Welcome to Trump's America

Hartmann Report -  When a president declares an “invasion” to justify shredding the Constitution, he’s not defending the nation—he’s declaring war on democracy itself.

The United States of America has long been defined by its commitment to the rule of law. For over 240 years, this nation has stood as a beacon of justice, due process, and constitutional order. Yet today, we are witnessing a grotesque and unprecedented assault on those very principles.

Donald Trump, in his endless pursuit of authoritarian control, is now weaponizing a wartime-only power—the Alien Enemies Act—to circumvent legal protections, deport individuals without any due process, and imprison people indefinitely with no evidence.

This is an atrocity, an outright attack on the very foundation of our democracy, and it must be met with fierce resistance from every true patriot.

The Alien Enemies Act, a relic from the 18th century, was intended for use during actual wartime to address foreign threats. It was never meant to be a political cudgel for a desperate demagogue who seeks to inflame his base with fear and xenophobia.  Trump and his cronies, however, have now declared that migrants crossing the southern border constitute an “invasion,” an absurd and legally indefensible claim.

National Memo -  Several top legal experts are now sounding the alarm over the implications of President Donald Trump testing the extent of the federal judiciary's enforcement power.  NBC News reported Monday that Trump's ongoing standoff with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia over two recent deportation flights has some in the legal community worried about the health of the United States' system of checks and balances. Kimberly Wehle, who is a law professor at the University of Baltimore, told the network that Americans are now "watching the accumulation of power in one person, which is antithetical to our constitutional democracy."

"He now is the law,” Wehle said. “He decides what’s legal and not legal. He decides winners and losers, and it’s arbitrary.”

Over the weekend, Judge James Boasberg — who was appointed by former President Barack Obama — ruled that Trump did not have the authority under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan immigrants who the administration alleges are members of a violent gang. Boasberg pointed out that the law the administration invoked had only been used three times in U.S. history, and only against foreign governments. His ruling ordered that the deportation flights be turned back around as alleged gang members were not on the same legal footing as a foreign government.

Boasberg's ruling enraged both Trump and his supporters, with some MAGA-aligned voices — including Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) — calling on Boasberg to be impeached. One unnamed Trump advisor told NBC that they viewed Boasberg as an "activist" judge who was blocking "the mandate we were given."

According to Ilya Somin, who is a law professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, the administration's position in the two deportation flights "seems like more explicit defiance" than previous actions, like refusing to disburse funds already appropriated by Congress.

“If the executive can defy court orders whenever they feel like it, they are essentially not constrained by the Constitution and the laws anymore,” he added. “If they defy court orders and get away with it, they can basically do things that are illegal and there would be no easy way of stopping them."

Just Security -   In previous litigation against the Biden administration, Texas’s GOP state government used the “invasion” argument to claim the state could adopt anti-immigration policies that might otherwise violate federal law, such as detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants whom federal law and policy allowed to remain in the United States, and placing buoys in the Rio Grande River. They relied on Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the Constitution, which states that “[n]o state shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Texas claimed illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an “invasion” and, accordingly, the Constitution empowers  state military action  even in the absence of congressional authorization for war.

These claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling amount to an “invasion” are contrary to the text and original meaning of the Constitution, and would have destructive implications if allowed to prevail.

The Founders were clear that the invasion clauses of the Constitution refer to organized armed attacks. As James Madison put it in his Report of 1800,  “[i]nvasion is an operation of war.” 

The constitutional text makes clear that invasion refers to an actual attack. The Guarantee Clause pairs “invasion” with “domestic Violence”—which in 18th century usage refers to uprisings against the state government (not the modern meaning denoting violence in intimate relationships). Under the long-standing legal doctrine of noscitur a sociis, “a word may be known by the company it keeps.” Here, it makes little sense to assume that “invasion” includes nonviolent actions such as illegal migration or smuggling, when it is coupled with “domestic Violence.”