The Judicial Mutiny: Why President Trump Should Channel Andrew Jackson and Defy Rogue Rulings

The Real Threat to the Rule of Law

In the swirling chaos of American politics, critics have long warned that President Donald Trump might ignite a constitutional crisis by flouting court orders he dislikes. Yet, as Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule astutely observes in his recent New York Times op-ed, the real threat to the rule of law isn't emanating from the White House it's brewing within the judiciary itself. Vermeule flips the script, arguing that certain lower-court judges in predominantly liberal jurisdictions are staging what amounts to a "mutiny" against the Supreme Court, openly defying or evading its directives in cases tied to Trump's policies. This isn't mere judicial independence; it's a dangerous erosion of the judicial hierarchy, where activist judges prioritize ideological resistance over legal fidelity. As tensions escalate with judges reporting harassment and threats it's time to confront the uncomfortable truth: when lower courts blatantly contradict Supreme Court precedents, the president has historical and constitutional grounds to invoke departmentalism and disregard those rulings, much like Andrew Jackson did nearly two centuries ago. Ignoring this precedent risks paralyzing the executive branch and undermining our Constitutional Republic.

Systemic Defiance in the Judiciary

Vermeule's analysis, detailed in his op-ed and echoed in his Substack post, paints a troubling picture of systemic defiance. He contends that the federal judiciary faces a "collective-action problem," where individual judges reap ideological acclaim from progressive circles while the institution as a whole suffers diminished credibility. Plaintiffs, often backed by activist groups, engage in blatant "forum shopping," handpicking sympathetic judges in blue strongholds to secure resistance-friendly rulings. These decisions generate headlines and sow chaos for the executive, even if the Supreme Court inevitably reverses them. The result? Delayed deportations, stalled policy implementations, and a judiciary that appears more partisan than principled. Vermeule warns that this pattern threatens the "internal integrity of the judiciary," which depends on lower courts adhering to Supreme Court guidance.

Defiance in Immigration Deportations

Consider the eyebrow-raising examples Vermeule cites, which illustrate this mutiny in stark relief. In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's efforts to deport immigrants to third-party countries, a practice permitted under federal immigration law. The Supreme Court promptly stayed Murphy's order on June 23, 2025, allowing the deportations to proceed while appeals continued. Undeterred, Murphy doubled down, insisting his enforcement order remained valid and citing only Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent as authority a move Vermeule describes as "transparent bad faith." The high court had to intervene again, with Justice Elena Kagan concurring in a stay that labeled Murphy's action "illicit." As Sotomayor herself noted in dissent during the initial stay, rewarding governmental noncompliance "erodes respect for our courts and undermines the rule of law," yet Murphy's defiance flipped that principle on its head, prioritizing dissent over majority precedent.

Persistent Evasion, The CHNV Parole Terminations

Similarly, in a case involving the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) termination of parole for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela under the CHNV programs, a federal district judge initially Indira Talwani in Massachusetts, with echoes in Oregon rulings barred mass terminations without case-by-case reviews. On April 14, 2025, Talwani ruled that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem lacked authority for categorical revocations, citing statutory requirements for individualized assessments. The Supreme Court stayed this order on May 30, 2025, clearing the way for terminations. Yet, lower courts persisted in citing stayed precedents as if they were binding, ignoring SCOTUS stays outright. Vermeule highlights an Oregon judge's ruling against DHS parole terminations, which referenced cases already paused by the high court, as though those stays "didn't exist." This evasion exemplifies the "malicious compliance" Vermeule decries, where judges feign adherence while subverting outcomes.

Challenges to Executive Authority

The pattern extends to agency oversight. In Trump v. Wilcox and related cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the president's removal powers over agency officials. On May 22, 2025, in Trump v. Wilcox, the court stayed lower-court orders blocking removals from the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, emphasizing that the government faces "greater risk of harm" from officers exercising power post-removal. Yet, a Fourth Circuit panel refused to stay a similar district court order in a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) dispute, where Judge Matthew Maddox reinstated three Democratic commissioners fired by Trump for "neglect of duty." The Supreme Court intervened on July 23, 2025, blocking Maddox's ruling and citing Wilcox as "squarely controlling." Dissenters like Justice Kagan argued this erodes agency independence, but the majority's reminder was clear: Supreme Court orders aren't optional suggestions.

A Coordinated Assault, Patterns and Supreme Court Rebukes

These instances aren't isolated errors; they're a coordinated assault on executive authority, fueled by partisan judges who know their rulings will be overturned but relish the interim disruption. As Vermeule notes, "The whole institution bears the costs of disruption and diminished credibility from such lower-court defiance." Legal findings support this view: the Supreme Court's repeated stays underscore the binding nature of its precedents under Article III, where lower courts must follow hierarchical directives. In cases like United States v. Shilling and Department of Education v. California, SCOTUS has explicitly rebuked evasion, clarifying jurisdictional limits and policy scopes.

The Proposed Solution, Embracing Departmentalism

Faced with this judicial overreach, Vermeule floats a provocative solution: departmentalism. This doctrine, rooted in constitutional theory, posits that each branch executive, legislative, and judicial has independent authority to interpret the Constitution within its sphere. As explained by scholars like Edward Corwin, departmentalism allows the president to act on his own constitutional understanding, especially when judicial orders exceed legitimate authority. Vermeule cites his colleague Jack Goldsmith: "The president’s Article II duty to ‘take care that the law be faithfully executed’ gives him an independent power to determine what ‘the law,’ including the Constitution, means." This isn't anarchy; it's a check against judicial tyranny.

Historical Precedents, Lessons from Jackson and Lincoln

Historical precedents abound, providing legal ballast for such action. President Andrew Jackson famously disregarded the Supreme Court's 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, where Chief Justice John Marshall declared Georgia's laws over Cherokee lands unconstitutional. Jackson, prioritizing federal Indian removal policy, reportedly quipped (though apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." He took no enforcement steps, allowing Georgia to proceed, arguing the executive's independent duty under Article II. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Roger Taney's 1861 order in Ex parte Merryman, which deemed Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln continued the suspensions, asserting wartime necessities and congressional ratification in 1863, framing it as fulfilling his oath to preserve the Union. Other presidents, from Thomas Jefferson (pardoning Sedition Act convicts despite judicial rulings) to Franklin Roosevelt (challenging court-packing threats), have invoked departmentalism to correct perceived judicial overreach. These actions, while controversial, preserved executive prerogative without collapsing the republic.

Addressing the Critics, Defending Against Accusations of Tyranny

Critics will howl that Trump disregarding rogue rulings assaults democracy, I say their premise is flawed to begin with as we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic, but I digress, but Vermeule counters: it's the judges undermining the rule of law. Media framing would label it an "assault on the judiciary," yet when lower courts flout SCOTUS, they're the true insurgents. Departmentalism is "controversial and rarely used," Vermeule admits, but compelling here not a branch clash, but correcting intra-judicial hierarchy breaches.

Escalating Threats to Judges

Meanwhile, the human toll adds urgency. Federal judges overseeing Trump cases report escalating harassment: Rhode Island's Judge John McConnell endured over 400 vile voicemails, death threats, and "pizza doxxing" unsolicited deliveries invoking slain Judge Esther Salas's son. Washington's Judge John Coughenour faced swatting, with armed police responding to fake murder calls. Salas herself warns that politicians' personal attacks "invite harm." While violence must be condemned unequivocally the U.S. Marshals investigate over 1,700 judges these incidents stem from toxic rhetoric on both sides, exacerbated by judges' perceived partisanship. Blaming "political leaders" like Trump ignores how activist rulings fuel backlash.

Restoring Balance Through Bold Action

President Trump should go full Andrew Jackson: invoke departmentalism and disregard lower-court rulings that brazenly contradict Supreme Court precedents. Legal findings from Worcester to Merryman affirm this as a legitimate executive tool, not tyranny. By doing so, Trump would restore balance, deter judicial mutiny, and fulfill his Article II duties. The alternative endless stays and chaos empowers unelected judges over the people's will. Our Constitutional Republic demands bold action; history provides the blueprint. Let the mutineers enforce their own edicts.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Treasonous Conspiracy: Prosecuting the 2016 Election Interference

On July 18th, 2025 the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard exposed a grave betrayal of public trust: a coordinated effort by high-ranking officials in the Obama administration to manipulate intelligence and undermine the 2016 presidential election results. This conspiracy, which targeted President-elect Donald Trump, was not a mere political maneuver but a deliberate assault on our Constitutional Republic. The evidence demands accountability, and those responsible, regardless of their former positions, must face prosecution under relevant laws to prevent future abuses of power.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has uncovered a disturbing timeline. Throughout 2016, the Intelligence Community consistently assessed that Russia was not attempting to influence the U.S. presidential election through cyberattacks. A December 7, 2016, talking point prepared for DNI James Clapper explicitly stated that foreign adversaries had not altered the election outcome through cyber means. Yet, just two days later, a meeting of top National Security Council principals, including Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe, shifted the narrative. Following President Obama’s directive, the ODNI was tasked with producing a new assessment claiming Moscow actively sought to influence the election. This culminated in the January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment, which contradicted prior findings and relied on discredited sources like the Steele Dossier.

This manufactured intelligence fueled a years-long campaign to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. It sparked the Mueller investigation, two congressional impeachments, and the persecution of Trump’s associates, while escalating U.S.-Russia tensions. Such actions violate the core principles of of our Constitutional Republic form governance and constitute a grave abuse of power. The evidence points to a conspiracy that subverted the will of the American electorate, a crime that cannot go unpunished.

Federal law provides clear grounds for prosecution. Title 18 U.S.C. § 2381 defines treason as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, with a penalty of up to life imprisonment. While treason requires a high bar, the coordinated effort to undermine a duly elected president could meet this threshold, particularly if foreign entities were knowingly leveraged to amplify false narratives. More broadly, 18 U.S.C. § 371 criminalizes conspiracies to defraud the United States, including schemes to impair lawful government functions, such as the peaceful transfer of power. Penalties include up to five years in prison. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 addresses false statements to federal authorities, carrying a potential seven-year sentence if the matter involves domestic terrorism, which could apply given the national security implications of politicized intelligence.

The involvement of senior officials, potentially including former President Obama, underscores the need for impartial justice. No individual, regardless of rank, is above the law. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle, notably in United States v. Nixon (1974), which compelled President Nixon to produce evidence in a criminal investigation. Similarly, Clinton v. Jones (1997) established that sitting presidents lack immunity from civil suits for actions outside their official duties, setting a precedent for holding former presidents accountable. Prosecuting those involved, up to the highest levels, is not about retribution but about upholding the rule of law.

Without accountability, the incentive to repeat such offenses grows. History offers sobering lessons: unchecked abuses of power, like those during the Watergate scandal, eroded public trust until prosecutions restored faith in governance. The 2016 conspiracy, with its far-reaching consequences, demands a similar response. Failure to prosecute risks normalizing the politicization of intelligence, inviting future administrations to manipulate national security apparatus for partisan gain. This would erode the Constitutional Republic’s foundation, as DNI Gabbard rightly warned.

Critics may argue that prosecuting former officials, especially a former president, could deepen political divisions. However, the greater danger lies in allowing such actions to go unpunished. Public trust in institutions, already strained, depends on transparency and justice. A 2023 Gallup poll showed only 17% of Americans have significant confidence in the federal government, a historic low. Shielding powerful figures from accountability would further alienate citizens, reinforcing perceptions of a two-tiered justice system.

The Department of Justice must act decisively, leveraging the ODNI’s evidence to pursue charges under applicable statutes. This is not a partisan issue but a matter of national integrity. The conspiracy’s architects weaponized intelligence to subvert the law and our Constitutional Republic form of government, affecting not only President Trump but every American who voted in 2016. Prosecuting those responsible, regardless of their former titles, sends a clear message: no one can undermine the people’s will without consequence.

The path forward requires courage and impartiality. The DOJ must investigate thoroughly, ensuring due process while holding all culpable parties accountable. This includes examining the roles of Clapper, Brennan, Rice, and others, as well as the former president’s involvement in directing the false assessment. Only through prosecution can the nation deter future conspiracies and restore faith in its institutions. The American people deserve nothing less than justice, delivered without fear or favor, to safeguard the republic for generations to come.

Supreme Court Delivers Major 6-3 Ruling in Favor of

Article II Presidential Powers

In a landmark 6-3 decision on July 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court delivered a resounding victory for the Trump administration, affirming the president’s constitutional authority under Article II to remove members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The ruling strikes a significant blow against congressional efforts to shield agency officials from executive oversight, which critics argue constitutes an overreach by the so-called deep state apparatus within independent federal agencies. This decision not only strengthens the executive branch’s control over regulatory bodies but also reignites debates about the balance of power in the federal government, with far-reaching implications for the future of administrative governance.

Background of the Case

The case at the heart of this ruling revolves around the president’s authority to remove commissioners of the CPSC, a federal agency tasked with protecting consumers from unsafe products. Established under the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972, the CPSC operates as an independent agency, with commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for fixed terms. The dispute arose when the Trump administration sought to remove three Democratic-appointed commissioners, citing misalignment with the administration’s deregulatory agenda. The administration argued that the president, as the head of the executive branch, possesses the constitutional authority to remove such officials at will to ensure the faithful execution of federal laws.

This move was challenged in lower courts, where a Biden-appointed federal judge ruled that the president could only remove CPSC commissioners for cause, such as misconduct or neglect of duty, based on statutory protections. The judge’s decision reflected a broader interpretation of congressional intent to insulate independent agencies from political influence, preserving their autonomy to make decisions based on expertise rather than partisan priorities. The Trump administration appealed, contending that such restrictions infringe upon the president’s Article II powers, which grant broad authority over the executive branch. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a pivotal ruling on the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided decisively with the Trump administration, reaffirming the president’s constitutional authority to remove CPSC commissioners without needing to demonstrate cause. The majority opinion, authored by a conservative justice, grounded its reasoning in Article II of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president and tasks the executive with ensuring that laws are faithfully executed. The Court held that congressional attempts to limit the president’s removal power, such as requiring cause, represent an unconstitutional encroachment on the executive’s ability to oversee and direct federal agencies.

The majority argued that the president must have the flexibility to appoint and remove officials to align agency actions with the administration’s policy objectives. By restricting this authority, Congress risks creating a bureaucracy that operates independently of the elected executive, undermining democratic accountability. The ruling draws heavily on precedent, including cases like Myers v. United States (1926) and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), which affirmed the president’s removal power over executive branch officials. The Court emphasized that independent agencies, while designed to provide expertise, remain part of the executive branch and are subject to presidential oversight.

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan, warned of the potential consequences of expanding executive power. The dissenters argued that the ruling undermines the independence of agencies like the CPSC, which were intentionally structured to operate free from partisan pressures. They expressed concern that allowing the president to remove commissioners at will could politicize regulatory decisions, prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term consumer safety and expertise. The dissent highlighted the risk of a “power grab” by the executive branch, potentially destabilizing the delicate balance of powers envisioned by the Constitution.

Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision has profound implications for the structure and operation of the federal government. By affirming the president’s authority to remove CPSC commissioners, the ruling strengthens the executive’s ability to shape the direction of regulatory agencies. This could lead to more rapid policy shifts within agencies, particularly during transitions between administrations with differing priorities. For the Trump administration, the decision provides a clear path to implement its deregulatory agenda, ensuring that agency leadership aligns with its broader policy goals.

Critics of the ruling argue that it risks eroding the independence of agencies designed to prioritize expertise and impartiality over political considerations. Agencies like the CPSC play a critical role in protecting public safety, and their autonomy has historically shielded them from partisan influence. The dissent’s warnings resonate with those who fear that the ruling could set a precedent for increased executive control over other independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission. This could lead to a more politicized regulatory environment, where agency decisions reflect the priorities of the sitting administration rather than long-term public interest.

Supporters, however, view the ruling as a necessary correction to congressional overreach. They argue that Article II grants the president broad authority to oversee the executive branch, and restrictions on removal power create an unaccountable bureaucracy, what some refer to as the “deep state.” By affirming the president’s authority, the ruling ensures that elected officials, rather than unelected bureaucrats, retain ultimate control over federal policy. This perspective aligns with the Trump administration’s broader push to streamline government operations and reduce regulatory burdens, a key promise of its campaign.

The decision also intersects with other recent Supreme Court rulings that bolster executive authority. For example, a separate 6-3 ruling limited the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, empowering the administration to pursue its agenda without judicial overreach. Similarly, the Court’s support for mass layoffs at the Department of Education reflects a broader trend of reinforcing executive control over the federal bureaucracy. Together, these rulings signal a judicial shift toward strengthening the presidency’s constitutional role.

Public and Political Reactions

The ruling has elicited polarized reactions across the political spectrum. Conservative commentators and supporters of the Trump administration have hailed the decision as a triumph for constitutional governance and a rebuke of efforts to undermine the executive through entrenched bureaucratic structures. Posts on X describe the ruling as a “massive win” for President Trump, with some users framing it as a victory over the “deep state” that seeks to thwart the will of the electorate. These sentiments reflect a broader conservative push to reassert executive authority and reduce the influence of unelected officials.

Far Left critics, including legal scholars and advocacy groups, have expressed alarm over the ruling’s implications. They argue that it threatens the independence of regulatory agencies, potentially compromising their ability to protect consumers and uphold public safety. The dissenting justices’ concerns about excessive executive power have fueled discussions about the need for checks and balances to prevent overreach. Some commentators worry that the ruling could embolden future administrations to exert undue influence over agencies, undermining their ability to operate impartially.

Historical Context and Legal Precedent

The Supreme Court’s decision builds on a long history of cases addressing the scope of executive power. The landmark Myers v. United States decision established that the president has broad authority to remove executive branch officials, a principle reaffirmed in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. However, cases like Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) have upheld limited restrictions on removal power for certain independent agencies, creating a complex legal landscape. The current ruling tilts the balance toward executive control, signaling a departure from precedents that prioritized agency autonomy.

This decision also reflects the current composition of the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority shaping outcomes in favor of executive authority. The appointment of justices during the Trump administration has played a significant role in these outcomes, highlighting the lasting impact of judicial nominations on constitutional law.

Conclusion: A Victory for Constitutional Authority

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling is a definitive affirmation of the president’s constitutional power under Article II to oversee the executive branch. By rejecting Congress’s attempt to usurp this authority through restrictive statutory protections, the Court has upheld the principle that the president, as the nation’s chief executive, must have the ability to appoint and remove officials to fulfill the mandate of the electorate. This decision not only empowers the Trump administration to advance its policy agenda but also sets a critical precedent for future administrations to assert control over the federal bureaucracy.

Far from undermining democratic governance, the ruling reinforces the constitutional framework envisioned by the Founders, ensuring that the executive branch remains accountable to the elected president rather than an unaccountable deep state apparatus. As the nation navigates an increasingly complex regulatory landscape, this decision will shape debates over the separation of powers, the role of independent agencies, and the balance between expertise and accountability. For now, it stands as a pivotal victory for constitutional authority, with implications that will resonate for years to come.

Careful What You Wish For!

You Just Might Get It!

The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, a distinction the Founding Fathers emphasized to safeguard individual liberties against the tyranny of the majority. Today, this distinction is critical in understanding the contentious debate over abortion rights in Republican-led states. Many argue that "democracy" demands unrestricted abortion access, citing public opinion polls favoring reproductive choice. However, the Founders' vision, as articulated in the Federalist Papers and other writings, rejected democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic to protect fundamental rights and prevent mob rule. The push for abortion rights through democratic majoritarianism actually undermines the constitutional framework established by the founders.

The Founders’ Rejection of Democracy

The Founding Fathers were wary of democracy’s volatility. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." He argued that a republic, with its system of representation and constitutional checks, mitigates the dangers of factionalism and majority tyranny. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, emphasized the need for deliberative governance to prevent "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" through popular passions. John Adams, in a 1788 letter, stated, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." These writings underscore the Founders’ preference for a constitutional republic, where laws and rights are anchored in a stable framework, not swayed by fleeting majorities.

Benedict Delarosa’s Democracy or Republic: Which Are We? echoes this, noting that the Founders designed a system to protect minority rights against democratic overreach. Delarosa argues that the Constitution’s structure, with its enumerated powers, separation of powers, and Bill of Rights, ensures governance reflects principle over popularity. This is particularly relevant to abortion, where public opinion often clashes with constitutional and moral considerations.

Abortion Rights and the Tyranny of the Majority

The abortion debate exemplifies the tension between democracy and a constitutional republic. In Republican-led states, legislatures have enacted restrictive abortion laws, often citing moral or scientific grounds for protecting fetal life. For example, Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (2021) bans abortions after six weeks, leveraging private enforcement to limit access (Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 171.208). Similarly, Alabama’s Human Life Protection Act (2019) prohibits most abortions, with narrow exceptions (Ala. Code § 26-23H-4). These laws reflect the will of state legislatures, elected by local majorities, yet face criticism as undemocratic from advocates who cite national polls, such as a 2022 Pew Research Center survey showing 61% of Americans support legal abortion in most cases.

However, the Founders’ vision prioritizes constitutional limits over majority opinion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228). Justice Alito’s majority opinion emphasized that abortion regulation belongs to state legislatures, aligning with the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states (U.S. Const. amend. X). This decision reinforces the republic’s federalist structure, allowing states to reflect their constituents’ values rather than imposing a uniform national standard driven by democratic sentiment.

Democracy’s Threat to Constitutional Balance

The push for abortion rights through democratic mechanisms, such as ballot initiatives, risks undermining this balance. In 2022, Kansas voters rejected a constitutional amendment to remove abortion protections, with 59% opposing it, demonstrating democracy’s power to shape policy. Similarly, California’s Proposition 1 (2022) enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, reflecting majority will (Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.1). While these outcomes are celebrated as democratic victories, they highlight the danger Madison warned of: majorities overriding minority rights or dissenting values. In Republican-led states, where conservative majorities support restrictive laws, abortion advocates argue that national opinion should prevail, effectively advocating for a pure democracy that disregards federalism.

Delarosa’s pamphlet warns that “such democratic impulses erode the republic’s safeguards”. He cites the Electoral College and Senate’s equal state representation as mechanisms to prevent populous urban centers from dominating less populated regions (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; art. I, § 3). In the abortion context, this ensures states like Wyoming or Idaho can enact laws reflecting their values, even if they conflict with urban-majority states like New York. Overriding these state powers through national referenda or federal legislation risks centralizing authority, a move the Founders rejected to preserve liberty.

Legal Precedents and the Republic’s Framework

Legal battles across the country underscore the republic’s role in balancing competing interests. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court upheld Roe but allowed states to impose restrictions, recognizing their authority to regulate abortion within constitutional bounds (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833). Post-Dobbs, states like Florida passed the Heartbeat Protection Act (2023), banning abortions after six weeks (Fla. Stat. § 390.0111), while Ohio voters approved a 2023 amendment protecting abortion rights (Ohio Const. art. I, § 22). These outcomes reflect the republic’s federalist design, where states serve as "laboratories of democracy" within constitutional limits, as Justice Brandeis described in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932) (285 U.S. 262).

However, democratic activism threatens this balance. In Missouri, a 2024 ballot initiative seeks to overturn restrictive abortion laws, driven by urban voters. Such efforts, while democratic, risk marginalizing rural communities, whose values differ. The Founders’ republic, with its checks like the Senate and judicial review, ensures minority voices are not drowned out. Delarosa argues that abandoning these checks for majority rule invites instability, as seen in historical democracies that collapsed under populist pressures.

The Moral and Philosophical Divide

Abortion is not merely a legal issue but a moral one, complicating democratic solutions. Republican-led states often base restrictions on the belief that life begins at conception, supported by statutes like Georgia’s LIFE Act (2019), which grants personhood to fetuses (Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-141). Abortion advocates counter that bodily autonomy is paramount, a view reflected in New York’s Reproductive Health Act (2019) (N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2599-BB). A pure democracy might resolve this through majority vote, but the Founders’ republic prioritizes deliberation and constitutional principles. Madison’s Federalist No. 51 advocates for checks and balances to prevent any faction, even a majority, from imposing its will unchecked.

Delarosa emphasizes that the Constitution’s neutrality on morally divisive issues allows states to reflect their communities’ values. Forcing a national abortion policy through democratic means disregards this, risking alienation and division. The republic’s structure encourages compromise and localized governance, not the winner-takes-all approach of democracy.

Returning to the Constitutional Republic

To preserve the Founders’ vision, we must resist the allure of pure democracy in the abortion debate. Republican-led states’ restrictive laws reflect their constituents’ values, just as liberal states’ protections reflect theirs. This federalist balance, rooted in the Tenth Amendment, respects diverse perspectives.

Citizens in Republican-led states should defend their legislatures’ authority to regulate abortion, as upheld in Dobbs. Simultaneously, they must engage in principled dialogue, acknowledging the moral complexity of abortion. The Founders’ republic encourages such deliberation, not the divisive majoritarianism of democracy. As Delarosa argues, returning to a constitutional republic means prioritizing the Constitution’s framework over transient public opinion, ensuring liberty and stability for all.

In conclusion, the push for abortion rights through democratic means threatens the Constitutional Republic the Founders envisioned. By respecting state sovereignty and constitutional limits, we honor their wisdom, as articulated in the Federalist Papers and Delarosa’s analysis.  We must hold true to our founding principles and reject these erroneous inclinations to call us a “democracy” or to give way to “democratic” principles over our Constitutional Republic, it is far from a trivial play on words, it is a fundamental issue of how we are structured and how we protect the rights of every citizen, including the unborn!