In light of ongoing efforts by certain federal judges to infringe upon the authority of the President of the United States, revisiting Federalist Paper No. 78 becomes imperative.
Alexander Hamilton articulated a crucial point: “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. . . .”
Yet, it appears that the current President may soon need to seek the judiciary’s approval for even the most basic of actions.
According to a recent report by the Gateway Pundit,
A federal judge from San Francisco has issued a ruling preventing President Trump from withdrawing federal funding from ‘sanctuary cities.’
U.S. District Judge William Orrick declared that the act of withholding federal funds from these jurisdictions is unconstitutional.
President Trump has been consistent in his pursuit to cut funding to areas that provide sanctuary for undocumented immigrants, evidenced by a series of executive orders during both his first and second terms.
Santa Clara, San Francisco, and 14 other cities and counties have filed lawsuits against the Trump Administration, seeking a preliminary injunction to block these executive actions.
“Here we go again,” Judge Orrick remarked in his 6-page order, criticizing Trump for his renewed efforts to cut funding for open border policies.
Previously, in 2017, Judge Orrick permanently blocked a similar executive order aimed at defunding sanctuary cities.
In his ruling, the judge asserted that withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, as well as due process rights.
This incident is merely the latest in a troubling trend where federal judges appear to overstep their boundaries, increasingly influencing presidential decisions on foreign policy, trade, immigration, and more. If we permit unelected judges to take on the role of the president, one must wonder: what is the purpose of holding elections? Such judges risk becoming political entities, undermining the voice of the electorate.
