We Can’t Have Politicians Who Lie About Their Oath To Defend The Constitution
You can’t establish a new constitutional order without first dismantling the one already in place.You can’t establish a new constitutional order without first dismantling the one already in place.The socialists are coming for the Senate
As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, Americans are rightly reflecting on the enduring genius of the Constitution. For two and a half centuries, separated powers, federalism, and institutional checks have protected liberty against the concentration of power.
That system has survived civil war, depressions, and foreign totalitarian threats. Yet as the nation celebrates this milestone, a radical faction at home has published a manifesto aimed at dismantling the constitutional structure that made those achievements possible.
The platform calls for the ‘public ownership and democratic control’ of major corporations, energy grids, and transportation infrastructure.
The Democratic Socialists of America just released a national platform titled “Workers Deserve More.” The populist title conceals an agenda far more radical than another increase in the minimum wage or an expansion of organized labor’s influence.
This is not a conventional progressive wish list. It is a blueprint for remaking the American republic and weakening the constitutional limits that stand between citizens and concentrated political power.
The platform begins by demanding the abolition of the United States Senate. The DSA would replace the bicameral Congress with a single legislative chamber, concentrating federal lawmaking power in a radically expanded House of Representatives.
That proposal attacks one of the central compromises of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Senate protects smaller states from domination by a handful of heavily populated metropolitan regions and forces national majorities to build broader coalitions.
A single chamber based solely on proportional representation would move the country toward unchecked majority rule — precisely the danger James Madison warned against in Federalist 62.
RELATED: ‘Need a cop? Thank socialism’ is dumb - but dangerously effective
The assault does not stop with Congress. The DSA platform also calls for severe restrictions on judicial review, placing the Supreme Court under congressional control and preventing it from striking down unconstitutional laws enacted by the proposed single chamber.
The platform would also replace the independently elected presidency with a centralized “premier” chosen by the legislature.
Consider the structure as a whole: one dominant legislative chamber, a premier answerable to that chamber, and a Supreme Court stripped of its ability to enforce constitutional limits.
That is not democratic reform. It is the consolidation of federal power in a single political institution, with few meaningful safeguards for individual liberty or dissenting minorities.
The economic program is equally sweeping. “Workers Deserve More” calls for the “public ownership” and “democratic control” of major corporations, energy systems, and transportation infrastructure. In plain English, it proposes state control of large sectors of the private economy.
History offers no shortage of warnings about such nationalization. From Eastern Europe to Venezuela, government seizure of private industry has produced shortages, economic decay, corruption, and diminished personal freedom.
The DSA pairs this centralization of political and economic power with a direct assault on national sovereignty. Its platform treats borders and citizenship not as foundations of self-government but as obstacles to be removed.
RELATED: The Democrat civil war is real — and it is happening in Wisconsin
Its immigration plank demands unrestricted “freedom of movement,” abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an end to deportations, and federal voting rights for noncitizens.
Combined with proposals to eliminate cash bail, demilitarize law enforcement, and dismantle the carceral system, the agenda would weaken the government’s ability to protect law-abiding citizens while expanding its control over nearly every other part of life.
The timing is supremely ironic. This summer, as Americans celebrate 250 years under a system designed to limit government power, the DSA is offering a system designed to maximize it.
The organization claims to speak for workers. Its platform would instead make ordinary Americans increasingly dependent on a centralized state that controls political institutions, major industries, public safety, and access to citizenship itself.
The country should call this platform what it is: an anti-constitutional program dressed in democratic language. America’s strength lies in the limits placed on government, not in the power surrendered to it.
The DSA platform is a reminder that the struggle to preserve the republic did not end with its founding. On America’s 250th anniversary, citizens should defend the constitutional guardrails that have kept power divided and Americans free.
Confirm Todd Blanche and reject the right’s culture of surrender
President Trump nominated acting Attorney General Todd Blanche last month to lead the Justice Department permanently. After more than a year as deputy attorney general, Blanche has shown that he is not merely capable of doing the job. He is the man the department needs now.
I had the privilege of serving alongside Blanche. He is smart, principled, and fearless. His record proves it.
Blanche left a lucrative private practice to serve the country. He does not need this job. The country needs him in it.
The Trump administration’s approach to law enforcement and immigration has already delivered historic results. Violent crime has reached record lows, cartel activity has declined, and property crime has fallen dramatically.
Blanche has also led the effort to reverse the Justice Department’s politicization under President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Their tenure included imprisoning grandmothers who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, arresting pro-life protesters, spying on eight Republican senators, surveilling Catholics who attended the traditional Latin Mass, and deploying the National Security Division against concerned parents at school board meetings.
That two-tiered justice system helped drive Americans to the polls for Trump. Ending the abuses is not enough. The department must also repair the damage by dismissing corrupt prosecutors, enforcing the law equally against powerful left-wing actors, and restoring people wronged by the government. Blanche has shown the courage to do exactly that.
Some Senate Republicans objected to the Justice Department’s now-abandoned plan to compensate victims of Biden-era abuses. Yet as the late Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) noted, the United States has a long tradition of compensating victims of government injustice.
Justice requires more than ending misconduct. Government must also make victims whole when it can. That is what giving them their due means.
National Review summarized its objection this way: “No matter whose name is on the DOJ letterhead, the president is running the Justice Department.”
That criticism ignores Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, which he described as one of his favorites. Scalia argued that the Constitution vests all executive power in the president — “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power” — and trusts voters to choose a president who will exercise it for the common good. A Justice Department fully independent of the president would answer neither to the nation’s elected chief executive nor to the voters who chose him.
RELATED: Trump fires US attorney minutes after activist judges installed him, leaving Patty Murray in tatters
National Review also argues that Blanche cannot stand up to Trump because he once served as Trump’s personal lawyer. The opposite is more plausible. Who is better positioned to deliver hard news: someone who put his career on the line to defend the president, or someone the president barely knows?
Presidents have often chosen attorneys general with whom they shared close professional ties. Ronald Reagan selected his personal attorney, William French Smith, and later Ed Meese, his former California chief of staff and legal affairs secretary. George W. Bush chose Alberto Gonzales, who had served as his general counsel in Texas.
National Review’s deeper objection seems to have less to do with Blanche and everything to do with Trump. But refusing to confront weaponized government allows wrongdoers to escape accountability and invites the next administration to repeat the abuse.
The left has no hesitation about using power to advance its goals. Some conservatives still treat passivity as principle even after voters put them in office to govern. Trump’s rise was a rejection of that bloodless approach to politics.
Blanche built an impressive prosecutorial record in one of the nation’s most prestigious U.S. attorney’s offices. He left a lucrative private practice to serve the country. He does not need this job. The country needs him in it.
Todd Blanche has met the moment and exceeded conservative expectations. The case against him reflects the old conservative preference for “yelling stop” rather than exercising legitimate power. Senate Republicans should reject that reflex and confirm him as attorney general.
Hawaii’s Supreme Court Declares War On SCOTUS
Seeds Of A Nullification Crisis Are Planted By Hawaii RulingIn its Granillo v. State opinion, the Hawaii Supreme Court aggressively targets the Supreme Court. Other courts may follow.John Eastman Asks SCOTUS To Protect Speech Rights Of Lawyers Doing Their Jobs
If conservative lawyers lose their free speech rights, our constitutional system of law is doomed. We’re fighting to prevent that.The Right Needs To Stop Lionizing Leftist Dupe Teddy Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt believed in 'the science,' 'the experts,' and a government strong enough to act on what those experts said.New Docs Support Allegations That Jack Smith’s Team Violated Constitution In Get-Trump Probe
With this evidence only now coming out, one must wonder what other rights the special counsel’s office trampled.Mitch McConnell’s replacement might be chosen in court first
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) died suddenly Saturday night. May he rest in peace, and prayers and condolences to his family.
His death has understandably focused attention on the mechanics of filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate. That process is governed by state law, though authorized by the federal Constitution.
The public deserves better than confident assertions resting on incomplete analysis.
South Carolina law is clear, though somewhat complicated. Republican Governor Henry McMaster appoints an interim senator to serve until the end of the current term on January 3, 2027. But because Graham had already won the Republican nomination for the general election scheduled in November, a special primary will be held on a compressed timetable to choose a new nominee.
Complicated, yes. But clear.
Kentucky is another story.
Attention has inevitably turned there because of lingering questions about Sen. Mitch McConnell’s health and his announcement that he will not seek re-election. That has prompted speculation about what would happen if his seat became vacant before his term expires.
Unfortunately, much of the commentary has confidently asserted propositions that are, at best, only partially true.
One widely repeated claim is that Kentucky’s governor would appoint a replacement, but only from a list of three names submitted by the departing senator’s political party. That was once accurate. It is no longer.
Another confidently asserted claim is the opposite: that the governor has no appointment authority because the Kentucky legislature abolished it in 2024. That conclusion may ultimately prove correct as a statutory matter, but it is not nearly as obvious as many commentators suggest.
Kentucky law is murkier than the headlines acknowledge.
Until 2024, the answer was straightforward. Kentucky law expressly authorized the governor to appoint an interim U.S. senator while requiring him to choose from a list of three nominees submitted by the departing senator’s political party. That unusual compromise preserved partisan continuity while limiting gubernatorial discretion.
RELATED: Kentucky governor makes unusual request as mystery deepens over Mitch McConnell’s health
But in 2024, the Republican-majority General Assembly repealed that statute over Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto.
That much is undisputed.
From that repeal, however, many commentators have leaped to the conclusion that the governor now possesses no appointment authority at all. That does not necessarily follow.
The 2024 legislation replaced the old Senate-specific appointment statute with provisions requiring a special election to fill the vacancy. That plainly reflects the legislature’s desire that the people — not the governor — ultimately choose the senator.
But a special election does not answer a different question: Who, if anyone, occupies the office in the meantime?
Here is where the analysis becomes more complicated.
Kentucky still has a general vacancy provision stating that where “there is no other provision of law for the filling of a vacancy in any office,” the governor shall fill the vacancy by appointment.
Does a statute requiring a future special election constitute “another provision of law” for filling the vacancy? Or does it merely prescribe how the office will ultimately be filled, leaving the temporary vacancy to the general appointment statute?
Reasonable lawyers can disagree.
Those insisting that the governor has no appointment authority argue that the legislature plainly intended to eliminate interim appointments altogether. They point to the purpose of the 2024 law and contend that allowing even a temporary appointment would frustrate that objective.
That is a serious argument. But it is not the only one.
The legislature repealed the Senate-specific appointment statute. It did not repeal the general vacancy statute. Courts ordinarily avoid finding repeals by implication and instead try to harmonize statutes whenever possible.
One could therefore read the two provisions together: The general vacancy statute supplies temporary occupancy of the office, while the election statute governs the permanent replacement.
Whether Kentucky courts would accept that interpretation is another question.
Nor is the statutory question the only uncertainty. The Kentucky Constitution contains vacancy provisions that some commentators believe independently constrain the legislature’s ability to eliminate the governor’s appointment authority. No court has squarely resolved how those provisions interact with the 17th Amendment and the legislature’s 2024 revisions.
In addition, the claim that the rule changes if a vacancy occurs before Aug. 3 rather than after is incorrect. That trigger date applies only “if the unexpired term will not end at the next succeeding annual election.” If the unexpired term will end at the next succeeding annual election, as it would with McConnell’s seat, the Kentucky Constitution provides that “the office shall be filled by appointment for the remainder of the term.”
That brings us back to the deeper question: Is Kentucky’s constitutional appointment authority preempted by the 17th Amendment?
The 17th Amendment permits state legislatures to authorize temporary gubernatorial appointments, but it does not require them to do so. It assigns that discretionary decision to the legislature.
Whether that assignment preempts a contrary state constitutional provision remains an open question.
That means Kentucky faces multiple unresolved legal issues, both statutory and constitutional.
Perhaps Kentucky courts would conclude that the 2024 legislation successfully eliminated every form of interim appointment.
Perhaps they would conclude that the general vacancy statute remains available until the special election.
Perhaps they would hold that the Kentucky Constitution independently authorizes the governor to make a temporary appointment.
Or perhaps a state or federal court would hold that the Kentucky Constitution is preempted by the 17th Amendment, which gives the legislature discretion over whether to authorize temporary gubernatorial appointments pending a special election.
The point is not that any one of those answers is certainly correct. The point is that no court has decided any of these questions.
That makes the confident pronouncements now appearing in news stories and television commentary premature.
There is an irony here. The legislators who sought to make Senate succession more democratic may instead have created uncertainty at the precise moment when certainty matters most.
If a vacancy occurred tomorrow, the first contest might not be between rival candidates at the ballot box. It might be between rival lawyers in the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The public deserves better than confident assertions resting on incomplete analysis. When the law is genuinely unsettled, intellectual honesty requires saying so.
Kentucky’s Senate vacancy law deserves that honesty. So do the citizens who may one day depend on it.
‘Back the blue’ cannot mean blind obedience
They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you good judgment.
The Fort Worth Police Department gave Sarah Stogner both a gun and a badge. What it apparently failed to determine was whether she possessed the judgment — or the constitutional literacy — required to exercise the state’s coercive power over free citizens.
Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.
The controversy arose during Fort Worth’s Trinity Pride celebration on June 27, where Christian street preachers were evangelizing outside the event.
Video shows Stogner telling one preacher he could be cited if he said something “offensive.” City officials later emphasized that the citation itself was based on a noise ordinance governing amplified sound, not the content of the preacher’s message.
Sure.
The department then ordered First Amendment retraining after the encounter went viral.
Those facts may determine the outcome in court. They do not change what thousands of people on social media saw with their own eyes: a police officer confidently asserting authority the Constitution does not give her.
The retraining is welcome, I suppose. It also adds insult to injury.
What are they teaching at the police academy these days? This was not some obscure Fourth Amendment exception or a tangled question of qualified immunity.
This was constitutional law 101.
Americans do not lose their right to speak because somebody — a cop especially — dislikes what they have to say. Giving offense is not a crime. Hurt feelings do not create probable cause. The First Amendment does not contain a Pride festival exception. Yet.
What struck me most, however, was not Stogner’s ignorance. It was her arrogance.
She never appeared uncertain. She never asked a supervisor for guidance. She never paused to consider whether she was inventing a speech code on the spot.
RELATED: Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America
She spoke as if the badge settled the question.
That’s worse than stupidity.
A stupid officer can be corrected. An arrogant officer believes correction is for everybody else.
A badge is not a moral credential. It is a legal office.
It does not make its bearer wiser, more virtuous, or more trustworthy. It confers authority — massive authority — within limits established by law.
For years, conservatives have rightly defended law enforcement against the left’s poisonous campaign to “defund the police.” They have recognized the indispensable role police play in maintaining civil order, protecting innocent people, and arresting violent criminals.
They have also rightly rejected the left’s habit of judging an entire profession by its worst actors.
But somewhere along the way, respect curdled into deference.
“Back the blue” became less a defense of lawful policing than a demand for unquestioning loyalty to anyone wearing a badge. Conservatives who instinctively distrust IRS agents, public health officials, and federal regulators somehow came to regard local police as natural allies in the defense of liberty.
That is a dangerous mistake.
Police officers are not the conservative movement in blue uniforms. They are not constitutional scholars with Glocks. They are government employees exercising delegated power.
“Protect and serve” is a worthy ideal. It’s also good marketing.
Every bureaucracy develops its own interests, habits, and institutional mythology. Every bureaucracy eventually divides the world into “us” and “them.”
Police departments are no exception.
Officers spend their days giving commands, issuing citations, conducting searches, making arrests, and using force when necessary. They are trained to establish control and treat uncertainty as a potential threat.
Much of that is unavoidable. Police work is dangerous. Hesitation can get an officer killed.
But the habits required for survival can become habits of mind.
The citizen becomes the subject. Disagreement becomes defiance. Questions become challenges to authority. The officer acts; the public is acted upon.
A Bible, a flag, or a thin blue line decal will not save you when an officer decides you are the problem. Neither will your voting record. The state does not ask whether you backed the blue before it puts you in handcuffs.
Do not misunderstand me. This is not an argument against police. It is an argument against political idolatry.
Conservatives understand, at least in theory, that government power must be constrained because human beings are fallible, self-interested, and prone to abuse authority.
We remember that principle when discussing the FBI, the IRS, or unelected regulators. We remember it when federal agents raid somebody’s home or some public health official invents a mandate.
Then a local officer puts on body armor, and suddenly half the right forgets everything it claims to believe about the state.
The uniform changes. The principle doesn’t.
Police exercise executive power. They carry the state’s monopoly on lawful violence on their hips.
That is precisely why they deserve more scrutiny, not less.
A DMV clerk can ruin your afternoon. A police officer can ruin your life.
That power requires more than tactical training, physical courage, or marksmanship. It requires judgment. More than anything, it requires humility.
An officer must never forget that the badge does not create rights. It imposes limits.
The Constitution does not exist to make police work easier. It exists in part to prevent government officials from doing whatever seems easiest in the moment.
A citizen saying something offensive may cause some heartburn. A loud preacher may irritate festival-goers, businesses, officers, and city officials. None of that gives police authority to suppress protected speech.
Enforce the noise ordinance if the facts support it. But do not allow the police to invent an offended listener’s veto.
Good officers understand the distinction. Good departments reinforce it. Good conservatives should insist upon it.
The answer is not hostility toward law enforcement. The left has already demonstrated the stupidity and destructiveness of treating every cop as an occupying soldier.
The answer is constitutional realism.
Support police when they uphold the law. Defend them when they are unfairly maligned. Hold them accountable when they exceed their authority.
But stop pretending they belong to us.
They are not supposed to serve conservatives, progressives, Pride organizers, or street preachers.
They are supposed to serve the law.
When they forget that, another training seminar may satisfy the public relations department. It does not answer the more serious question.
Should someone who must be retrained on the basic meaning of the First Amendment continue to carry a gun, a badge, and the public’s trust?
Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.
They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you judgment.
And when an officer displays arrogance instead, conservatives should not avert their eyes simply because the uniform is blue.
Where is the outrage over our stolen birthright?
Eleven years after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, the robed kings are now attempting to redefine American citizenship.
Notice that I said “are attempting,” not “have redefined.”
‘Whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone.’
Court orders are not self-executing. Nor are they universally binding on the coordinate branches that wield the powers of execution and appropriation. The ruling need not determine how those branches treat future cases.
The Republican response has nevertheless been underwhelming and devoid of urgency — much as it was when the party folded on marriage in 2015.
This time, the stakes are higher. If Republicans respond with the same passivity, we may not have a country left to conserve.
Republicans were apparently so outraged by the ruling that they went on recess for two weeks rather than use the July Fourth period to reassert citizenship by consent of the governed.
Many now insist the only remedy is a constitutional amendment, knowing it would never come close to ratification.
That response accepts the premise that Congress may exercise its powers only within the political rule announced by the court in a case brought by individual plaintiffs.
Conservatives must understand that they cannot comply their way out of judicial usurpation. The political branches must exercise their own constitutional judgment.
Courts do not possess a veto over Congress
Here is the central point Republicans are missing: Courts can decide individual cases. They can affirm, reverse, or vacate judgments.
They do not issue passports, birth certificates, Social Security cards, or citizenship documents to future children born on American soil.
Children already granted citizenship under the prevailing interpretation present a different question. The immediate issue concerns future births.
President Trump should use the veto pen and budget process to prevent the political result the left sought through the court.
RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen
Congress’ first priority should be a reconciliation bill prohibiting funds for the State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to issue citizenship documents to children born to illegal aliens or birth tourists.
Some will call that “defiance” of the Supreme Court.
Last I checked, the Supreme Court does not issue birth certificates. It does not appropriate money for them, either.
Even under a strong theory of judicial supremacy, courts may invalidate a positive action by another branch, such as imposing punishment under an unconstitutional law.
But when a court demands that Congress fund and the executive administer a citizenship regime, the political branches retain the right and obligation to interpret the Constitution for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln made this distinction during his sixth debate with Stephen Douglas.
While acknowledging that courts decide individual cases, Lincoln rejected the notion that a judicial opinion automatically becomes a political rule binding Congress and the president in every future controversy.
“We nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule,” Lincoln said in Quincy, Illinois, in 1858, “... which shall be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision.”
James Madison expressed a similar understanding in his second “Helvidius” essay, describing “a concurrent right to expound the Constitution.”
The branches were designed to check one another, not submit automatically to judicial command.
Use power of the purse
Congress should do more than defund citizenship documents for the children of illegal aliens and birth tourists. It should also restrict jurisdiction and funding for federal cases brought to compel their issuance.
Congress possesses broad authority over the jurisdiction, structure, and funding of the lower federal courts. It also controls judicial appropriations.
That power is not theoretical. Supreme Court justices routinely appear before congressional appropriators to seek funding.
Congress may therefore restrict funds for proceedings intended to force the executive branch to issue citizenship documents contrary to congressional policy.
Such provisions would have an obvious budgetary effect and could be included in reconciliation. Congress could prohibit spending both on the documents and on litigation seeking to compel them.
The same legislation should defund:
- the diversity visa lottery;
- grants to sanctuary jurisdictions and states issuing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens;
- Census Bureau operations used to count illegal aliens for apportionment;
- visas prohibited by presidential orders but revived through lower-court injunctions.
Republican leaders will hide behind the Byrd rule, which excludes provisions deemed extraneous to the budget. But Republicans found ways around it when extending tax cuts, even where provisions increased the deficit.
These immigration restrictions would reduce federal spending.
Where there is political will, there is a procedural way.
RELATED: The founders gave us the remedy for rogue state judges: Impeach
Confront judicial supremacy now
Eventually, however, the political branches must simply be prepared to say no to judicial usurpation.
The left will always find a judge willing to declare even jurisdiction stripping or spending restrictions unconstitutional.
That is why judicial supremacy must be confronted directly.
Many assume that because no formal veto exists over a Supreme Court decision, the court must possess final authority. The opposite is closer to the constitutional design.
No special veto was needed because the judiciary possessed neither purse nor sword. Courts depended on the other branches to execute their judgments.
Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as possessing “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”
Every Republican serious about reclaiming American sovereignty must reach the same conclusion: Judicial supremacy cannot be evaded indefinitely. It must be confronted head-on.
Consider the favored Republican response to the citizenship ruling: Accelerate mass deportations so illegal aliens cannot give birth here. Some lawmakers have also floated restrictions on pregnant foreign visitors.
Those policies are necessary. But the irony should be obvious. The same judges who distorted citizenship law will interfere with every serious immigration-enforcement measure.
Why has the administration struggled to achieve mass deportation? Because federal courts continue to enjoin policies involving ICE arrests, detention, removal, benefits, and visa restrictions. Even policies already upheld by the Supreme Court remain targets.
In Trump v. Hawaii, the court recognized the president’s broad authority to restrict entry from designated countries. Yet lower-court judges continue to obstruct portions of later restrictions.
The same problem will arise when the administration tries to stop counting illegal aliens in the census.
RELATED: Trump’s mass-deportation promise needs receipts
If Republicans accept judicial supremacy without resistance, judges will almost certainly hold that the 14th Amendment requires every person, regardless of legal status, to be counted for representation.
That argument may even be textually stronger than the claim that every child born to an illegal alien must receive citizenship.
The deeper issue is sovereignty. If Republicans emerge from the final Trump governing trifecta without correcting stolen citizenship, illegal representation, and judicial sabotage of immigration enforcement, the party will have betrayed the promise that launched Trump’s political career 11 years ago.
At that point, another convention and another round of slogans will mean nothing.
Lincoln, citing Jefferson during his fifth debate with Douglas, warned what happens when a free people submit absolutely to any branch of government: “Whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone.”
That is the choice before Congress. Submit to judicial supremacy or use the powers the Constitution still gives the political branches.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Congress does not have to surrender.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com