Vital SCOTUS Case Tests The President’s Absolute Authority To Remove Executive Branch Officials
The Constitution is clear that the all executive authority resides in the president.The Constitution is clear that the all executive authority resides in the president.Chip Roy’s immigration blitz hits the lawless left and the squish right
Let’s face it: Republicans are staring at a wipeout in the midterm elections. The economy is battered, GOP leadership looks unfocused, and swing voters show signs of fatigue with the endless drama surrounding Trump. The trend lines point in one direction.
But another truth sits alongside it: Republican voters still want a reason to show up. The base will not match the left’s turnout intensity unless the party gives them a fight worth having. And no issue energizes the conservative electorate more than immigration. If Republicans intend to use their remaining political capital, this is where to use it.
At a minimum, Trump should return to his original 2015 promise: Pause immigration and restore sanity to a system voters believe is broken beyond recognition.
Last week, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced exactly that fight.
What the PAUSE Act does
Roy’s PAUSE Act freezes all legal immigration — except temporary tourist admissions — until the federal government establishes permanent enforcement against illegal entry and against categories of immigration voters have opposed for years. The bill sets clear conditions for lifting the moratorium.
- Reversing Plyler v. Doe, allowing states and localities to deny illegal aliens access to public schools.
- Reforming birthright citizenship so that minors receive citizenship only when at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or green card holder.
- Ending chain migration and the diversity visa program; limiting entries to spouses and unmarried minor children; ending extended-family preference categories.
- Prohibiting the entry of Sharia-law adherents, Chinese Communist Party members, known or suspected terrorists, and members of foreign terrorist organizations.
- Barring noncitizens from accessing means-tested federal benefits such as SNAP, SSI, TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, federal student loans, and public housing.
- Ending adjustment of status for H-1B visa holders and abolishing the unconstitutional optional practical training program that displaces American tech workers.
The bill accomplishes all of this in fewer than 10 pages. Original co-sponsors include Reps. Keith Self (R-Texas), Brandon Gill (R-Texas), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), and Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.).
A long-delayed agenda
Conservatives have pushed these reforms for nearly two decades. Some ideas surfaced in the Trump years through executive actions, but courts blocked several and entrenched others — especially anchor-baby citizenship and taxpayer-funded K-12 education for illegal aliens.
Other essential reforms, such as ending optional practical training, halting visas from China, or barring Sharia-law adherents, were never attempted.
RELATED: Trump can’t call it ‘mission accomplished’ yet
The genius of Roy’s bill is simple: It creates a standing incentive for courts, presidents, and future Congresses. If judges want legal immigration to continue, they must revisit the policies that created the crisis in the first place.
Staring at political reality
If Trump focused his attention on this bill — and forced congressional Republicans to choose — he could unite conservatives heading into primary season. A transformational immigration fight would energize GOP voters at a moment when the party shows weakness across the map.
Democrats have over-performed by an average of 15 points in recent special elections. That surge alarmed Republicans enough that they pulled Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) from consideration for U.N. ambassador for fear of losing her district, which Trump carried by 15 points. Democrats are now pouring money into Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, which Trump carried by 20. A party that cannot defend safe seats is a party in trouble.
If Republicans can’t win in red America during a bad economy, it’s not because voters demand new talking points. It’s because the party has failed to deliver on the core issues that animate its base.
RELATED: The right must choose: Fight the real war, or cosplay revolution online
The choice ahead
Trump could offer a fresh economic vision or finally follow through on repealing Obamacare. But at a minimum, he should return to his original 2015 promise: Pause immigration and restore sanity to a system voters believe is broken beyond recognition.
The window is closing. If Republicans refuse to use the power they still possess, they will lose it — not gradually, but suddenly.
The PAUSE Act gives them a chance to reverse that trajectory. The question is whether they will take it.
How the Senate’s phony ‘deliberation’ crushes working Americans
The United States Senate is broken, and most Americans know it — including President Donald Trump. A chamber that once passed laws with a simple 51-vote majority, a practice that held for more than a century, now demands 60 votes for nearly anything of consequence.
Defenders call this the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” guarding minority rights. In reality, the 60-vote threshold is a rule the Senate invented in the last century — and one it can discard tomorrow.
The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.
Article I lists exactly seven situations that require a supermajority: overriding vetoes, ratifying treaties, convicting in impeachment, expelling members, proposing constitutional amendments, and two obscure quorum rules. Passing ordinary legislation is not on the list.
The Senate’s tradition of unlimited debate — the seed of modern filibusters — wasn’t designed to create a supermajority requirement. It was an accident.
In 1806, on Aaron Burr’s suggestion that the Senate rulebook was cluttered, the chamber deleted the “previous question” motion, the mechanism the House still uses to end debate and vote. No one understood the implications at the time. Filibusters didn’t appear until the 1830s, and even then they were rare because they required real endurance. Senators had to speak nonstop, often for days, until they collapsed or yielded.
How the filibuster became a weapon
Everything changed in 1917. After 11 anti-war senators filibustered Woodrow Wilson’s bill to arm merchant ships on the eve of World War I, the public revolted. Wilson demanded action. The Senate responded by creating Rule XXII — the first cloture rule — allowing two-thirds of senators to end debate.
Instead of restraining obstruction, the rule supercharged it. For the first time, a minority didn’t need to speak until exhaustion. They only needed to threaten it. The majority now had to assemble a supermajority to progress.
The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.
The Senate has rewritten its filibuster rule many times since. In 1975, it lowered the cloture threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths (60 votes). In 2013, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most presidential nominees; in 2017, Republicans applied that same exception to Supreme Court justices.
These changes all point to the same reality: The filibuster is not a sacred tradition. It is a standing rule, created and amended by simple-majority votes. The Senate can change it again any time.
The myth of ‘unprecedented change’
Filibuster defenders insist that ending the 60-vote rule would be radical.
It wouldn’t. In reality, it would restore the practice that governed the Senate for its first 128 years — unlimited debate, yes, but no supermajority threshold for passing laws.
RELATED: Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base
Defenders also claim the filibuster forces compromise. History says otherwise. The biggest legislative achievements of the last century — Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — all passed when the filibuster was weakened, bypassed, or irrelevant.
What we have now is not deliberation. It is paralysis: a rule that allows 41 senators, representing as little as 11% of the country, to veto the will of the rest. The Senate already protects small states through equal representation and long tenures. Adding a 60-vote requirement for routine governance is not what the framers intended.
The fix
The solution is straightforward. The Senate can return to simple-majority voting for legislation. It can keep unlimited debate if it wishes — but require a real talking filibuster that ends when the minority runs out of arguments or public patience. Or it can leave the system as it is now and watch President Trump’s America First agenda stall for another generation.
The filibuster is not a 230-year constitutional safeguard. It is a 108-year experiment born in 1917 — and it has failed. The Senate invented it. The Senate can un-invent it.
No, The Conservative Answer To America’s Affordability Crisis Isn’t Just To ‘Move’
'Conservatism,' as a political ideology, has failed to conserve anything meaningful, and that's a serious problem.Trump Is Right. Senate Republicans Should End The Filibuster Before It’s Too Late
The filibuster will end sooner or later, so conservatives should act now while they have power in the House, Senate, and White House.Yes, President Trump Can Pardon The 77 People Prosecuted For 2020 Election Integrity Efforts
Media wrongly insist that the pardon clause only applies to federal charges, yet every attempt to narrow the scope of pardons has failed.Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine
On Sunday night, the Oversight Project announced the culmination of a long effort: President Trump’s pardons for the so-called “alternate electors” and their affiliates who faced state-level prosecution for their role in the 2020 election.
Credit belongs to President Trump and Pardon Attorney Ed Martin for seeing this process through — and for having the political will and moral memory to leave no MAGA supporter behind. These pardons are the result of over a year of focused work by the Oversight Project. And because the corporate left-wing media has predictably denounced them for their politics, prudence, and legal effect, it’s worth explaining the pardons’ justification and impact.
Participation in a constitutional process is not a crime. Operation Arctic Frost and its imitators will not define the future of American justice. These pardons will.
First, terminology matters. “Contingent electors” is the correct phrase. “Alternate electors” or “fake electors” are loaded terms invented by the press to imply criminality.
In reality, these electors prepared slates to be submitted to Congress while investigations and legal challenges into the 2020 presidential election were still pending. Their purpose was simple: to preserve flexibility should fraud or irregularities be confirmed.
The 2020 election was unlike any in modern history. Under the pretext of COVID-19, officials across multiple states expanded mail-in voting without the safeguards required by law. Signature verification, chain-of-custody rules, and registration requirements were ignored. Courts refused to hear evidence, dismissing cases on procedural grounds rather than the merits.
And somehow, we were told that the vice president and Congress — bodies that have historically played a role in adjudicating electoral disputes — no longer had any role to play. As a result, President Biden’s victory will forever carry an asterisk in the history books.
Debunking modern myths
The notion that elections can only be challenged in court is a modern myth. Since the founding, Congress has played a central role in resolving disputed elections, as have state legislatures empowered to ensure the integrity of their own processes — including, when necessary, selecting electors directly.
The list of precedents is long.
- In 1797, John Adams, as president of the Senate, allowed time for objections to Vermont’s votes.
- In 1801, Thomas Jefferson counted Georgia’s contested votes — for himself.
- In 1857, a snowstorm kept Wisconsin’s electors from voting, but their ballots were counted anyway.
- In 1876, during the Hayes-Tilden standoff, Congress created a commission to adjudicate dueling slates from four states.
- In 1961, Hawaii submitted a contingent slate while its results were still being certified.
- In 2005, both chambers of Congress debated and ultimately rejected objections to Ohio’s votes.
- And as recently as 2017, multiple House members objected to electors from several states, though they lacked Senate co-sponsors.
This long record makes clear that the use of contingent electors is not criminal — it is, in fact, perfectly constitutional.
From constitutional to criminal
So why are good-faith contingent electors from 2020 now facing state prosecutions and financial ruin? The answer is weaponization.
During the Biden years, the federal government, blue-state prosecutors, and activist networks have coordinated to transform lawful political activity into criminal conduct. The same machinery that pursued President Trump through endless investigations was turned on ordinary citizens whose only “crime” was preserving constitutional options.
Operation Arctic Frost — the campaign of “map, harass, and isolate” tactics aimed at Trump allies — illustrates this perfectly. It was designed to intimidate lawyers, donors, and officials who supported Trump’s legal challenges, freezing them out of professional and financial life. The contingent electors were swept up in that same apparatus: coordinated prosecutions, media smears, and punitive lawfare intended to silence dissent.
RELATED: Biden FBI’s Arctic Frost surveillance of lawmakers could cost the government
From Fani Willis’ politically motivated prosecutions in Georgia to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s efforts to organize partisan coalitions against perceived “threats,” the coordination has been unmistakable. Government, activist, and media arms all moved together with one goal: to erase the America First movement and criminalize its constitutional exercise of power.
That is the true definition of weaponization — using the law to destroy political opposition.
The legal case for Trump’s pardons
Critics claim the president cannot pardon state-level offenses. But that view collapses under constitutional scrutiny. States cannot prosecute conduct that falls under federal authority once it has been pardoned.
The selection of electors is a hybrid function — both state and federal — but the contingent electors acted in service of a federal purpose: the certification of the presidency. By issuing these pardons, the federal government has declared that these individuals acted lawfully, in good faith, and consistent with historic precedent.
If the federal government deems their actions lawful, how can states claim they committed crimes? That’s a question any fair court — or any fair jury — should be able to answer easily.
If these pardons are treated honestly, the state cases will collapse. More important, this should reassure every American committed to election integrity that defending the Constitution will never again be treated as a criminal act.
RELATED: The bureaucracy strikes back — and we’re striking harder
Now what?
The toll on those targeted has been immense. Many have endured years of legal harassment, public vilification, and financial ruin simply for acting according to their constitutional duty.
The Oversight Project is exploring every possible avenue to secure restitution for those harmed — whether through private support, legislative action, or further executive remedies. These pardons mark the first step in correcting the record and restoring faith in the justice system.
They are not merely acts of mercy; they are acts of correction. They affirm that Americans who act to preserve election integrity, often at great personal cost, were right to do so.
The message is clear: Participation in a constitutional process is not a crime. Operation Arctic Frost and its imitators will not define the future of American justice. These pardons will.
Calling It ‘Biden’s FBI’ Diminishes The Real Threat Of A Bureaucracy Gone Wild
The corruption didn’t begin under Biden, and it won’t end under a Republican administration.How Sharia law violates everything the founding fathers built
From the moment I first studied the United States Constitution through the lens of scripture, I’ve been struck by how carefully our founders embedded God-given liberty into the fabric of our nation. Freedom of conscience, equality before God, and protection from government overreach are not just political ideas; they are biblical principles.
The more I study, the clearer it becomes that Islamic systems like sharia law, enforced as government policy abroad, stand in sharp contrast to both the freedoms our Constitution guarantees and the liberties scripture upholds.
Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.
Sharia law, when enforced as government policy, conflicts with constitutional freedom and biblical principles of liberty, including protections for personal conscience, speech, and moral choice.
Sharia law vs. constitutional liberty
Sharia law is a system derived from Islamic religious texts, guiding personal conduct and societal governance.
In countries where it is enforced, it often dictates punishments, civil law, and social norms based on religious authority rather than individual liberty. This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. Constitution, which separates church and state, ensuring that government does not dictate religious belief or practice.
Scripture emphasizes the importance of freedom in Christ. Galatians 5:1 reminds us, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” The Constitution mirrors this principle, protecting Americans from coercion in matters of conscience, ensuring that individuals may follow God freely without fear of government reprisal.
Real-world examples of sharia governance
When we examine Muslim nations governed by sharia-based systems, the consequences for personal freedom are clear.
In countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, civil and criminal codes often derive directly from religious texts. These laws enforce strict moral codes, restrict freedom of speech, and impose severe punishments on offenses such as theft, adultery, or apostasy.
RELATED: The Islamification of America is well under way
Punishments include public lashings, stonings, and even amputations for certain crimes. LGBTQ individuals face particularly harsh treatment, including imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death. Women’s rights and freedom of expression are often restricted as well.
These policies illustrate a system in which government enforces religious conformity, which directly conflicts with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. The U.S. founders recognized that human governments are fallible; they designed laws to protect liberty and allow people to make moral and spiritual choices voluntarily rather than under coercion.
The biblical perspective on liberty and government
Scripture provides a firm framework for understanding liberty. Romans 13:1-4 teaches that governments are instituted to punish wrongdoers and maintain order, but within limits. Civil authority is meant to restrain evil while upholding justice, not to enforce religious orthodoxy.
John 8:32 reminds us, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” True freedom, in both spiritual and civil contexts, comes from the ability to choose God and live according to His moral order voluntarily.
The Constitution’s protections for freedom of religion, speech, and equal protection under the law reflect these same biblical principles. They ensure that no one is coerced into adherence to a particular religious code, preserving liberty and human dignity.
Sharia-based governance, when implemented as law, replaces personal conscience with mandatory religious observance, undermining the freedoms that God and the founders intended.
How Christians should respond
Loving our neighbors does not mean ignoring the truth about systems of governance. But discernment calls us to distinguish between individuals and systems of law that impose religious authority on entire societies.
Christians are called to defend freedom and truth, speaking boldly yet compassionately.
Understanding the differences between sharia-based governance and constitutional liberty is not purely academic; it’s practical. Nations that merge religion and state often face suppression of speech, persecution of minorities, and human rights violations. Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.
Practical engagement may include:
- Praying for wisdom to navigate cultural and political issues.
- Educating others about the value of freedom of conscience.
- Participating in civic discourse in ways that honor God while upholding liberty.
Sharia law and the protection of minorities
One area that starkly highlights the contrast is treatment of LGBTQ individuals. In sharia-governed regions, homosexuality is often criminalized, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to corporal punishment, even death. Theft or other criminal offenses can result in amputations, and adultery may be punished by stoning.
Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.
These practices illustrate the deep conflict between enforced religious law and personal freedom, especially for vulnerable minorities.
In contrast, the U.S. Constitution protects all citizens, ensuring legal equality, freedom of conscience, and due process. The biblical principle that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) supports the need to defend dignity and liberty for all.
Historical lessons and modern implications
History demonstrates that societies enforcing religious law as government policy often struggle with oppression and instability. By embedding freedom and separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution creates space for citizens to practice faith voluntarily, without fear of legal coercion.
As Christians, we can see how these principles align with biblical teaching and recognize why coercive religious legal systems are incompatible with God’s design for human freedom.
Standing for freedom with compassion
Understanding these contrasts calls us to vigilance, prayer, and action. Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.
Loving our neighbors does not mean compromising truth; it means defending freedom in a way that is rooted in Christ’s example of compassion and moral clarity.
By examining Islam as a governance system, we see clearly the importance of constitutional and biblical liberty. Freedom of conscience, protection of minorities, and the ability to choose God freely are not negotiable — they are foundational to both faith and the American experiment.
Standing for these freedoms is an act of love, truth, and obedience to God.
This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Arch Kennedy's blog.
The Voting Rights Act Needs To Be Aligned With A Constitutional Definition Of Equality
VRA Needs Aligning With A Constitutional Definition Of EqualityToday's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com