How Trump can dismantle the imperial judiciary once and for all



When Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that the Supreme Court would wield “neither force nor will” over politics, he never envisioned the judiciary having the final say on every political decision in the country. Now imagine his reaction if he were told during the American Revolution that, in the future, a single lower-court judge could unilaterally grant citizenship to illegal immigrants’ children, override the will of elected branches, and even force the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to maintain information about transgenderism on its website. He might have preferred staying under King George’s thumb.

In just the past two weeks, liberal judges in carefully chosen jurisdictions have issued rulings that reshape major policy decisions. They have effectively granted citizenship to children of future illegal immigrants, blocked Trump from offering federal workers early retirement buyouts, ordered the National Institutes of Health to maintain wasteful grant programs, mandated that male inmates be housed in women’s prisons, restricted access to key government data, and dictated appropriations for USAID staff and private organizations.

No one should assume that an unconstitutional court ruling is binding on Congress or the president.

What’s next?

The possibilities are endless if the country continues to accept the dangerous myth that every ruling from a federal judge is the final, unquestionable law of the land — even on deeply political questions. It’s time to challenge this unchecked judicial overreach.

A generation of politicians have been brainwashed into believing that a judge can, with a mere stroke of a pen, establish a universally binding political rule that other branches must obey — unless another court overturns it. In reality, each branch of government has its own tools and resources to influence policy and is obligated to use them in accordance with its interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Some may argue that allowing one branch to have the final say simplifies governance, but that is tyranny, not constitutional government. It’s time for Trump to make this distinction clear.

Courts render judgments — that’s all

Yes, courts issue judgments in civil and criminal litigation. But as Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address, it is a legal fiction to assume that “the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions.”

Lincoln strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which declared that black people were property without rights. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation during the war, and ultimately, former slaves were granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment. At the end of the day, the executive branch issues citizenship documents, not the judiciary. Lincoln had a constitutional duty to interpret the law as he understood it.

Trump must assert Lincoln’s understanding of separation of powers. Lincoln made it clear: The Constitution, not any single branch of government, is the law of the land. When courts issue rulings, those rulings bind only the parties involved and serve as precedent within the judiciary. “We nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule,” Lincoln said in his sixth debate with Stephen Douglas.

Trump must make it clear that lower courts are not equal to the president in authority — let alone supreme over him on every policy matter.

In other words, no one should assume that an unconstitutional court ruling is binding on Congress or the president.

When asked what could restrain Congress if backed by a majority of its constituents in enacting an unconstitutional law, James Madison stated that ultimate power resides with the people. “Nothing within the pale of the Constitution but sound argument [and] conciliatory expostulations addressed both to Congress [and] to their Constituents,” he explained.

Petitioning a court is one avenue to challenge unconstitutional actions, but it is not the final one. As Thomas Jefferson said late in his life, “Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.” Ultimately, public engagement and elections determine the balance of power.

No supremacy

If the Framers had intended for the judiciary to hold supremacy over the other branches, they would not have left its entire structure, purview, and power to the discretion of Congress. In fact, Congress could, if it so desired, abolish all lower courts and leave only a single Supreme Court justice with jurisdiction over the four categories granted under Article III, Section 2.

From the outset, Trump must make it clear that lower courts are not equal to the president in authority — let alone supreme over him on every policy matter. According to Article I, Section 8, and the judicial vesting clause of Article III, Section 1, Congress has full authority over the creation of “inferior courts and tribunals.”

In fact, it was never a given that Congress would establish lower courts at all. During debates at the Constitutional Convention, some delegates proposed allowing state courts to oversee most federal issues, with a direct appeal route to the Supreme Court. This historical reality underscores that the judiciary was never meant to dictate policy to the executive and legislative branches.

Roger Sherman, one of the most respected Founding Fathers and a drafter of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “The constitution does not make it necessary that any inferior tribunals should be instituted, but it may be done if found necessary.”

Nobody wants an imperial presidency, but an imperial judiciary is an even greater threat.

In 1812, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts “possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer.” In Sheldon v. Sill (1850), the Court reaffirmed this principle, ruling that “Congress, having the power to establish the courts, must define their respective jurisdictions.” Justice Robert Grier, writing for a unanimous Court, left no ambiguity: “Courts created by statute can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers.”

Even the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches — only over the congressionally created “inferior” courts. The Constitution mandates only the position of chief justice and grants original jurisdiction in a few specific cases, such as disputes between states and matters involving foreign diplomats. As for its appellate jurisdiction, Congress vested the court with that power in 1789, and under Article III, Section 2, Congress retains the authority to make exceptions and regulations governing its scope.

No logical person can argue that the Framers intended the courts — even the Supreme Court — to reign supreme over the other branches. If its entire structure depends on legislation and Congress can strip it of jurisdiction over nearly any issue at any time, the judiciary was never meant to be the final authority over all political questions.

Nobody wants an imperial presidency, but an imperial judiciary — one that is unelected and unaccountable — is an even greater threat. If Democrats believe Trump exceeded his authority by firing USAID workers or blocking funding for private organizations, they can refuse to pass a budget bill unless it includes that funding. Some have already threatened to do so.

Ultimately, the American people — not the courts alone — will decide who is right through public debate and the looming threat of a government shutdown. Courts cannot force Trump to fund foreign countries any more than Trump can dictate how judges rule in a murder trial.

A republic, not a rule by judges

It wasn’t until 1958, in Cooper v. Aaron, that Chief Justice Earl Warren brazenly declared the Supreme Court “supreme in the exposition of the law of the U.S. Constitution” and called it “a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.” No previous generation believed in such a dangerous myth — that the weakest and unelected branch should rule over the others. It’s time to restore the balance that existed before Cooper v. Aaron.

The Congressional Research Service noted in a 2017 report that the “early history of the United States is replete with examples of all three branches of the federal government playing a role in constitutional interpretation.” Members of Congress once took their duties seriously, and as the CRS observed, they never passively accepted the courts as having “a final or even exclusive role in defining the basic powers and limits of the federal government.”

We must stop accepting the false premise that the judiciary has the authority to police the other branches while also serving as the sole enforcer of its own boundaries of power. This idea is tyrannical and contradicts the fundamental structure of a constitutional republic with three coequal branches, in which the judiciary is the weakest. As James Madison put it, “If the constitutional boundary of either be brought into question, I do not see that any one of these independent departments has more right than another to declare their sentiments on that point.”

So what happens when the legislature and the president disagree? Do we treat the courts as the final arbiter, as nearly everyone on both sides of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing seemed to believe? Not at all.

In his second “Helvidius” essay, Madison — debating Alexander Hamilton over the Washington administration’s stance toward France — argued that such friction is not only inevitable but healthy. He wrote:

It may happen also that different independent departments, the legislative and executive, for example, may in the exercise of their functions, interpret the constitution differently, and thence lay claim each to the same power. This difference of opinion is an inconvenience not entirely to be avoided. It results from what may be called, if it be thought fit, a concurrent right to expound the constitution.

In other words, the branches are supposed to fight it out. This is the essence of a functioning republic — messy, but far superior to the North Korean-style consolidation of power in an unelected judicial branch, which has become the norm today.

It’s time to restore the proper balance.

What The Founding Fathers Would Have To Say About Biden And Trump’s Presidental Pardons

In four years, Biden used his Article 2, Section 2 powers more than 8,064 times.

Why ‘neutral’ policies fuel the ever-growing power of the state



Many conservatives and libertarians say reducing the size of government is their top priority but rarely consider the factors that drive its growth in the first place. For most small-government champions, institutional neutrality and minimal state power are measures of success. Yet, they often overlook how these factors can make expansion of the state inevitable.

While libertarians hold varying views, many believe borders are an artificial state imposition and that individuals should move freely at will. This belief that government should not favor any particular culture or people leads to multiculturalism. Ironically, it also creates a need for a large state apparatus to mediate conflicts among diverse cultures.

In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions.

When America’s founders broke from Great Britain, they did not seek to abolish all governance or grant unfettered individual freedom. They acknowledged the necessity of government but believed it could remain limited if people shared moral principles and maintained personal virtue.

Early America included state churches, blasphemy laws, and strict standards for public conduct. Liberty, in their view, was not the absence of authority but governance aligned with the shared values and beliefs of the people.

The men who established the U.S. government recognized that it would only work for a moral and religious people, and they made that fact explicit. They believed that when people act virtuously and pursue the common good without state coercion, government can effectively govern less.

Every person who seeks the good does so by following what feels natural within their own culture and religion. Laws and restrictions that align with these beliefs do not feel burdensome — often, shared communal expectations alone can maintain order. In this sense, liberty and a shared moral vision are inseparable.

When the social forces of religion and culture remain strong, the state can uphold order with minimal interference. Robust families and communities with a common moral foundation mediate conflict and discourage antisocial behavior before it demands government involvement. But when these social forces weaken or fracture, the state must intervene to prevent disorder.

This dynamic explains why a government that does not favor a particular culture or its virtues will inevitably grow in both size and power.

By its nature, multiculturalism fractures a shared moral vision. Culture shapes us from birth, helping us understand the world and our place in it. Culture and religion define right and wrong, establish the social customs we consider natural, and inform our sense of the good life for both individuals and communities. While different cultures may overlap in some areas, this minimal shared morality is often not enough to foster harmony, because a multicultural society, by definition, embodies multiple competing visions of the good and how to pursue it.

When people shared a strong majority culture and moral vision, government could stay small. The state needed only to make laws consistent with that culture, so those laws did not feel like an imposition. Critics may label a government that favors and protects the majority culture as “illiberal,” yet it may be more likely to let citizens live according to their conscience. However, when a nation becomes multicultural and the state chooses to support that shift, the state must radically change its role.

In a multicultural society, organic dispute-resolution methods and communal expectations cannot reliably maintain order. Individuals hold differing views on public conduct, the values taught in public institutions, and which notion of the good should guide collective action. These disagreements are fundamental because they stem from the core assumptions of each competing culture. Without a common tradition, no organic communal structure exists to mediate such conflicts, so the state must step in.

In a multicultural country, the government must serve as a neutral arbiter among communities with different moral visions. Yet, no institution can remain truly neutral, because moral neutrality does not exist. Public schools, hospitals, libraries, and armed forces become cultural battlegrounds as a result. Every clash of culture provides the state an opportunity to expand its authority, imposing its ideology on fractured and atomized communities. Whenever people cannot agree or resolve disputes on their own, the government steps in, assumes that responsibility, and gains additional power.

It does not matter whether an arbitrary law comes from a despotic monarch, a technocracy, or a democracy — it will still feel oppressive. In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions by a state disconnected from any single culture. While it may run counter to modern small-government theories, vigorous government action that defends a unified culture is often more likely to protect liberty than open borders and neutral institutions.

Only a shared moral vision — rooted in our nation’s historic Christian faith — can halt the spread of tyranny and preserve the liberty our forefathers envisioned. “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain,” the Psalmist reminds us. “Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.”

Why Oklahoma RETURNED the Bible to schools



Americans love a good underdog, but many of them have never studied the Bible. Which means they don’t know exactly why they love a good underdog.

“It comes from David and Goliath,” Glenn Beck of “The Glenn Beck Program” explains. “That is part of our culture. You don’t have to believe there was an actual giant and David defeated the giant with one rock. I happen to believe that story, but you don’t have to.”

“But if you don’t know that story, you don’t really understand the West, and the Bible is littered with those stories,” he adds.

Now, Oklahoma has become the first state to put the Bible back into classrooms, many thanks to Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters, who has dedicated funds to put a Bible in every school.


“The left, I’ll give them credit. They’ve done a tremendous job of indoctrinating our kids for the last 40 or 50 years, and frankly, broader society, to believe that somehow our Founding Fathers believed that there shouldn’t be a Bible in a schoolhouse,” Walters tells Glenn.

“We’re going to distort American history and tell kids this country is an evil, racist place, faith played no role,” he continues. “And so here in Oklahoma, we’re bringing the Bible back. We are very excited.”

While Walters expects pushback from the left, he’s not concerned.

“Leftists, you don’t have to agree with the Bible. You can be offended. That’s all well and good, and it’s fine, but you can’t lie to our kids about our history and the influence the Bible and Christianity plays,” he tells Glenn.

“You have to understand our history in order for us to continue as a civilization,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Supreme Court Shouldn’t Let The Federal Government Control 70 Percent Of A State’s Land

The case in Utah raises issues not only about land use concerns but also core principles of federalism relevant to the entire country.

Two reminders we all need after the election: We are NOT a democracy, and the Electoral College is good



We heard a lot about democracy during the election season. The left circulated the narrative that Trump would be the end of democracy while the right called him the savior who would rescue it from the undemocratic Biden regime.

Mark Levin, however, says we need to be reminded of something: “[Our Founding Fathers] didn't support democracy; they supported republicanism.”

“Democracy means factions can take over or a majority can be tyrannical,” he says, adding that our Founders saw this in other countries and “didn’t want anything to do with it.”

“They wanted republicanism; they wanted checks in power,” he explains.

That’s why they enshrined certain principles in our Constitution.

That way, “you can't have people vote away your rights,” says Levin. If “90% of them don't think you should have the right to bear arms, that's too damn bad.”

The fact that our forefathers foresaw the inevitable issues with a true democracy and created our brilliant system proves that “they were geniuses.”

Their installation of the Electoral College was equally brilliant.

Even though we see people like Tim Walz advocating for the demolition of it, Levin knows the truth: It’s for our nation’s protection.

“You choose a president not through a direct election” but rather via an “Electoral College. Why?” asks Levin. “One person is the head of an entire branch; we can't just leave it up to a popular vote” because then “the cities will choose the president.”

“In order to have a union and in order to make sure every aspect of the society was represented, they came up with this brilliant Electoral College,” he explains.

Because of this brilliant system of balance, “California doesn't get to drown out Montana, Wyoming, [or] Idaho.”

“If you had a national popular vote, that’s what [California] would do,” says Levin.

A system in which “the president [is] chosen by the people through the Electoral College but not chosen by the legislature” was “unheard of” at the time. So was the idea of “staggered terms” and a “bicameral congress.”

“So the accumulation of power, the centralization of government is limited,” Levin explains.

To hear more of his explanation on the brilliant and effective system of government designed by our forefathers, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Bill Maher destroys Gen Z criticism of the Constitution: ‘What the f*** have you done?’



In a recent broadcast on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Maher took a surprising stance in fierce defense of the U.S. Constitution.

“Constitution Day was last week. It’s an actual federal holiday, but no one noticed despite the fact that it’s probably the greatest legal document ever. Is it flawed? Of course; it was written by humans,” Maher told his audience before criticizing the education system for the lack of importance placed on the document.

“Only 14% of 8th graders are proficient in history now, and only 22% in civics, which may be why four in 10 Gen Zers say that the authors are best described as ‘villains,’” he continued, adding, “It’s amazing since in 1776, Alexander Hamilton was 21, and James Madison, 25. Joe Biden was only 30.”

“America’s Founders, they were the Gen Z of their day. And when they were your age, they started a country. What the f*** have you done?” He then asked.

Maher went on to note that our Founders made compromises, like slavery, calling history “complicated” while “Gen Z reasoning is not.”

“They think they’re pure, but they’re really just simplistic. They know two things: White people did some very bad things and ... no, that’s it. That’s all they have,” he finished to cheers.

Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” is impressed, exclaiming, “Really good, wow.”

“Not only a defense of the Constitution but of the Founders as well,” Keith Malinak agrees.

“For Bill Maher to understand and explain that, that’s incredible,” Gray adds.


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Schoolhouse Rock’ Forgot To Teach Kids About The Administrative State

It’s a wonderful introduction to our system of government. But for all the video gets right, there’s an anomaly at its core.

The unknown Revolutionary War HERO who sacrificed everything



The American Revolution was led by many men with names we know by heart — Adams, Revere, Hancock, and Washington — to name a few.

But there’s a lesser known name who’s received little to no time in the limelight in the history books: Dr. Joseph Warren of Massachusetts.

“It’s very interesting,” Mark Levin says. “In New England, early on when the war broke out, before 1776, Dr. Joseph Warren was known better than George Washington.”

During the Battle of Bunker Hill, there was a problem that Warren, a leader of the Revolutionary movement in Boston, helped solve.

The colonists were short on gunpowder, so Warren and a few others put together and signed a letter addressed to the Congress of New York asking for help.

“You read that, and you look at that, and you really think about the men who wrote it and signed it, who put everything on the line, everything they had, including their lives,” Levin says, admiring their sacrifice.

When the Patriots ended up running out of gunpowder during this battle, some of them stood firm at the front line while others were ordered to retreat for another day.

“Dr. Warren insisted on staying on the front line. He was a wanted man, they knew who he was,” Levin explains. “The Americans are overwhelmed, they fight hand to hand combat, and one of the higher ranking British officers, as they were charging up the last time, saw Joseph Warren, aimed his pistol at him in nearly point blank range, shot him between the eyes.”

“And so as not to make a martyr out of Dr. Joseph Warren, they would cut him up into pieces, they would burn what was left of him,” he adds, noting that the British forces also urinated on his remains.

The American forces were able to determine that Warren was one of the dead as in his teeth he had some easily identifiable iron, which was made by Paul Revere, who was a metalsmith.

“I tell you that as a personal example, not personal to me, but a specific example, of what took place,” Levin says.


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.