One of the things that’s become patently clear since 9/11 is that Democrats not only dislike the Constitution, but they are also completely unfamiliar with it. It’s true that they routinely drag out a few phrases (“free speech,” “checks and balances,” “separation of church and state,” “separation of powers,” “right to assemble,” although never right to peaceably assemble when it involves them, and the like). However, get past the tropes and you see that they actually don’t understand how the Constitution came into being and what the Founders’ goals actually were or what the Constitution says and how it works.
What this means is that because Democrats are mired squarely in one reality that revolves around an entirely fictitious constitution and partially digested laws, they are incapable of maintaining a conversation with someone talking about the real Constitution and the actual law. Rarely has this been more clearly illustrated than in an interview that Stephen Miller had with CNN’s Kasie Hunt about the Trump administration’s shipping violent illegal aliens whom a foreign power (Venezuela) deliberately sent to America in the hopes of destabilizing our country.
The interview and a transcript are at the end of this post but, first, a few comments.
In many ways, this interview should remind you of the famous interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman of Britain’s Channel 4. She simply could not compute his remarkably clear language. With her famous lead-in phrase, “So what you’re saying is,” Newman would repeatedly take a simple Peterson statement and reframe it to mean something entirely different (and usually quite the opposite of what he’d said). Here’s a compilation to refresh your recollection.
These two people are speaking to each other, but they are not communicating, and that’s because, while he fully understands her, she’s incapable of understanding him. The Miller-Hunt interview has the same dynamic. You can practically see the thought bubble over Hunt’s head saying “Does not compute.”
In fact, Miller is making two extremely straightforward points. First, The idea of checks and balances does not mean that the judicial system gets to override areas in which the executive has complete plenary power. That is, balance is not achieved by giving the judiciary total control over the executive.
Instead, the concept of checks and balances is a Venn diagram with some, but not complete, overlap between the different branches. To hold otherwise would mean that there is no elected executive; there are only several hundred unelected mini-executives in robes, each of whom can dictate all aspects of executive power.
The other thing that Miller is saying is that the operative 1798 statute does not require an explicit declaration of war against the United States. Instead, it is sufficient if a foreign power deliberately sends troops (in uniform or out) into America for the purpose of harming America. (You can read the same point here, only developed a bit more than Miller was able to during the interview.)
Simple points, clearly stated, but Hunt just can’t grasp them. That inability means that the interview operates at two levels. First, as Buck Sexton writes, it’s a masterclass in constitutional law.
Second—and this is the unfortunate one—the interview shows how decades of leftist education have created a cohort of Americans, often in positions of power or influence, who have absolutely no understanding of their own country. That’s why Democrats believe that low-level, unelected district court judges should have what amounts to the final say (since it can take years before their orders work their way to the Supreme Court) when it comes to deporting violent illegal aliens or non-citizen residents plotting America’s overthrow.
Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” He was right, and when the two halves of a nation don’t even occupy the same reality as to its founding principles and operating laws, that nation is in dire straits.
HUNT: So you called he judge’s order just earlier today "patently unlawful” and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order and might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out?
MILLER: The President of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a District Court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone District Court review so.
HUNT: So, Stephen, when you when you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges and then continues up. At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment? And I fail to see how there’s any other way but to start with where we’re starting here before you get to eventually the Supreme Court.
MILLER: Well, so first of all, there’s a there’s a term in law “justiciable.” This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the President is exercising his Article 2 powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article 2 powers as Commander in Chief.
HUNT: Is Venezuela invading the US?
MILLER: This is a very important point. This is a Title 50 authority. It’s a commander in chief authority. So just to ask you a simple question. You talk about how the system works. Does a District Court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no?
HUNT: Well, Stephen, my question...if you could answer my question...
MILLER: Oh no, it’s in other words. In other words, the well not no, no.
HUNT: Is Venezuela, is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would...
MILLER: TDA [Tren de Aragua], so--I’ll answer yours and you’ll answer mine--under the terms of the statute, Tren de Aragua is an alien enemy force that has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation, at the direction of the Venezuelan government.
The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government.
HUNT: By a state or a government? Are they a state or a government?
MILLER: Yes. It is documented the the TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. Here’s an even more important point under the Constitution. Who makes that determination? A District Court judge,elected by no one or the commander in chief of the Army and Navy? The President and the President alone makes a decision of what triggers that discrimination in stature.
HUNT: So do you then...do you then think...do you then think we are actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela?
MILLER: You’re not, you’re not, you’re not hearing me, and you’re not understanding me. Read the statute Alien Enemies Act 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government. So it lists three qualifying actions. It could be an act of war.
HUNT: Yeah, but it does say in the very beginning you have, there has to be declared war against a nation or a state.
MILLER: No.
Speaker 1:
That’s what it says.
MILLER:
No, wrong. Look up the statute. It’s on my account on social media, where you can go see it.
HUNT: That’s actually where we found it, right there.
MILLER: Yes. It says “or” a predatory incursion “or” an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alien Enemies Act. One is an act of war (which , by the way, an invasion is an act of war, but put that aside); one is an invasion, which this is; one is a predatory incursion, which this is. So, it actually meets all three statutory criteria, but with respect to this particular statute, it’s...the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute. But this is...
HUNT: So, big picture, Stephen...
MILLER: ...a very important question, because...no, no, no. Hold on. It’s a very important question. You said the way our system works is the President of the United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country, and that’s subject to District Court review. That is fundamentally untrue...
HUNT: I never...I never said that, Stephen. I did not say...
MILLER: That has never been true.
HUNT: This was not a military opera... I mean this...
MILLER: A District Court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil that he can direct the movement of Air Force One, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, that he can direct Marco Rubio to engage in diplomacy in a country or not to...
HUNT: OK. Do you think the Supreme Court has any say over this or not. Like, does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were outlining right here.
MILLER: I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the President’s conduct here is not subject to judicial review...
HUNT: OK. But you are you are acknowledging that...
MILLER: ...because these are the plenary.
HUNT: ...they do in fact have a say here even though you think they may agree with you
MILLER: What we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what has always been the case, which is when the President is using his powers as Commander in Chief, those determinations are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the President’s designation of Tre de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy are part of his inherent plenary authority. There is no way...
HUNT: So, at what point in the system, Stephen, [unntelligible]?
MILLER: There’s no way. [Unintelligible.] How re you going to expel illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls, if each and every deportation has to be adjudicated in a District Court judge? That means you have no country. It means you have no. It means you have no future. It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single District Court judge.
HUNT: Okay, I’m just trying to figure out at what point...
MILLER: It is impossible.
HUNT: ...in the system do you...What does the Trump administration believe? Because we do have separation of powers in this country. I hear what you’re saying.
MILLER: Yes, separation of powers!
HUNT: You’re saying the district of court does not have authority...
MILLER: This is the judiciary interfering...
HUNT: Stephen, let me finish...
MILLER: ...in the executive function...
HUNT: Let me finish. Okay.
MILLER: ...that is the separation of powers. That is the separation of powers.
HUNT: Did did you ignore the judge’s order here because you thought you could?
MILLER: So the judge’s order and the actions taken by the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security are not in conflict. And the department has been clear that they are not in conflict, but I’m making a more fundamental point.
HUNT: So you think that you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration, despite this order...
MILLER: As the Justice Department said, there is no conflict between the judge’s order and the action is taken by the departments I just listed. But I’m making a deeper and more fundamental point.
HUNT: But so yeah. I mean, if you don’t have to follow it, why didn’t you?
MILLER: The District Court has no ability to in any way restrain the president’s authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, or is [unintelligble] to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. Let me paint a picture for you. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a District Court judge can enjoin that bilateral security agreement, then we do not have a democracy.
HUNT: Again. Stephen, again I get it. You’ve made your argument. I got it.
MILLER: We do not have a foreign policy.
HUNT: We’ve heard you say this. Did did you ignore...did the administration ignore the order from the District Judge? It’s a simple question.
MILLER: I’ve answered and I’ve answered it. I’ve answered it because this department has made a filing in the court, but let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lives of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes? Did he know the flight conditions? Did know the weather conditions. Did he know how many crew hours? Did he know the need for crew rest? Did he know any of that? No, this judge violated the law. He violated the constitution. He defied the system of government that we have in this country...
HUNT: So again, so do you think that the White House is above the federal courts? Because that does seem to be what you’re arguing...
MILLER: And by the way, these same district court judges didn’t do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens. These District Court judges didn’t issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Nungaray or Laken Riley or anyone else...
HUNT: Is the White House above the federal courts. Is that what you’re saying?
MILLER: What I’m saying is that...what you said, there’s a separation of powers. The..the judiciary exercises judgment and release...
[Unintelligible cross talk]
HUNT: I just want you to answer that one simple question.
MILLER: Okay, Ready. Here we go. Under a proper reading of the Constitution, District Court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District Court judges do not have the authority as a general matter to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch. But their authority is at its lowest point when the President is exercising his powers as commander in chief. And I asked you a question; you never answered it. Can a judge enjoined troop movements overseas? Can a District Court judge and join treat movements overseas:
HUNT: Steven, I I am not going to get into the this.
MILLER: Just say no, and then you’ll know that I’m right.
HUNT: This is a separate question.
MILLER: No, it’s not.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/stephen_miller_s_interview_with_kasie_hunt_reveals_dem_s_abysmal_constitutional_ignorance.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/illegals_working_for_congress_addendum.html
No comments:
Post a Comment