To the editor: Josh Hammer misrepresents historical past and the legislation, taking quotes out of context and ignoring info. 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 assist of ratifying the newly written Structure. On the time, the legislative department already existed, however the govt 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 depend on assistance from the manager arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Nevertheless, 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 consequences of these sick humors, which the humanities of designing males, or the affect of specific conjunctures, generally disseminate among the many folks 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 celebration locally.”
Sure, Hamilton argued for a robust govt that might act decisively, however he additionally believed limits have been essential. He warned in Federalist No. 1:
“Historical past will train 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 courtroom to the folks; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
Jocelyn Contestabile, Mission Viejo
..
To the editor: I cannot undergo the factors made by the writer. 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 responsibility to implement the legislation and the Structure. Relatively, he implies that Trump’s actions and orders shouldn’t be topic to judicial evaluation in any respect. He spins the argument away from the clearly unsuitable declare that the manager is above the legislation.
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 count on this administration to violate its responsibility to implement courtroom judgments.
Hammer desires us to consider that Trump’s abysmal document of injunctions is proof of judicial overreach. In actuality, it reveals the president has repeatedly tried to violate the legislation. Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden additionally confronted injunctions because of “judicial resistance,” however not on the similar fee as a result of they didn’t “flood the zone.”
Hammer is true that the courts will endure and lose standing, however he’s insanely unsuitable to recommend that could be a good factor. There may be higher conservative thought on the market.
Michael Snare, San Diego
