Tag: the constitution

TERRIFYING: Far-Left Democratic Socialists Unveil Radical Plan to Abolish the Senate, Replace the President and Supreme Court, Grant Mass Amnesty, and Overthrow the U.S. Constitution

The radical left just showed its hand again, and it is even more extreme than most Americans could have imagined.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the far-left organization that has heavily influenced the Democrat Party, has rolled out its updated “Workers Deserve More!” platform.

This document is nothing less than a blueprint to dismantle the American constitutional republic and replace it with a socialist super-state run by an all-powerful Congress.

As The Gateway Pundit reported on June 20, 2026, the DSA’s official platform calls to:

  • Eliminate the U.S. Senate.
  • Replace the President with an executive chosen by Congress.
  • Replace the Supreme Court with a judiciary subordinate to Congress.
  • Grant universal amnesty to all illegal aliens.
  • Defund the Department of Defense (which the platform refers to as the “Department of War”).
  • Close overseas U.S. military bases.
  • End American economic sanctions against foreign adversaries.
  • Abolish what it calls the “carceral forces of the capitalist state,” including sweeping police and prison reforms.

If implemented, these proposals would fundamentally transform the American system of government by eliminating the constitutional separation of powers established by the Founding Fathers.

Keep reading

The ABA Wants The White House’s Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders

In 2025, Steve Bannon said the quiet part out loud, on his own podcast, when it came to the Trump administration’s goals when issuing (unconstitutional) executive orders aimed at Biglaw firms. Bannon said of the targeted firms, “What we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.” Now the ABA wants to know how much of that he was really involved with.

In a Tuesday filing in American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, the ABA asked U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to force the White House to hand over internal communications, including those involving Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s personal senior counsel. According to reporting, Epshteyn connected two firms that struck deals with the administration, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, with the Commerce Department on matters related to U.S. trade negotiations.

The ABA sued the administration back in June 2025, arguing that the executive orders, plus the wave of “deals” that spooked firms into capitulating before an order ever came for them, amounted to a coordinated policy, not isolated grievances against a handful of firms. As noted when the suit was first filed, the ABA had reason to worry about standing before it ever got to the merits, given this particular Supreme Court’s track record on associational standing.

Those worries didn’t pan out, at least not yet. In April, Judge Ali rejected the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, finding the ABA had plausibly alleged a real threat of retaliation and a documented chilling effect on its members, including instances of firms declining pro bono work seen as adverse to the administration. That ruling is what put the case into the discovery fight now playing out over Bannon, Epshteyn, and the rest of the internal White House record.

The underlying grievance predates the ABA suit by months, of course. Four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — fought their individual executive orders in court and won, repeatedly, sweeping the district court level on First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. Nine other firms didn’t fight, cutting deals worth roughly $940 million in pro bono commitments to Trump-approved causes instead. And DOJ’s posture toward the winning firms has been anything but consistent: in March, the department dropped its appeals of those district court losses, only to reverse course about two weeks later and go back to defending the orders, this time citing the nine capitulating firms as proof the policy worked exactly as designed.

The DOJ, as you’d expect, does not want to produce any of this. The government has argued the requests raise separation-of-powers concerns and are overbroad, and last week, it asked a federal court in New York to block the ABA from deposing Epshteyn altogether. Whether that gambit works is now Judge Ali’s problem; DOJ’s response to the ABA’s Tuesday brief is due July 17.

Keep reading

War and Constitutional Indifference

Since its inception, the government of the United States has inexorably exceeded its powers under the Constitution. All three branches have been complicit in a consistent pattern of constitutional indifference.

Congress has regulated in areas of governance nowhere articulated in the Constitution. Its general regulatory powers were granted to address interstate commerce, but during the FDR years, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can regulate events that affect interstate commerce. This has resulted in federal regulation of matters too infinitesimal to measure, that are not commercial and devoid of movement across interstate lines.

The most extreme of these is the regulation of a farmer’s small field of wheat, all of which was ground into flour and consumed as baked goods by the farmer’s family. Though this had no measurable effect on interstate commerce, the court ruled that if you add up all the similarly situated farmers who may do the same, the aggregate will affect interstate commerce. And, by growing their own wheat and baking their own bread, the farmer’s family was buying less bread from their local grocer and that — though truly infinitesimal — affected interstate commerce.

Once unleashed by this judicial frivolity, Congress recognized no real limits on its regulatory powers. When hosting a show on the Fox Business Network, I once invited nearly all my Fox Business colleagues on set and asked all on air if they could find anything in the studio that was not regulated by the feds.

The chairs on which we were seated? No, the feds regulate their leg length and the rollers on which the legs sit. The color of the walls? No, the feds regulate the pigment in the paint. The cameras used to video us? No, the feds regulate the lenses and the electricity used to power them.

To James Madison, who was the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention and who drafted the Commerce Clause, the word “regulate” in “to regulate Commerce… among the several States” meant “to keep regular.” Indeed, one of the main reasons for the elites’ displeasure with the old Articles of Confederation, and a significant impetus for the Constitution itself, was the effect on commerce of state tariffs and monopolies and their use to impede businesses from out of state.

This was the reason for granting Congress the power to keep commerce regular. But power corrupts, and keeping it regular led to regulating everything that affects it — the speed with which commercial goods moved, the ages and wages of those who worked to produce them, even the prices that could be charged. And the courts permitted all this, in defiance of the Constitution, which prohibits the feds from interfering with contracts without due process.

But all of this, as deleterious as it has been to personal liberty and limited government, takes a back seat to presidential extraconstitutional behavior. And that behavior is nowhere as manifest and harmful as war.

War is the health of the state because it induces fear among the people and thus their compliance, produces jingoistic patriotism and abject hatred of the persons in the country that is the object of war, facilitates vast borrowings in order to pay for the war, enriches elites, slaughters innocents and curtails the civil liberties — the natural rights — of those opposed to the war.

The object of war is, of course, to kill people in a foreign land. Hence the mandate of the Framers that this should not take place without a substantial nation-wide consensus in support of the killing. The Framers of the Constitution so feared wars on presidential whim that they made it clear that only Congress can declare war.

Yet, within months of taking office in 1797, President John Adams fought a war against France without a congressional declaration of war. This was unthinkable at the time, and in order to stifle domestic political dissent, he commenced a regrettable American tradition of silencing domestic opposition to foreign wars.

Keep reading

Trump administration drops effort against law firms after judges find president’s orders unconstitutional

The Justice Department on Monday dropped the fight over President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting firms he disliked, conceding to unanimous rulings from federal judges that found the orders violated the fundamental tenets of the Constitution.

The targeted firms included Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block. They had fought back against executive orders by Trump that took aim at their security clearances, government contracts and access to government buildings due to their clientele and hiring.

Perkins Coie has represented high-profile Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; WilmerHale employed former special counsel Robert Mueller after he investigated Trump; and Jenner & Block hired Andrew Weissmann, who was a part of Mueller’s team.

The firms, which stood up to the administration at a time when many other major law firms caved, welcomed the administration’s capitulation.

“As we said from the outset, our challenge to the unlawful Executive Order was about defending our clients’ constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law. We are pleased these foundational principles were vindicated,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said in a statement Monday.

Keep reading

The Incremental Loss of Freedom

Last week, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, ruled that the problem of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is so acute and vast, and the Fourth Amendment so burdensome and time-consuming, that it should cut some constitutional corners. 

The federal judiciary is supposed to be in the business of protecting the rights of individuals from infringement by Congress or the president or the states. In this case, the court saw fit to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to trample the sacred American right to be left alone.

How sacred? Well, James Madison, who was largely responsible for crafting the new Constitution and stewarding it through the states, realized a few years later — after Congress created the First National Bank — that the government would need some restraints. 

The restraints were cataloged in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment, which protects privacy, has some of the most precise Madisonian language in the Constitution in order to enshrine privacy and protect it from the government.

To prevent the new government from doing what British soldiers and agents had done to the colonists, the Fourth Amendment prohibits general warrants which had authorized the bearer to search wherever he wished and seize whatever he found. 

The amendment recognizes that our rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and they are inalienable unless and until we give them up by violating someone else’s natural rights.

This concept of rights as integral to humanity was articulated by Aristotle, refined by Augustine, codified by Aquinas, modernized by John Locke, embraced by the Continental Congress and Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and made part of the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment by Madison and the ratifiers.

The Fourth Amendment requires that if the government wants to search or seize any “persons, houses, papers, (or) effects,” it needs to be investigating a crime and it must have probable cause to believe that in those papers, houses or effects or on those persons is evidence of criminal behavior.

Then the government must present its probable cause to a judge under oath. If the judge agrees that the presentation does constitute probable cause of crime, the judge can sign either a search or an arrest warrant; and the warrant must particularly describe the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Keep reading

Government Unchained: The Year The Constitution Lost Its Guardrails

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”—Abraham Lincoln

We now live in a nation where constitutional rights exist in theory, not in practice.

Yet what good are rights on paper when every branch of government is allowed to ignore, circumvent, chip away at or hollow them out in practice?

Two hundred and thirty-four years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, the safeguards meant to shield “We the people” from government abuse are barely recognizable.

In ways the Founders could scarcely have imagined—and would never have tolerated—the safeguards meant to restrain government overreach have become little more than empty platitudes.

America’s founders understood that power corrupts and absolute power—especially when it comes to power-hungry governments fixated on amassing institutional power at the expense of individual freedoms—corrupts absolutely. That’s why they insisted on binding down the government “with the chains of the Constitution.”

In 2025, those chains have been cut link by link.

These links were not severed in secret. They snapped under the weight of executive orders issued without congressional authority, judicial doctrines that shield misconduct from accountability, and a Congress that no longer defends its own constitutional prerogatives.

If Americans are finally learning the true significance of constitutional limits, it is because the government keeps violating them—and daring anyone to stop it. Time and again, the message is being drummed into our heads that constitutional limits no longer apply when they inconvenience those in power.

Any government that treats rights as privileges—contingent on economic status, citizenship, race, orientation, religious beliefs, or political alignment—has already abandoned the Bill of Rights.

And a government that does so with the courts’ blessing is not a constitutional republic.

When rights become privileges, what we are left with is a two-tier system of freedom: those afforded the privilege of enjoying their constitutional rights vs. those targeted for exercising those same rights.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a bulwark. Each amendment was drafted as a barrier against a specific form of tyranny.

In 2025, every one of those barriers buckled under the weight of government corruption, political expediency, partisan politics, and institutional neglect.

The following is what it looked like to live without the protections of the Bill of Rights in the American police state.

Keep reading

Consolidation: George Mason’s Core Anti-Federalist Warning

“A monarchy, or a corrupt tyrannical aristocracy.”

That, George Mason warned, is what the Constitution would produce. His objections to ratification became the foundation for some of the most influential Anti-Federalist arguments.

Born 300 years ago today, December 11, 1725, Mason was one of the most influential political thinkers and leaders of the American Revolution. It would be hard to exaggerate the impact of his Virginia Declaration of Rights, which served as the foundation for the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights – and other constitutional documents around the world.

But today, on the 300th anniversary of his birth, we are exploring his forgotten warnings about the Constitution during the ratification debates. They focus almost completely on his core fear that the new system would centralize power in a national government and destroy liberty.

Mason did not start as an opponent, but he grew sharply dissatisfied with the Convention’s direction, especially after the compromise to allow the international slave trade to continue. As the Convention neared its end, he famously declared that he would rather “chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.”

His public objections quickly became a rallying cry and a platform for critics of the Constitution, echoed throughout the ratification debates.

THE CORE WARNING: CONSOLIDATION

Mason’s primary objection? Consolidation – the fundamental shift from a union of sovereign states (a confederation) to a centralized national government. This, he warned, was a rejection of the principles of the American Revolution.

“The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us.”

Keep reading

Public School Slaps ‘Does Not Endorse’ Stickers on US Constitution, Declaration of Independence

Only in today’s education climate could a public school district accidentally label the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as materials it “does not endorse.”

Yet that is exactly what happened in Anchorage, Alaska, earlier this month.

Anchorage Daily News reported that the Anchorage School District placed non-endorsement stickers on booklets containing the founding documents.

A parent posted a photo of the label on Nov. 3. The sticker read, “The Anchorage School District does not endorse these materials or the viewpoint expressed in them.”

The picture spread quickly across social media. Too many parents to count were rightly outraged that such a warning appeared on the most essential texts in American civic life.

District representative MJ Thim said the label was placed on the booklets erroneously.

Thim explained that the stickers are normally used for flyers and posters from outside organizations.

“This was our mistake,” he wrote in an email.

Thim said the stickers were used because that is standard practice for items that are not official district publications.

He said the district will review its procedures to make sure this does not happen again.

Thim also emphasized that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are taught in every school. He said these documents “reflect the values we want every student to understand.”

Parents, however, found the incident troubling.

Karen Waldron, who posted the image on Facebook, said she was “honestly stunned.” She noted that these are not controversial documents, but the very foundation of our government.

Keep reading

Leftists Admit They Can’t Win Without Rewriting The Constitution

Seldom does a headline simultaneously proclaim impotency and promise utter destruction, but The New York Times managed it: “Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court.”

To be fair, this was not an opinion piece per se but a partial transcript of an episode of Ross Douthat’s Interesting Times podcast, where Douthat interviewed Osita Nwanevu, a contributing editor at The New Republic, a columnist at The Guardian, and a research fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. The occasion was Nwanevu’s first book, The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding.

Nwanevu’s book is free of original argumentation. His example of why the Senate is “anti-democratic” is that California, a state that could be “one of the 40 largest countries in the world,” only has two senators, which gives a state like Wyoming “about 60, or more than 60, times the representation than people in California.”

And don’t try to say California’s 52-member delegation in the House of Representatives — the largest in the House by far — evens things out: “The Senate shapes the judiciary, it shapes the executive branch, and obviously, it’s a veto point for the passage of even ordinary legislation.” Thus, Nwanevu argues, “we have a fundamental piece of our system that flouts basic democratic principles.”

Never mind that the House originates all monied bills, or that all impeachments must originate in the House, or that House and Senate must both pass a bill before it sees the president’s desk.

His ideas for “saving democracy” are just as moldy. Create new states (his nominees, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., are the usual suspects). Stuff the Supreme Court. Have a national, popular vote for president. The same ideas the left has been repeating for years now. Nwanevu is just the latest parrot to sing the same song for the choir.

Keep reading

The Unelected Magistrate Judges Undermining Trump And Rule Of Law Are Completely Unconstitutional

As the legal wrangling continues over a magistrate judge’s decision to release accused human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia from federal custody, it’s worth taking a closer look not just at the role of Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in this case, but at the broader system of magistrate judges across the country. Contrary to widespread perception, reinforced by misleading media coverage, these judges wield extraordinary power despite having no constitutional standing under Article III.

Garcia is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was deported there. Democrats and their media allies turned his case into a political flashpoint. Garcia was ultimately returned to the United States, where he was promptly arrested on two federal counts related to human smuggling.

One aspect of his case has gone largely unnoticed: Magistrate Judge Holmes’ authority to make critical decisions in a case with national political implications.

Despite being referred to as a “federal judge” by corporate media outlets such as The New York Times, Holmes is not an Article III judge under the U.S. Constitution, which requires that federal judges be nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and granted life tenure. Holmes meets none of these conditions. She was appointed by other judges, not elected officials, and she serves a renewable term, not a lifetime post.

Yet she holds immense power to approve arrests, authorize surveillance, and issue rulings that can shape lives, sway political outcomes, and alter the course of national events.

Her role in the Garcia case is just the latest reminder of how much judicial authority has been delegated to unelected magistrates operating outside the constitutional framework and how little scrutiny that quiet power grab has received.

Another example is Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who authorized the brazenly political FBI raid on President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022. He, too, sits outside the Constitution’s judicial framework, yet signed off on what may have been the most consequential search warrant in modern American history. And he did so with the full legal authority of a real judge, despite never having been through the vetting, scrutiny, or constitutional process required of one.

The American people are told they live under a government of checks and balances, where power is diffused and public officials are held accountable through a transparent process. The rise of magistrate judges represents a dangerous end-run around that system. These bureaucrats now wield a level of authority that the Framers never envisioned.

Keep reading