either expired or were replaced before the Supreme Court established judicial review in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

Where does that leave the Trump administration today? Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used during wartime or in response to an invasion, such as the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II. The law itself was written broadly, however. It states that when the United States is at war with a foreign nation — or when an “invasion or predatory incursion” occurs — the president has the authority to detain and remove citizens of the hostile country.

The key question now is whether the law applies to foreign nationals like Tren de Aragua and other non-military individuals who have entered the country illegally. That hinges on the definition of “invade” or "predatory incursion.” Interestingly, neither term is defined explicitly in U.S. law, nor has the Supreme Court clarified it.

However, history offers some clues. Colonial-era legal documents allowed British subjects to defend themselves against foreign threats described as "destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance.” In Federalist 41, James Madison referred to the need to protect against "pirates and barbarians," suggesting that non-state actors engaged in criminal activities could qualify as invaders. Similarly, in Federalist 43, Madison warned of threats from hostile nations and the “ambitious or vindictive enterprises of [a state’s] more powerful neighbors.”

Based on these historical interpretations, two conclusions emerge. First, an invasion doesn’t have to come from a foreign government’s military. Second, as the Texas Public Policy Foundation notes, criminal organizations like cartel-linked gangs could be classified as engaging in an invasion or predatory incursion if their activities undermine U.S. sovereignty. That’s exactly what Tren de Aragua is doing.

Trump justified his decision by pointing out that Tren de Aragua is a designated foreign terrorist organization with thousands of members who have illegally entered the U.S. According to his statement, the gang is engaging in "irregular warfare and hostile actions" aimed at harming Americans, destabilizing communities, and furthering the Maduro regime’s influence.

The U.S. Constitution gives the government broad powers to respond to evolving global threats, and the Supreme Court has historically limited its review of immigration-related decisions. Additionally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that noncitizens have no constitutional right to stay in the U.S. unlawfully.

In Kleindienst v. Mandel, the court ruled that unadmitted, nonresident foreigners have no right to entry or continued presence in the country. Similarly, Mathews v. Diaz upheld congressional authority to make laws for noncitizens that would never apply to U.S. citizens.

Given such precedent, it is hard to argue that the president lacks the authority to remove gang members who threaten American security just because Venezuela hasn’t formally declared war. But never underestimate the extent to which those manifesting “Trump derangement syndrome” will interfere with legitimate attempts to protect U.S. citizens from the likes of Tren de Aragua.

Yes, The Trump Administration Has The Power To Deport Mahmoud Khalil

Mahmoud Khalil's arrest and the revocation of his green card are constitutional actions well within the powers granted to the federal government.

Texas Republican who tried to impeach Ken Paxton now trying to criminalize political memes



Texas state Rep. Dade Phelan (R), the at-times incomprehensible former state House speaker who led the unsuccessful impeachment effort against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is pushing a bill that would criminalize the publication, distribution, or broadcast of certain political memes or altered media.

Critics have suggested that Phelan's House Bill 366 is unconstitutional, stressing that it would run afoul of the First Amendment.

Phelan's bill would require "political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech or conduct that did not occur in reality," including media manipulated with generative artificial intelligence, to include a disclosure accounting for the meme's creative deviations from reality.

Under the proposed law, the Texas Ethics Commission would determine what form that disclosure takes, including "the font, size, and color of the disclosure."

Failure to include a disclosure could land Texans in jail with a Class A misdemeanor charge.

Fort Worth attorney Tony McDonald, a specialist in First Amendment litigation, told Texas Scorecard, "It's amazing that this ridiculous bill is the top priority of the Texas House's most powerful committee. This bill is obviously unconstitutional. It would criminalize protected speech on the basis of its content."

'Tryin to bolster my outlaw cred.'

When presiding over a 14-hour state House session in 2023, Phelan appeared to slur his words and have difficulty identifying a colleague. This prompted Paxton and others to allege that he was "in an obviously intoxicated state," and to call for his resignation. Phelan dodged questions about the allegations. In the years since, criticism of Phelan has in some cases incorporated mockery of the incident.

Texas Scorecard suggested that the "Drunk Dade" call-ins to Michael Berry's talk radio show — consisting of an impression of a supposedly inebriated Phelan — might, for instance, qualify as verboten speech under House Bill 366.

Berry noted on Monday, "DrunkDade tryin to bolster my outlaw cred," suggesting that the parodies make Phelan "so mad he's tryin to make it illegal."

Phelan's inspiration to push the bill might instead be the so-called deepfake political advertisement that targeted him ahead of the Republican primary runoff election last year.

The Texas Tribune reported that the offending political mailer, which was paid for by the Club for Growth Action PAC, featured two photoshops: one that swapped House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) out of a photograph and instead depicted Phelan hugging Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); and another falsely depicting Phelan giving a speech at a Texas House Democratic Caucus news conference.

The mailer stated, "Texas Republicans deserve better than Democrat puppet Dade Phelan!"

Under the proposed legislation, such doctored images would require disclosures "indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality."

Texas Scorecard indicated that Phelan did not respond to a request for comment.

The Texas Legislature's state affairs committee will hold a public hearing on the bill on Wednesday. In the meantime, critics are sharing memes and photoshops to social media of Phelan without disclosures, demonstrating what might qualify as criminal should he get his way.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judicial Org Ignored Threats To Judges Until ‘Threats’ Affected Constitution Haters

There are too many examples of judicial corruption for anyone to believe the judiciary is the one segment in the world free of malfeasance.