On September 21st, 1897, The Sun – a New York newspaper – published an editorial by Francis Pharcellus Church. In it, he assured 8-year-old Virgina O’Hanlon that there was a Santa Claus.
In 1897, Philip O’Hanlon, a surgeon, was asked by his eight-year-old daughter, Virginia O’Hanlon, whether Santa Claus existed. His answer did not convince her, and Virginia decided to pose the question to The Sun. Sources conflict over whether her father suggested writing the letter, or she elected to on her own.
[footnotes removed]
The phrase is a legendary bit of pop culture and suits our needs. Democrats, whose swampy fiscal NGO hijinks have just been pantsed, are looking for a way to cover their naughty bits. To distract us as they look for an exit from this laundromat, they are screaming about threats to Democracy and a constitutional crisis. This plays well on BlueSky (the proglodyte’s Twitter), but these tropes were integral to the Kamala Campaign (who was – coincidentally – an unelected candidate) but nowhere else.
Truth be told, there is a constitutional crisis, but as Inigo Montoya famously said in The Princess Bride (paraphrased), the words do not mean what they think they mean. The crisis is not the chief Executive managing his part of the Federal Government. It is members of the judiciary – prodded by members of Congress and a few of the folks in some of those 50K NGOs – thinking they can stop him from doing it by demanding it.
But … judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution.
[F]ederal and state officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
They do not take an oath to uphold judges’ opinions.
This means that if I’m a president or governor and a court issues a ruling I truly believe is unconstitutional, I have a duty to ignore it. Otherwise, I’m violating my oath.
“But what of rogue legislators or presidents?” some may ask. Well, what of rogue judges (who apparently are everywhere)?
The answer is the Founders’ one: No branch can intrude into the others’ spheres. This doesn’t mean there aren’t checks and balances. If, for example, a president believes a law is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it, or takes an allegedly unconstitutional executive action, Congress can try to remove him; it can also impeach and remove renegade judges. As for House representatives themselves, the remedy is removal via the ballot box. This is why they must run for re-election every two years: Since they’re meant to be the most powerful branch (e.g., spending bills must originate in the House, and only it can file impeachment charges), they’re placed closest to the people’s reach.
The courts can issue an opinion, but it is sound and fury, meaning nothing if no one cares. The Chief Executive can ignore it, at which point Congress must decide if its oversight requires action. Donald Trump, to his credit, has been gracious but with purpose. He has allowed the courts to meddle in his branch of government because it invites greater courts to exercise that same power to his advantage. But sometimes, the lower courts can smell the smoke, and – as I noted here, some of them are tied (linked, married, in cahoots) to people who were on the receiving end of USAID money that makes them look dirty.
Why look dirty when there are so many lawmakers and bureaucrats in line ahead of you whining about the threat to Democracy and a Constitutional crisis because DOGE found the laundromat?
It’s been 25 days. That’s it. I can’t wait to see what the next days and weeks reveal.
