To the editor: Josh Hammer misrepresents historical past and the regulation, taking quotes out of context and ignoring information. As a U.S. authorities instructor, I discover his invitation to think about President Trump channeling Alexander Hamilton egregious. (“I’m glad Trump and the courts are squaring up. We’re overdue for a civics lesson,” Opinion, Feb. 13)
The Federalist Papers, which Hammer cites, have been penned in 1787 and 1788 in help of ratifying the newly written Structure. On the time, the legislative department already existed, however the government and judicial branches could be new.
Hammer quotes Hamilton as writing in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary is so functionally impotent that it “should finally rely upon the help of the chief arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Nonetheless, Hamilton additionally wrote in the identical essay:
“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to protect the Structure and the rights of people from the results of these unwell humors, which the humanities of designing males, or the affect of explicit conjunctures, typically disseminate among the many individuals themselves, and which, although they speedily give place to raised info, and extra deliberate reflection, tend, within the meantime, to event harmful improvements within the authorities, and critical oppressions of the minor get together in the neighborhood.”
Sure, Hamilton argued for a robust government that would act decisively, however he additionally believed limits have been essential. He warned in Federalist No. 1:
“Historical past will educate us that the previous has been discovered a way more sure highway to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of these males who’ve overturned the liberties of republics, the best quantity have begun their profession by paying an obsequious court docket to the individuals; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
Jocelyn Contestabile, Mission Viejo
..
To the editor: I can’t undergo the factors made by the creator. His assertions come instantly from the fascism playbook.
My level is that The Occasions is now giving voice to those that intend to blow up our democracy, pretending it’s a viable various opinion. The paper’s flip to propaganda disappointingly continues.
Doug Evenson, Helendale, Calif.
..
To the editor: Hammer makes no authorized argument that the courts are exceeding their obligation to implement the regulation and the Structure. Relatively, he implies that Trump’s actions and orders shouldn’t be topic to judicial assessment in any respect. He spins the argument away from the clearly unsuitable declare that the chief is above the regulation.
He argues that the courts are powerless to implement judgments if Trump and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi refuse to take action. To him, this seemingly proves that the courts are exceeding their authority. What it truly reveals is that we must always anticipate this administration to violate its obligation to implement court docket judgments.
Hammer desires us to consider that Trump’s abysmal file of injunctions is proof of judicial overreach. In actuality, it reveals the president has repeatedly tried to violate the regulation. Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden additionally confronted injunctions resulting from “judicial resistance,” however not on the similar fee as a result of they didn’t “flood the zone.”
Hammer is correct that the courts will undergo and lose standing, however he’s insanely unsuitable to counsel that could be a good factor. There may be higher conservative thought on the market.
Michael Snare, San Diego
