In a functioning democracy, the rule of law is upheld not just by words said or printed, but by how they are enforced and the mechanisms in place to do so. When a court issues an order, it is the law, not a request or suggestion to be followed. But what happens when those in power simply choose to ignore it? What happens when the Justice Department, the very agency tasked with enforcing judicial authority, refuses to do their job for political reasons? Let's find out, shall we?
The Justice Department, while part of the executive branch, has a duty to uphold the rule of law. It is supposed to be the enforcement arm for the people, ensuring that rulings passed down by federal judges carry weight. But under Attorney General Pam Bondi—appointed by Trump for her unwavering loyalty rather than her legal sense—the DOJ has become just another political weapon. Bondi’s DOJ is not concerned with enforcing contempt rulings or court injunctions against administration officials. The U.S. Marshals, the enforcement arm responsible for carrying out federal court orders, report to the DOJ. If the Attorney General refuses to direct them to act, judicial rulings become meaningless. Court orders without enforcement are no different from strongly worded letters.
Congress was designed to check the executive branch, but what happens when Congress itself refuses to act? With Trump’s party controlling both the House and the Senate, any attempt to hold the administration accountable is dead on arrival. Even clear-cut violations of court orders go unpunished because the legislative branch has abandoned its role as a check on executive power.
This is how authoritarianism takes hold; not through dramatic coups, but through the slow erosion of enforcement mechanisms. The president defies the courts, the DOJ refuses to act, and Congress looks the other way. At that point, what remains of our constitutional system? When one branch can openly defy another without consequence, the separation of powers, one of the hallmarks of our system of government, ceases to exist.
John Adams warned against a government of men rather than laws. George Washington warned us of the dangers of political parties; and it was Winston Churchill (among others) who said "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Countless dictators, tyrants, and authoritarians have displayed similar patterns of behavior but some of our greatest leaders have given us a roadmap to resist these behaviors in order to maintain a functional government system. If judicial rulings can be ignored with impunity, then the courts are no longer a co-equal branch of government. They are an advisory body at best. The rule of law becomes a mere suggestion that is upheld only when it is convenient for those in power. Without enforcement, the judiciary is powerless. Without congressional oversight, the executive is unchecked. This is how democracy burns; and from it's ashes, the foundation of a dictatorship is built.
If this continues, it won’t just be administration officials ignoring court orders; it will be state governments, businesses, and individuals deciding which laws they will and won’t follow. Precedent matters. If the most powerful figures in government can thumb their noses at judicial authority, why should anyone else respect the courts? The moment we allow enforcement of the law to become optional is the moment democracy dies. The Constitution was not meant to be a list of suggestions. If we fail to act now, we may wake up in a country where the law only applies to the powerless, while the powerful do as they please.
This is what we call a constitutional crisis. The question is, will anyone do anything about it; or will we let democracy die to the thunderous applause of the Republican controlled Congress? I for one am rooting for the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment