It’s The Left Who Are Creating A Constitutional Crisis

In the face of what many see as an egregious judicial overreach into the Trump administration's policy implementation, Vice President JD Vance recently challenged the courts' encroachment on the Executive Branch's constitutional prerogatives. It is undoubtedly time to re-establish the Separation of Powers based on the US Constitution.

Vance’s arguments center on an accurate reading and understanding of the fundamental principle of the Separation of Powers. His interpretation—which has been validated over the years in various US Supreme Court Rulings—highlights how anti-Trump judicial actions have repeatedly attempted to usurp the Executive Branch's rightful authority over key functions like military command and prosecutorial discretion, not to mention its exclusive purview of branch organizational operations.

The Separation of Powers doctrine, codified in the Articles of the US Constitution that establishes the three branches of government, is meant to ensure that each branch of government checks the others to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. However, judicial activism, such as what we see in the politically motivated actions of today’s courts against Trump’s executive actions, can upset this balance by allowing the judiciary to encroach on the powers of the legislative or executive branches.

Robert Bork, in his book The Tempting of America, critiques judicial activism as “a political enterprise masquerading as law.” And the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in his book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, frequently argued against judicial activism, advocating for originalism, where judges interpret the Constitution based on its text and the original understanding of its terms.

The current controversy ignited when a federal judge brazenly blocked the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, from accessing critical Treasury Department systems. This act blatantly infringes on the Executive's operational autonomy.

This judicial intervention is but one example of how the courts have systematically challenged President Trump's executive orders to restructure and optimize federal government operations. These orders included significant policies that would reorganize and streamline operations, eliminate the wasting of taxpayer dollars, and, specifically, dismantle the Deep State monetary feed-trough that was the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

With over two dozen lawsuits filed directly opposing the President’s executive directives, Deep Staters and Democrat judicial appointees have undertaken an alarming trend in lawfare where judicial blocks have become political tools to thwart the administration's reformative agenda. This politically motivated lawfare obstructs the people’s mandate given to Trump in his 2024 landslide victory.

Critics like the disgraced Liz Cheney and US Senator Adam “Boy Do I Have A Problem With Telling The Truth” Schiff (D-CA) have ignorantly painted Vance's defense of executive authority as “advocacy for lawlessness.” However, when presented with examples of how former Presidents Biden and Obama abused Executive authority for purely political purposes—in particular, Biden’s repeated orders to ignore the US Supreme Court in his advancement of student loan forgiveness, these two political numpties were notably silent.

This obstructionist view starkly contrasts with the insights offered by legal scholars like Yale Law's Jed Rubenfeld, who supports Vance's stance that certain Executive Branch functions are inherently outside the judiciary's scope and purview, and Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, who also argued that such judicial blocks violate the Separation of Powers, saying, "Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the Separation of Powers.”

Vance himself put it this way:

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the Executive's legitimate power.”

As the administration navigates these legal challenges through what is rightfully recognized as politically weaponized and biased lower courts, the expectation is that these cases will reach the Supreme Court, where a more constitutionally minded review will restore balance.

But, Mr. Trump, his advisors, and legal minds would be wise to borrow from Andrew Jackson's attitude. The 7th president viewed the US Constitution from an originalist viewpoint (as all federally elected and appointed officials should) and often had a contentious relationship with the Judicial Branch.

Jackson often emphasized the sovereignty of states and the limited role of the federal government as mandated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This viewpoint extended to opposing and sometimes ignoring judicial review when their decisions could be argued to be extra-constitutional and/or unconstitutionally expansive in their purview. Some key examples come in his veto of the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States and his handling of South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs in 1832-1833, in which he used his executive power to counter what he saw as judicial overreach.

That said, the ongoing legal battles have not only spotlighted the judiciary's contemporary penchant for grotesque overreach—and this is especially true of the lower courts of the federal judiciary at the hands of Democrat appointees—but they also raise alarms about the possibility of a budding constitutional crisis based on the Separation of Powers, establishing the political and ideological Left as the genesis of any potential constitutional crisis.

Vance's bold, wholly constitutional-based rhetoric has escalated the debate on this matter. However, it has also highlighted critical inconsistencies, such as the aforementioned Supreme Court decision on President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which reflects a selective acceptance of applicable Judicial Branch power.

With President Trump's re-election, these confrontations are not just legal skirmishes but pivotal moments calling out the need to re-establish the boundaries—based on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights—of presidential authority versus judicial oversight and review in the American governance framework. In fact, these confrontations make it clear that the Deep State, the usurpers of authority, must recognize and accept a complete re-understanding of the federal government’s constitutionally established limitations.

This underscores the urgent need for a national dialogue on our nation’s constitutional illiteracy—and especially our elected officials' constitutional apathy—and the need to uphold the Separation of Powers and the limitations set forth for the federal government under the US Constitution.

We urgently need this to ensure that each branch of government operates within its constitutional confines, free from undue interference by the other co-equal branches of government, and so that “We the People” start to understand that politics is not government.

Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Are You In Or Are You Out?

We were due a brief celebration after the 2024 General Election. Far from the usual rhetoric surrounding our every-four-year event, this past election was historical. It was historical for the re-election of a non-incumbent president. But it was also historical for the grand re-direction for which the American people voted.

In the short time that Trump has been back in office, we have seen the seating of a full cabinet of Washingtonian outsiders. This is unprecedented. Yes, some of them have been in the federal sphere before, but never in a conglomeration like this, each with a commitment to radical reformative change.

But it’s one monumental thing to win an election and then seat the cabinet you want. It’s quite another to defeat the Deep State uniparty machine in the quest to fulfill campaign promises and the commitment to return the US federal government to the people; to serving the people.

The Deep State swamp is thick and full of obstacles. As I mentioned earlier, the labyrinth of lawfare is not just something that can be brushed aside with a narrative campaign. The radical Deep Staters of the Left—like Marc Elias, the Soros’s, and the Clintonian creatures of the past who still feed off the rot with the bottom-feeders—they have been planning for this very moment for at least two years, amassing armies of orc-like lawyers and researching which courts and judges to bring their lawfare in front of, all to diminish the extent to which Mr. Trump can harm their machi