Constitution Day:

If Its Light Goes Out, Darkness and Oppression Are Sure to Follow

We have all had moments where we realized that if we had only known more or had critical information, we would have avoided making a serious mistake. Today there are a considerable number of elites in high places in America who embrace a vision for reordering America wherein our constitutional republican government would be supplanted by a new system to accommodate a new global order. It may be a shorter step than most would think, for in the last 115 years America has seen its governance evolve from a constitutional republic into an unaccountable administrative state with little resistance.



The critical lesson of history that every freedom-loving person needs to grasp is this: The entire world lived in political darkness before the U.S Constitution gave birth to an enlightened democratically-elected representative government where sovereignty was invested in the people, and government’s role was redefined to protecting the peoples’ natural God-given rights.   

Constitution Day, which falls on September 17, is the national observance that honors the birth of political freedom. And even though many are unfamiliar with Constitution Day, this year -- 2025 -- it may be our most important day to understand, for all our pressing national problems today are a result of corruption and departure from governance and law enforcement consistent with the Constitution. As a result, our country is threatened more now than at any time since the Civil War broke out in 1861.

The drafting of the Constitution in 1787, some six years after the end of the War of Independence, was more miraculous than the victory over superior British military forces by George Washington’s undertrained, underfunded, and outnumbered Continental Army. By contemporary standards, it is inconceivable how delegates from thirteen extraordinarily disparate states could muster the forbearance and magnanimity to agree on the terms of a new Constitution. But with God’s help they accomplished just that.

As good as that Constitution was (and is), it had to be ratified by the states to become the law of the land. And several states withheld support out of fear the Constitution did not protect citizens and states from the inevitable overreach of centralized federal government power. The influential and large holdout states -- Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts -- finally agreed to ratify the Constitution on the condition that ten amendments called the Bill of Rights would be incorporated into the final Constitution. This Bill of Rights would define and protect both the people’s natural and unalienable rights and states’ rights against overreach from the federal government.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were revolutionary political instruments because they clearly delineated citizens’ rights and established that these rights came from God and not the state. These rights, being then sovereign and unalienable, put the people in charge and made the government subordinate, which was hitherto unprecedented in human history.

Another aspect of the genius of the Constitution was that it limited government abuse by creating checks and balances of power between three separate branches of government -- the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Another mechanism of check in the Constitution was also to delineate power to be exercised between the federal and state governing authorities.

Frequent elections established by the Constitution also provided yet another important mechanism to limit government incompetence and corruption. This also meant that the most sacred responsibility of citizenship established by the Constitution was and is the responsibility of people to be informed and vote who shall govern.

This combination of limiting governmental power and maximizing peoples’ rights makes the U.S. Constitution unique. Now 236 years old, it is the longest-running constitution of its kind in human history. The fact is that even with all its flaws,  the United States, which has only 4% of the world’s population, has originated over 90% of the world’s creativity and over 25% of the world’s wealth.

The American people must recognize that the replacement of U.S. Constitution with any other system or new global order -- which would strip the people of their rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness -- must be resisted at any cost. Let it be simply stated:  If the light of the U.S. Constitution goes out, darkness and oppression around the world are sure to follow.

The Constitution makes it clear that everyone, whether in the public or private sector, is equal before the law. Additionally, every elected federal government officeholder, judicial appointee, and executive branch cabinet secretary is required to pledge an oath before assuming office, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

In a spiritually enlightened constitutional America, government would be a good steward of taxpayer resources and avoid debt burdens on future generations. Unelected government agencies would all be downsized and be stripped of their ability to make regulatory law, which is the sole responsibility of the legislature. Agencies that could not be reformed and deliver for the American people -- like the Department of Education, Homeland Security, the FBI, and CIA -- would be entirely restructured and refocused. The military would be recast into armed services with ‘esprit de corps’ and unmatched excellence, training, and firepower to fight and win wars.

In a true constitutional America, there would be absolute protection of the people’s rights and there wo

uld be equal justice under the law. The First Amendment would be considered sacred and honored, which would result in a vibrant competition of ideas, creating a public square in which false political narratives and propaganda would be exposed and unable to survive.

The first two presidents of the United States understood the importance of the moral foundation of society for the nation’s success and longevity. In his Farewell address of 1796, George Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”  Two years later, successor President John Adams observed: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Today, 228 years later, these warnings are more relevant than ever. The results of driving God out of the popular culture in America are self-evident. The secular deep state enemies have largely disempowered the Constitution and have no scruples against using deceit and force to take America down. Should the American people fail to deal a lethal blow to these enemies of our Constitution, America’s already compromised freedom, and independence could be entirely lost. And so would go the rest of the world.

Has Statesmanship Become a Lost Quality?

In an era dominated by divisive rhetoric and ego-driven discourse, one cannot help but wonder if statesmanship has faded into obscurity. This noble quality, once the hallmark of effective leadership, seems increasingly rare at a time when society needs it most. As explored in recent discussions on platforms like X, where users lament the decline of civility in politics, the rise of ego has eroded relationships across personal, professional, and political spheres. Statesmanship, defined historically as morally excellent leadership at the polity level, involves foresight, intentionality, and the ability to transcend everyday politics while pursuing the common good. Yet, contemporary surveys reveal a stark reality: 85 percent of Americans believe civility has worsened over the past decade, with political violence and polarization on the rise. Statesmanship is indeed a lost art, contrasting its absence today with the exemplary model of President Ronald Reagan, whose wit, charm, and firmness embodied the virtue.

The Essence of Statesmanship: Historical Foundations

Statesmanship has deep roots in political philosophy. Aristotle and Machiavelli viewed it as the art of governing with wisdom, balancing competing interests for the polity's benefit. In American history, figures like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln exemplified this through prudent decision-making and moral courage. Washington, often called the "father of his country," relinquished power voluntarily, setting a precedent for selfless leadership. Lincoln navigated the Civil War with empathy and resolve, as detailed in Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals," where he assembled a cabinet of adversaries to foster unity. These leaders contemplated positions, valued opposing views, and acted with dignity, qualities now scarce.

A 2024 Pew Research Center study highlights this decline, showing that animosity has replaced civility, fueled by social media and populist demagoguery. Over 70 percent of Americans fail basic civic literacy quizzes, contributing to a crisis where ego trumps reasoned debate. The National Civic League notes that incivility weakens collaboration, with root causes including harassment of public officials. In politics, this manifests as snarky exchanges and ad hominem attacks, far from the contemplative statesmanship of yesteryear.

Reagan as the Epitome of Statesmanship

Ronald Reagan stands as a prime example of statesmanship in modern times. Known as the "Great Communicator," Reagan used wit and charm to bridge divides, remaining firm without descending into disrespect. During the 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter, Reagan's quip, "There you go again," disarmed his opponent with humor, not hostility, earning widespread admiration. His moral courage shone in negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, where he demanded, "Tear down this wall," blending firmness with optimism that helped end the Cold War.

Reagan valued others' opinions, even in disagreement. He stimulated economic growth and strengthened defense while maintaining bipartisanship, as evidenced by his work with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill on Social Security reforms. His approval ratings averaged 52.8 percent, peaking at 68 percent, ranking him highly among modern presidents. Historians place Reagan in the top tier, with C-SPAN surveys ranking him ninth overall for leadership virtues like prudence and justice. Reagan contemplated positions rather than reacting impulsively, earning respect across aisles.

The Modern Erosion

Today, ego dominates, as seen in polarized debates and social media vitriol. A 2023 Carnegie Endowment report links political violence to declining trust, with 81 percent of voters believing democracy is threatened. Articles from the 2020s, like those in the Journal of Democracy, attribute this to a "crisis of civic virtue," where honesty and civility wane. X discussions echo this, with users calling for "statesmen" amid "lost civility." Unlike Reagan, modern leaders often prioritize snark over substance, eroding public discourse.  Our Constitutional Republic was built on public discourse, but our elected officials must maintain a dignified level of statesmanship in the process.

Reviving Statesmanship for a Better Future

Statesmanship is not irretrievable. By emulating Reagan's model of respectful firmness and contemplation, leaders can restore civility. Education in civic virtues, as advocated by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, offers a path forward. In a time of division, reclaiming this lost quality is essential for societal harmony.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

The Conditional Imperative:

When Presidents Must Defy Judicial Overreach!

In the intricate dance of American governance, the query "Should a President ignore rogue judges?" elicits a resounding "It depends!" Affirmative action is warranted when judicial rulings infringe upon the president's Article II powers, but a firm negation applies if such defiance would breach the Constitution itself. This distinction is not mere semantics; it is rooted in the document's architecture, where the executive's authority cannot be diluted by congressional statutes or judicial whims that contradict the supreme law.

Core Constitutional Principles

At the heart of this argument lies Article II, which delineates the president's role as the chief executive. Section 1 vests executive power exclusively in the president, while Section 2 grants command over the armed forces, treaty-making, and appointments. Section 3's Take Care Clause requires the president to ensure laws are "faithfully executed," a provision interpreted as empowering the executive to prioritize constitutional imperatives over conflicting directives. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2, declares the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land," binding on all judges and officials. Thus, if a statute unconstitutionally encroaches on executive turf, it is inferior and unenforceable. The president's oath to defend the Constitution obligates non-compliance with such laws, as outlined in legal opinions emphasizing executive discretion.

Early Historical Examples

History provides compelling vignettes of presidents exercising this prerogative. Andrew Jackson's response to Worcester v. Georgia (1832) exemplifies defiance: the Supreme Court ruled against Georgia's actions toward the Cherokee, but Jackson, deeming it an intrusion into federal treaty enforcement – an Article II domain – proceeded with removal policies. His alleged quip, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it," underscores the executive's view that courts lack enforcement power, leaving implementation to the president.

Civil War and Beyond

Abraham Lincoln's actions during the Civil War further illuminate this. In Ex parte Merryman (1861), Chief Justice Taney declared Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional, yet Lincoln ignored it, citing his Article II duty to suppress rebellion and preserve the Union. Lincoln argued that the Take Care Clause and commander-in-chief powers necessitated such measures, later validated by congressional approval. This precedent shows that in crises touching core executive functions, judicial orders may be set aside to uphold higher constitutional duties.

Twentieth-Century Instances

More recent examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing threat in 1937, pressuring the Supreme Court after it struck down New Deal legislation as exceeding congressional powers. Though not direct ignorance, it highlighted executive pushback against perceived judicial obstruction of economic policy execution. In the realm of foreign policy, presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have navigated around judicial constraints on executive agreements and wartime decisions, invoking Article II's vesting clause.

Legal Justifications for Defiance

The constitutionality of such disregard hinges on the nature of the judicial order. Courts can review executive orders for overstepping, as in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Supreme Court invalidated President Harry Truman's steel mill seizure as lacking statutory or constitutional basis. However, when orders protect Article II powers, defiance is justified. Legal scholars contend that the president possesses a "non-enforcement power" against unconstitutional statutes, derived from the Take Care Clause's "faithfully" qualifier, implying judgment on validity.

Constitutional Violations as a Red Line

Conversely, if presidential actions violate the Constitution, ignoring judges becomes impermissible. The executive cannot, for instance, authorize torture in defiance of the Eighth Amendment or suppress speech contrary to the First Amendment, even if a court upholds such. The Constitution bars the president from self-aggrandizement, as emphasized in analyses warning against unchecked power. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld a travel ban but scrutinized it under constitutional standards, illustrating that executive actions must withstand review for rights violations.

Separation of Powers and Departmentalism

Moreover, the separation of powers doctrine, implicit in the Constitution's structure, demands mutual respect but allows checks. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, but it did not grant courts supremacy over coequal branches in all matters. Presidents have historically challenged this, as in Jefferson's refusal to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts he deemed unconstitutional. The executive's role in interpreting the Constitution independently – departmentalism – supports selective non-compliance.

Countering Potential Risks

Critics decry this as eroding the rule of law, pointing to potential authoritarianism. Yet, the alternative – blind obedience to "rogue" judges who legislate from the bench – risks paralyzing the executive. For example, in immigration enforcement, if courts block deportations based on statutes that unconstitutionally limit presidential discretion, the executive must act to fulfill the Take Care duty. The Supremacy Clause reinforces this, constraining federal power while elevating the Constitution above all.

Statutory Validity and Executive Assessment

This framework also addresses statutes' validity. Merely because Congress passes and a president signs a law does not immunize it from constitutional scrutiny. The executive retains authority to reassess, especially if it usurps powers. As one interpretation notes, the Take Care Clause limits contra legem actions but permits completion where laws are vague.

Presidents should ignore rogue judges to protect Article II powers, but never violate the Constitution. This conditional approach safeguards democracy, ensuring the executive upholds the supreme law against encroachments. By embracing this, we maintain the founders' equilibrium, where no branch dominates unchecked.

Why the Latest Jobs Report Signals a Victory for American Prosperity

The August 2025 jobs report, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, revealed a mere 22,000 nonfarm payroll additions, well below the anticipated 75,000 to 80,000. Unemployment climbed to 4.3 percent, a near four-year high. At first glance, this slowdown appears alarming. Yet, a closer examination uncovers a silver lining. The reported job losses primarily stem from essential reductions in an overgrown federal bureaucracy, a development that promises long-term economic health and fiscal responsibility.

Consider the specifics. Federal government employment dropped by 15,000 positions in August alone, contributing significantly to the tepid overall figures. This decline forms part of broader mass layoffs announced by the Trump administration, totaling over 290,000 civil service positions as of mid-2025. These cuts target inefficient and ideologically driven roles that ballooned under the previous Biden administration, roles often sustained through unchecked spending and media narratives that portrayed government expansion as progress.

Take the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for instance. The agency saw its workforce slashed from over 10,000 employees to a mere 294 essential staff members. This drastic reduction, implemented in early 2025, dismantled what critics have long called a vehicle for wasteful foreign aid that prioritized globalist agendas over domestic needs. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faced permanent terminations of at least 600 employees, with overall staff reductions approaching 25 percent or about 2,400 positions. These moves addressed redundancies in public health bureaucracy that expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 era, often at the expense of taxpayer dollars without commensurate accountability.

The Department of Education provides another stark example. In March 2025, the department initiated a reduction in force affecting nearly 50 percent of its workforce, eliminating over 1,300 positions. This aligns with longstanding conservative arguments to devolve education policy to states, where it belongs under the Tenth Amendment. Thousands more cuts rippled through related agencies, trimming the fat from a system criticized for federal overreach into local curricula and standards.

Compounding these efficiencies, the administration curtailed grants to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), many of which received billions under Biden-era policies to advance progressive causes. An executive order in February 2025 targeted funding to certain United Nations organizations and reviewed support for all international entities, effectively halting slush funds that funneled taxpayer money to unaccountable groups. Agency leaders have since touted these grant crackdowns as reversals of Biden administration contracts, preventing waste on radical agendas. Nonprofits reliant on such federal largesse now face disruptions, but this shift redirects resources toward private sector innovation rather than subsidizing bureaucratic intermediaries.

Why frame these losses as gains? Because they dismantle "parasitic jobs," positions that drain productivity without creating real value. The Biden administration propped up this apparatus through expansive spending, including trillions in stimulus that inflated government payrolls while media outlets amplified narratives of endless growth. Now, with these props removed, the economy can reorient toward sustainable private employment. Manufacturing shed 12,000 jobs in August, but this reflects a necessary correction from overregulation, paving the way for revitalized American industry under reduced federal interference.

Constitutionally, these reforms restore balance to our founding principles. The U.S. Constitution enumerates limited powers for the federal government in Article I, Section 8, emphasizing defense, commerce regulation, and other discrete functions. It reserves all other powers to the states or the people via the Tenth Amendment. Yet, the modern bureaucracy has morphed into an unelected "fourth branch," wielding rulemaking authority that rivals Congress. Critics, including former President Ronald Reagan, argued this violates separation of powers, as bureaucrats impose policies without direct accountability to voters. The Supreme Court has recently reinforced this view; in a 2024 ruling, it curtailed agency deference under the Chevron doctrine, ensuring statutes are interpreted by judges, not regulators, to prevent bureaucratic overreach.

Legally, the president holds authority to reorganize the executive branch under the Reorganization Act of 1977 and inherent Article II powers. The Supreme Court upheld mass firings of 16,000 probationary federal employees in April 2025, rejecting challenges that sought to block these actions. This precedent affirms that trimming inefficient agencies aligns with constitutional mandates for efficient government, not endless expansion.

In essence, the August jobs report's headline numbers mask a profound reset. By excising parasitic elements from the federal leviathan, we foster an environment where true job creation thrives in the private sector. Expect future reports to reflect this pivot: leaner government, empowered states, and a revitalized economy true to America's constitutional roots. The losses today herald gains tomorrow.

Trump's Bold Challenge to the Federal Reserve:

Exposing a Century-Old Fraud

President Donald Trump has ignited a firestorm by ordering the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. This move, prompted by allegations of mortgage fraud detailed in a referral letter, tests the boundaries of presidential authority over what many perceive as an untouchable institution. Cook, through her legal team, has vowed to sue, asserting that the president lacks the power to dismiss her due to the Fed's supposed independence. This confrontation is not merely a personnel dispute. It represents a direct assault on the Federal Reserve System's claim to autonomy, a system that has long operated as a private banking cartel masquerading as a government entity. As this battle heads toward the Supreme Court, it could dismantle the illusions surrounding the Fed and restore constitutional governance to America's monetary policy.

The premise here is straightforward. The Federal Reserve is not an independent government agency. It is a private consortium of banks, shielded from accountability, that wields unchecked power over the nation's economy. This structure violates the Constitution's clear framework of three co-equal branches, with no provision for a fourth branch of unelected bankers. Without a constitutional amendment authorizing such an entity, the Fed must fall under the president's Article II executive authority. Historical records, legal precedents, and constitutional text all support this view. Trump's action forces a reckoning, potentially ending the Fed's century-long grip on American wealth through fiat money and interest payments extracted from taxpayers.

The Myth of Federal Independence: A Private Cartel in Disguise

Most Americans labor under the misconception that the Federal Reserve is a federal agency, much like the Department of Treasury or the IRS. The name itself deceives, as "federal" implies government ownership and oversight. In reality, the Fed operates as a private banking cartel, owned and controlled by member banks rather than the public. This is no fringe conspiracy. It is documented history.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the system, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23 of that year. The act created a central board and twelve regional banks, with stock owned by private member banks. These banks elect most of the regional boards, and profits beyond a fixed dividend go to the U.S. Treasury, but control remains private. Critics, including economists from the Mises Institute, describe it as a "cartelization device" designed by bankers to coordinate inflation and restrict competition. The secretive origins underscore this: In 1910, a group of bankers, including representatives from J.P. Morgan and the Rockefeller interests, met at Jekyll Island, Georgia, to draft the blueprint for the Fed. This clandestine gathering laid the foundation for what would become a system favoring elite financial interests over the public good.

Lisa Cook's defense hinges on the Fed's "independence," a term enshrined in the 1913 act and subsequent laws. She claims the president has no say in her removal, citing for-cause protections under 12 U.S.C. § 242. But this independence is a facade. The Fed's board members serve 14-year terms, staggered to insulate them from political influence, yet they exercise executive functions like regulating banks and setting monetary policy. If the Fed is truly independent, it functions as a fourth branch of government, answerable to no one. The Constitution enumerates only three branches in Articles I, II, and III. No amendment has created a fourth. Thus, any claim to co-equal status is baseless and unconstitutional.

Historical precedents reinforce this. Before 1913, the U.S. had no central bank after the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836, amid Andrew Jackson's war against what he called a "hydra of corruption." Jackson vetoed its recharter, arguing it concentrated power in private hands unaccountable to the people. The Fed's creation reversed this, but under the Progressive Era's guise of stability, it entrenched private control. Today, with Trump challenging Cook's tenure, the administration argues that recent Supreme Court rulings on removal power extend to the Fed, potentially allowing at-will dismissal to ensure executive oversight.

Constitutional Foundations: Article II and the Limits of Power

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law, and any institution must conform to its text. Article I grants Congress power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof," but this does not authorize delegation to a private entity. Critics argue the Fed violates the nondelegation doctrine, as Congress cannot abdicate its enumerated powers to unaccountable actors. Moreover, Article II vests "the executive Power" in the president, including the authority to appoint and remove officers of the United States. The Fed's governors are such officers, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, yet insulated from removal except for "cause."

This setup creates a separation of powers crisis. The Fed blends legislative (rulemaking), executive (enforcement), and quasi-judicial functions, all without full presidential control. Constitutional scholars note that originalists view the Fed's independence as a "novelty" incompatible with the framers' intent. James Madison, in Federalist No. 51, emphasized checks and balances among the three branches, warning against concentrations of power that evade accountability. The Fed evades this by operating outside traditional branches, imposing policies like quantitative easing that transfer wealth from savers to banks without electoral input.

Historical constitutional challenges abound. In the 19th century, opponents of the First and Second Banks argued they exceeded Congress's powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the Second Bank in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), but that case involved a government-chartered entity, not a private cartel like the Fed. Modern arguments extend this: The Fed's "quasi-private" status raises nondelegation issues, as the Supreme Court has tightened scrutiny in cases like Gundy v. United States (2019), signaling limits on congressional delegation. If challenged fully, as Trump's action invites, the Court could find the Fed's structure unconstitutional, forcing it under direct executive purview.

From Gold-Backed Currency to Fiat Deception: A Historical Shift

Examine your dollar bill. It reads "Federal Reserve Note," a subtle but telling change from pre-1913 currency. Before the Fed, "United States Notes" circulated, issued directly by the Treasury and redeemable in gold or silver on demand. These notes represented sovereign money, backed by the people's assets. The Legal Tender Act of 1862 authorized them during the Civil War, but they retained redeemability ties.

The Fed's notes, by contrast, are fiat currency, created out of thin air by private banks and loaned to the government at interest. This shift enabled endless money printing, inflating away savings and enriching the cartel. A brief rebellion occurred under President John F. Kennedy. In 1963, via Executive Order 11110, Kennedy authorized the Treasury to issue silver certificates backed by and redeemable for silver bullion. These $5 and $10 notes, printed from 1963 to 1964, bypassed the Fed, aiming to phase out silver backing while conserving reserves. Conspiracy theories link this to Kennedy's assassination, but the fact remains: It was a direct challenge to Fed monopoly, highlighting the system's fragility.

Post-1933 gold recall and 1971 Nixon shock ended redeemability entirely, cementing fiat dominance. United States Notes were discontinued by 1971, as Federal Reserve Notes fulfilled all functions without backing. This history underscores the Fed's role in eroding constitutional money. Article I, Section 10 prohibits states from making anything but gold and silver legal tender, implying a similar standard for the federal government. Fiat notes violate this, imposing debt-based money on citizens.

Supreme Court Precedents: The Erosion of Independence Protections

Cook's assertion of irrelevance to presidential authority crumbles under Supreme Court scrutiny. While Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) upheld for-cause removal for Federal Trade Commission members, preserving agency independence, recent rulings have carved exceptions, especially for executive-like agencies.

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Court struck down removal protections for the CFPB's single director, holding that Article II demands presidential control over executive officers. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that such restrictions violate separation of powers, as the president must ensure faithful execution of laws. Collins v. Yellen (2021) extended this to the FHFA, invalidating similar insulation. The Fed, with its monetary policy enforcement, mirrors these agencies.

Trump's prior term saw challenges to independent agencies, and in 2025, a case like Trump v. Wilcox (May 2025) addressed removal from boards like the NLRB, affirming limits on protections. Analysts predict the Cook case could overrule Humphrey's Executor for the Fed, as its multi-member structure does not fully shield it from Article II demands. Justice Kavanaugh in Seila noted that Humphrey's applied narrowly to quasi-legislative bodies, not core executive functions like the Fed's. If the Court rules for Trump, it unravels the Fed's independence, subjecting governors to at-will removal.

The Rothschild Legacy: Control of Currency Trumps All Laws

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the banking dynasty, encapsulated the Fed's peril: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who writes its laws." This 18th-century insight explains the cartel's endurance. By monopolizing currency issuance, the Fed extracts wealth through interest on debt it creates. Since 1913, the U.S. government borrows from the Fed at interest, paid by taxpayers, on money conjured from nothing. This fraudulent system has ballooned the national debt to over $37 trillion, enriching bankers while devaluing the dollar by 96% since inception.

Rothschild's words ring true historically. The Fed's architects, including Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., drew from European central banking models dominated by families like the Rothschilds. Control of money allows manipulation regardless of laws, as seen in the Fed's role in the Great Depression, where tight money policies prolonged suffering to protect banks. Ending this stranglehold would halt the transfer of wealth, returning sovereignty to the people.

Releasing America from the Banksters: A Call to Action

Trump's challenge to Cook is a pivotal moment. If successful, it exposes the Fed as unconstitutional, potentially leading to its abolition or reform under executive control. The American people deserve freedom from these "banksters," as they have been called, who impose phony debt through interest on fiat currency. Historical efforts like the Liberty Dollar or audits pushed by Ron Paul highlight growing awareness. Congress could reclaim coinage powers, issuing debt-free money backed by assets.

The burden is unsustainable. Inflation erodes wages, benefits the elite, and funds endless wars and welfare. By invoking Article II, Trump tests the system's legitimacy. The Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution, not a century-old cartel. It is time to end the Fed's reign, restore sound money, and liberate the economy from fraudulent chains. The founders fought for independence from monarchical finance; we must do the same today.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

When Liberty is your Common Ground

The Genius of the Founders

In the grand tapestry of human history, few concepts have shone as brightly or endured as resiliently as liberty. It is the cornerstone upon which nations are built, the spark that ignites revolutions, and the enduring flame that guides societies through the darkest storms. The founders of the United States, those remarkable visionaries of the eighteenth century, possessed a profound genius in recognizing this truth. They understood, with a clarity that borders on prophetic, that without liberty, nothing else truly matters. Prosperity, equality, justice - all these noble pursuits become hollow echoes in the absence of freedom. To preserve this precious liberty, they insisted that certain foundational elements must remain steadfast. If these pillars were ever dismantled or eroded, liberty itself would slip away, relegated to the forgotten pages of history books, a relic of what once was.

Today, as we navigate the turbulent waters of modern politics, this foundational wisdom feels more relevant than ever. I observe elected officials across the spectrum vying for attention and influence, and one distinction emerges with stark clarity. There are those who embody true leadership, guided by principles and a vision for the greater good, and then there are those who are merely elected officials, scrambling for relevance in a crowded arena. This divide is not just a matter of style or charisma; it reflects a deeper commitment - or lack thereof - to the very liberty that our founders held sacred. Liberty serves as the ultimate common ground for a divided nation, safeguarding its essentials is non-negotiable, discerning between genuine leaders and opportunistic figures is crucial for our collective future.

Essential Pillars of Liberty

Let’s begin by delving into the genius of the founders. Men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were not mere politicians; they were philosophers, inventors, and statesmen who drew from the Enlightenment's wellspring of ideas. They had witness to the tyrannies of Monarchs and Empires, where individual rights were trampled under the boot of arbitrary power. In crafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they articulated a radical proposition: that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that the primary role of any government is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What made their approach genius was not just the eloquence of their words but the practicality of their safeguards. They knew liberty was fragile, susceptible to erosion from both external threats and internal decay. Thus, they embedded mechanisms to protect it. The separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches ensures no single entity can dominate. The Bill of Rights enumerates specific freedoms; speech, assembly, religion, bearing arms; that government cannot and must not infringe. Federalism balances national authority with state sovereignty, preventing centralized overreach. These are not optional features; they are the linchpins that hold the body of liberty together. Remove any one, and the structure weakens. Displace them through gradual reinterpretation or outright assault, and liberty fades, much like the Roman Republic dissolved into empire under the guise of security.

Consider, for instance, the First Amendment. It stands as a bulwark against censorship and compelled speech, allowing ideas to flourish in the marketplace of thought. Without it, dissent becomes dangerous, and conformity reigns. History is replete with examples where liberty's erosion began with silenced voices: the Soviet Union's gulags for political prisoners, Nazi Germany's propaganda machine that crushed free press. Our founders foresaw this peril and armored us against it. Yet, in contemporary debates over social media regulation or campus speech codes, we see attempts to chip away at this protection. Proponents argue for "safety" or "harm reduction," but the founders would warn that trading liberty for illusory security is a fool's bargain.

Similarly, the Second Amendment safeguards the right to keep AND bear arms, not merely for hunting or sport, but as a check against tyranny. The founders, fresh from a revolutionary war fought with citizen militias, understood that an armed populace deters despots. Critics today decry this as outdated, pointing to modern violence, but they overlook the deeper principle: liberty requires the means to defend it. Without this, citizens become subjects, reliant on the state's benevolence. History echoes this: disarmed populations in Venezuela or Hong Kong have struggled against oppressive regimes. Preserving this right maintains the balance the founders intended.

Moving to the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, we find another essential pillar. In an era of digital surveillance, where governments and corporations harvest data with impunity, this safeguard is under siege. The founders could not have imagined smartphones or algorithms, but their principle endures: privacy is integral to liberty. Without it, individuals live in fear of constant monitoring, stifling innovation and expression. Edward Snowden's revelations highlighted how far we've strayed, with mass surveillance programs echoing the general warrants that sparked colonial outrage. To reclaim liberty, we must reinforce these boundaries, ensuring technology serves freedom rather than subverts it.

These examples illustrate that "certain things" must remain in place. They are not relics of a bygone era but living necessities. If removed, through constitutional amendments, judicial overreach, or legislative fiat, liberty would indeed fade. Imagine a United States without free speech: debates silenced, media state-controlled, which we are eerily close to now, innovation stagnant. Or without due process: arbitrary detentions, kangaroo courts, eroded trust in justice. Such a nation would resemble the dystopias our founders fled, not the beacon they built.

Leaders Versus Elected Officials

Turning to the current political landscape, the distinction between leaders and mere elected officials becomes painfully evident. True leaders are those who prioritize liberty as common ground, transcending partisan divides. They invoke the founders' wisdom not as rhetoric but as guiding stars. Think of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln, who preserved the Union while expanding liberty through emancipation, or Ronald Reagan, who championed freedom against communist totalitarianism. These were not fighters for personal relevance; they were stewards of a greater ideal.

Liberty in Contemporary Debates

Take, for example, the ongoing battles over voting rights. True leaders would ensure elections are secure and accessible, honoring the founders' commitment to representative government. But some officials exploit fears, enacting barriers that disenfranchise or gerrymandering districts for advantage. This is not leadership; it is a scramble for relevance, eroding the liberty of self-governance.

Similarly, in economic policy, liberty demands a free market tempered by fairness. The founders distrusted monopolies and excessive taxation, as seen in the Boston Tea Party. Yet, today's officials often favor crony capitalism, where regulations protect incumbents at the expense of entrepreneurs. Leaders would dismantle these barriers, fostering opportunity for all. Instead, many elected figures prioritize corporate donors, displacing the level playing field essential to liberty.

Foreign policy offers another lens. The founders advocated non-entanglement in foreign alliances, preserving sovereignty and liberty at home. True leaders navigate global challenges without sacrificing domestic freedoms, as Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex. But some officials today pursue endless wars or alliances that drain resources, fading our liberty through debt and division.

Finding Common Ground Through Liberty

Amid this, liberty emerges as the common ground we desperately need. In a polarized nation, where red and blue seem irreconcilable, freedom unites. Liberals cherish liberty in personal choices, like reproductive rights or LGBTQ+ equality. Conservatives value it in economic freedom and religious expression. By framing debates around liberty - does this policy enhance or diminish individual freedom? - we can find consensus.

For instance, criminal justice reform: both sides agree mass incarceration erodes liberty. Leaders like those in the bipartisan First Step Act demonstrated this common ground. Environmental policy, too: protecting clean air and water preserves the liberty to live healthily, without over regulating to the point of economic strangulation.

Education is another arena. The founders believed in enlightened citizenry for liberty's sustenance. True leaders invest in public education while respecting parental rights and school choice. But officials fighting for relevance push indoctrination or defunding, displacing the balance.

Healthcare debates rage, but liberty demands access without coercion. Leaders would expand options, not mandate systems that limit choice.

Immigration: liberty calls for secure borders and humane pathways, honoring our immigrant heritage without compromising sovereignty.

Even in technology, regulating Big Tech to protect privacy and speech upholds liberty, as long as it avoids government overreach.

To discern leaders from officials, look for those who invoke liberty consistently, not selectively. Do they defend freedoms even when unpopular? Do they build bridges or burn them for clicks? True leaders, like the founders, prioritize the eternal over the expedient.

The founders' genius lies in their unyielding focus on liberty. Without it, nothing matters; with it, all is possible. The safeguards they established must remain inviolate, lest liberty fade into history. As we watch elected officials, let us champion true leaders who make liberty our common ground. In doing so, we honor the past and secure the future. This is not just an ideal; it is our imperative.

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.

When Will We Get Serious About Citizen-Only Voting?

In the United States, the principle that only citizens should vote in federal elections stands as a cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic's integrity. Yet, across the nation, and particularly in Colorado, gaps in enforcement and registration processes have allowed non-citizens to register and potentially vote, undermining this fundamental rule. While federal law explicitly prohibits non-citizen participation in national races, state-level practices often blur the lines, leading to what critics call a "bleed-over" effect into federal contests. Colorado, with its automatic voter registration tied to driver's licenses and minimal verification, exemplifies this vulnerability. As we approach future elections, it is time to demand stricter safeguards to ensure that only American citizens decide the nation's fate. This op-ed examines the legal and constitutional underpinnings, real-world evidence from Colorado, the risks of crossover voting, political resistance, and actionable solutions.

The Constitutional and Legal Foundation for Citizen-Only Voting

The U.S. Constitution provides the bedrock for restricting voting to citizens, though it does not explicitly mandate citizenship for all elections. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This amendment, part of the Reconstruction era, aimed to protect newly freed slaves' rights but also established a clear distinction between citizens and non-citizens in matters of civic participation. While the Constitution delegates election administration to the states under Article I, Section 4, federal oversight ensures uniformity in protecting citizen-only voting for national offices.

Federal law reinforces this through 18 U.S.C. § 611, which makes it a crime for any alien to vote in an election for federal office, punishable by fines or imprisonment. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 further criminalizes non-citizen voting in federal elections, emphasizing that such acts undermine the electoral process. States must comply, but they retain authority over local and state elections, creating potential loopholes.

In Colorado, the state constitution was amended in 2020 via Amendment 76, which voters approved with 62.9% support. It changed the language from "every citizen" to "only a citizen" may vote, explicitly barring non-citizens from all elections. This measure, backed by groups like Colorado Voter Protection, aimed to close perceived gaps in voter eligibility. Colorado Revised Statutes § 1-2-101 echo this, requiring voters to be U.S. citizens, at least 18 years old, and residents for 22 days before an election. Yet, enforcement relies on self-attestation during registration, with no mandatory proof of citizenship unless challenged.

Media outlets have highlighted these foundations. A Denver Post article noted that while non-citizen voting is illegal federally, state-level ambiguities persist, fueling Republican calls for reform. Similarly, the Associated Press reported on Colorado's 2020 amendment as a proactive step amid national debates over election security. These legal pillars are clear, but their application in Colorado reveals cracks that invite exploitation.

Non-Citizen Voting in Colorado: Evidence and Incidents

Despite robust laws, incidents in Colorado demonstrate how non-citizens end up on voter rolls. In October 2022, the Colorado Secretary of State's office mistakenly mailed voter registration postcards to approximately 30,000 non-citizens, encouraging them to register. This error stemmed from a data mismatch between the Department of Revenue's driver's license database and voter records. While officials claimed no non-citizens voted as a result, the incident exposed systemic flaws. CBS News Colorado covered the story, noting that the postcards were sent to individuals identified as non-citizens through driver's license applications, raising questions about registration safeguards.

Further evidence comes from legislative responses. In 2025, Colorado lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 25-057, which mandates the cancellation of voter registrations for non-citizens and requires cross-checks with federal databases like SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). This bill acknowledges ongoing issues, as non-citizens can obtain driver's licenses without proving citizenship, and Colorado's automatic voter registration at DMVs enrolls them unless they opt out. A Public Interest Legal Foundation report detailed how, in the 2022 midterms, this led to thousands of potential improper registrations.

Media investigations underscore the scale. Rocky Mountain PBS explored how Colorado prevents non-citizen voting, admitting that while rare, cases occur due to human error or fraud. In 2011, then-Secretary of State Scott Gessler reported up to 11,805 non-citizens on voter rolls, prompting a federal inquiry. X posts from Colorado residents, like one from @sapper033, highlight public frustration: "Colorado doesn't have any checks to prevent a non-citizen... from voting." These anecdotes align with broader data from the Heritage Foundation, which logs instances of non-citizen voting nationwide, including Colorado cases.

Critics argue such occurrences are minimal, citing Brennan Center studies showing non-citizen voting at 0.0001% in 2016. However, in a swing state like Colorado, even small numbers can sway close races, as seen in the 2020 presidential election where margins were tight in key counties.

The Bleed-Over Effect: Local to Federal Elections

The real danger lies in how non-citizen participation in local elections spills into federal ones. Colorado does not allow non-citizens to vote in any elections post-Amendment 76, but registration processes do not always differentiate. Ballots combine federal, state, and local races, making separation impossible without rigorous checks. If a non-citizen registers via a driver's license and receives a mail-in ballot, they could vote in all contests undetected.

This "bleed-over" mirrors issues in Arizona, where non-citizens vote legally in local elections but often end up influencing federal ones due to lax verification. In Colorado, similar risks exist. A 2024 Denver Post piece discussed how Republican messaging centers on this, citing fears that immigrants illegally cast ballots in federal races. NPR reported on claims that Democrats encourage migrant voting, exacerbating the issue in states like Colorado with high immigration.

Evidence from X threads, such as @DenverVisitor's post on foreign influence in Colorado elections, suggests non-citizen registrations inflate rolls, potentially affecting federal outcomes. A Migration Policy Institute explainer notes no widespread evidence but admits isolated incidents could occur in combined-ballot systems. In 2022, after the postcard mishap, officials admitted to reviewing 58 registrations from non-citizens, some of whom may have voted previously. This bleed-over erodes trust, as seen in close Colorado congressional races.

Political Motivations and Resistance

Resistance to stricter measures often stems from partisan divides. In Colorado, Democrats like Secretary of State Jena Griswold argue that citizenship-proof requirements discriminate against minorities and suppress turnout. Bills like HB21-1086, which sought proof of citizenship, failed amid claims of voter suppression. Media outlets like Colorado Newsline portray such efforts as Republican fearmongering, despite federal laws mandating citizen-only voting.

X users like @FinalTelegraph accuse Democrats of using non-citizen voting to maintain power, linking it to broader immigration policies. A Bipartisan Policy Center report notes no states allow non-citizens in statewide elections, but local allowances in places like New York fuel suspicions. In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis's support for sanctuary policies amplifies concerns, as seen in media coverage of driver's license expansions for immigrants. This resistance, critics argue, prioritizes political gain over constitutional integrity.

Solutions and the Path Forward

To address this, Colorado must adopt federal-style safeguards. The SAVE Act, passed by the U.S. House in 2024 and reintroduced in 2025, requires proof of citizenship for voter registration, such as a passport or birth certificate. Colorado could implement similar measures, cross-referencing rolls with USCIS databases. Ending automatic registration at DMVs without citizenship verification would prevent errors.

Nationally, constitutional amendments in states like Idaho and Wisconsin in 2024 prohibit non-citizen voting, setting precedents. Media advocacy, like AP's coverage of voter fraud myths, should balance with investigations into real incidents. Public education on laws, combined with penalties for fraud, would deter violations.



Colorado's experiences highlight a national crisis: laws exist, but enforcement lags. By demanding citizen-only voting through legal reforms and vigilant oversight, we preserve our Constitutional Republic. The time for seriousness is now, before another election is tainted.

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.

Colorado Defies the US Constitution under the Guise of “State Law”,

Disregarding the Supremacy Clause!

The Mesa County Incident: A Symptom of State Overreach

In a brazen display of state overreach, Colorado's government has once again positioned itself as a rogue actor in the American federal system. Consider the recent case in Mesa County, where Sheriff Deputy Alexander Swank pulled over Caroline Diaz Gonzalvez, a Brazilian student attending college in Utah. The stop resulted in a mere warning for a minor traffic infraction. However, Deputy Swank shared her information on a Facebook group frequented by local law enforcement officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. This act of voluntary cooperation with federal authorities led to charges filed against him by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for violating Senate Bill 25-276, a state law that prohibits sharing personal information with federal immigration enforcers. This incident exemplifies how Colorado's left-leaning legislature and Governor Jared Polis prioritize ideological agendas over constitutional fidelity, trampling on federal supremacy and individual rights in the process.

The Supremacy Clause: The Bedrock of Federal Authority

The Supremacy Clause, enshrined in Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, declares that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land," binding on state judges notwithstanding contrary state laws. This foundational principle ensures that states cannot undermine national authority. As James Madison articulated in Federalist No. 44, without this clause, the Union would dissolve into chaos, with states enacting conflicting measures that erode federal power. Madison warned that absent supremacy, "the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts." Similarly, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 emphasized that supremacy is inherent in any law, compelling obedience and preempting state interference. Hamilton dismissed fears of federal overreach, arguing that the clause merely affirms the natural superiority of national law over local edicts.

Historical Precedents Reinforcing Supremacy

Historical precedents reinforce this. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed that states cannot tax or impede federal institutions, declaring, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," and upholding federal supremacy. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) extended this, invalidating a New York steamboat monopoly that conflicted with federal commerce regulation. In the immigration context, Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) struck down a Pennsylvania alien registration law as preempted by federal statutes, noting that immigration is a field where uniformity is essential. More recently, Arizona v. United States (2012) invalidated portions of Arizona's SB 1070 for encroaching on federal immigration enforcement, reaffirming that states cannot enact laws that hinder federal objectives.

Senate Bill 25-276: Obstructing Federal Immigration Enforcement

Senate Bill 25-276, signed into law in 2025, exemplifies Colorado's defiance. The bill prohibits local officials from sharing immigration-related information with federal agencies like ICE, delays releases from custody for immigration purposes, and restricts cooperation in enforcement operations. Proponents claim it protects civil rights, but it directly obstructs federal immigration law under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which empowers federal agents to enforce borders and deport unauthorized individuals. By criminalizing voluntary cooperation, as in Deputy Swank's case, Colorado commandeers its own officials against federal efforts, inverting the anti-commandeering doctrine from Printz v. United States (1997), which protects states from being forced to enforce federal law but does not authorize states to prohibit assistance. This creates a patchwork of non-cooperation that undermines national security and border integrity, conflicting with the Supremacy Clause.

Critics might cite sanctuary policies as permissible under the Tenth Amendment, but precedents show limits. In United States v. California (2018), a federal court upheld parts of California's sanctuary law but struck down provisions that impeded federal enforcement too severely. Colorado's SB 25-276 goes further by punishing officials like Swank for mere information sharing, which is not compelled but voluntary. This echoes the lawsuit filed by Douglas County in 2024, arguing that Colorado's sanctuary laws violate the Constitution by prioritizing illegal immigrants over citizen safety and federal authority. The state's actions disregard Madison's vision in Federalist No. 45, where he assured that federal powers are few and defined, while state powers are numerous and indefinite, but only when not preempted.

A Decade-Plus of Disregard: Erosion of Rights and Supremacy

This is not an isolated incident. Over the past 12 years, since 2013, Colorado's legislature has systematically decimated individual rights and flouted federal supremacy, often under the banner of "progressive reform".

Gun Control Measures Infringing on the Second Amendment

Begin with gun control. In 2013, following the Aurora theater shooting, the state enacted House Bill 13-1224, banning magazines over 15 rounds, and House Bill 13-1229, mandating universal background checks. These laws infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which struck down similar restrictions. Colorado's measures disregard this precedent, imposing burdens on law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore them. A federal lawsuit in 2013 challenged the magazine ban as unconstitutional, yet the state persisted, eroding self-defense rights.

Marijuana Legalization Defying Federal Drug Laws

The disregard intensified with marijuana legalization via Amendment 64 in 2012, effective 2013. While popular, it directly defies the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Colorado's regime creates a state-sanctioned industry that conflicts with federal law, as noted in a 2015 lawsuit by sheriffs from Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma invoking the Supremacy Clause to invalidate it. Though the suit failed due to standing issues, the principle holds: states cannot nullify federal prohibitions. Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 would decry this as states assuming "an option of abiding by their constitutional obligations or not," leading to anarchy. This defiance has spilled over, encouraging other states to ignore federal drug laws and weakening national uniformity.

Expanding Sanctuary Policies Shielding Undocumented Individuals

Immigration policies provide another egregious example. In 2019, House Bill 19-1124 prohibited probation officers from sharing information with ICE and limited cooperation, laying the groundwork for SB 25-276. These laws transform Colorado into a sanctuary state, shielding undocumented individuals from deportation and prioritizing their "rights" over federal mandates. This conflicts with the INA and precedents like Arizona v. United States, where the Court emphasized federal exclusivity in immigration. By 2024, localities like Douglas County sued, claiming these policies endanger public safety and violate supremacy. Governor Polis's administration has doubled down, even as federal lawsuits mount, including a 2025 Department of Justice challenge to SB 25-276 for obstructing enforcement.

Pandemic Restrictions Violating Freedoms

Individual rights have fared no better. During the COVID-19 pandemic, from 2020 to 2022, Polis issued executive orders mandating masks, lockdowns, and business closures, violating freedoms of assembly, religion, and commerce. These edicts echoed those struck down in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), where the Supreme Court invalidated similar restrictions as infringing on First Amendment rights. Colorado's measures disregarded this, imposing fines and shutdowns on churches and gyms, decimating livelihoods without due process. In 2021, the state pushed vaccine mandates for state employees, further eroding bodily autonomy and privacy rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Suppressing Labor and Property Rights

Labor rights have also suffered. A 1943 law requiring a "second election" for union certification, rooted in anti-worker sentiments, remained in force until attempts to repeal it in 2025. This suppressed organizing, violating the National Labor Relations Act's federal framework. Meanwhile, 2023's Proposition HH attempted to alter property tax assessments, potentially violating the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in the state constitution, which safeguards against unchecked taxation. Though voter-rejected, it highlighted legislative contempt for fiscal restraints.

Environmental regulations have trampled property rights. The 2019 Senate Bill 19-181 overhauled oil and gas permitting, granting local governments veto power over drilling, conflicting with federal energy policies under the Energy Policy Act. This led to lawsuits claiming preemption, as it hinders national energy independence. Farmers and landowners saw their rights diminished, unable to develop resources without bureaucratic hurdles.

Partisan Overreach in Elections and Privacy

In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment's Insurrection Clause was a stark overreach, disregarding federal electoral processes. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed it in Trump v. Anderson (2024), affirming that states cannot unilaterally bar candidates from national office, reinforcing supremacy. This episode exposed Colorado's willingness to manipulate constitutional provisions for partisan gain, echoing Anti-Federalist fears of state tyranny that the Supremacy Clause was designed to prevent.

Privacy and data rights have been another battleground. The 2021 Colorado Privacy Act imposed stringent requirements on businesses, but 2024 amendments expanded "sensitive data" to include biometrics, potentially conflicting with federal laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). These overreaches burden interstate commerce, violating the dormant Commerce Clause as in Pike v. Bruce Church (1970).

Even in 2025, bills like House Bill 25-1239 updated anti-discrimination laws, but critics argue they infringe on free speech by compelling businesses to accommodate certain groups, reminiscent of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), where the Supreme Court rebuked the state for hostility toward religious beliefs.

The Tipping Point and Path Forward

This pattern over 12 years reveals a legislature that views itself as unbound by federal limits or individual liberties. From gun restrictions eroding self-defense to sanctuary laws shielding criminals from deportation, Colorado has prioritized ideology over the Constitution. Madison in Federalist No. 44 cautioned against such fragmentation, stating that supremacy ensures "the authority of the Union" over "partial and discordant" state actions.

The Swank case is the tipping point. By charging a deputy for aiding federal enforcement, Colorado not only defies supremacy but endangers communities. Information sharing is crucial for identifying threats, yet SB 25-276 criminalizes it, conflicting with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits restrictions on communicating immigration status to federal authorities. Though sanctuary advocates claim compliance, punishments like those against Swank cross into obstruction, as argued in ongoing federal suits.

To restore balance, federal intervention is needed. Congress should enact clarifying legislation affirming voluntary cooperation, and courts must strike down these laws under precedents like Hines. Citizens must demand accountability, recalling officials who prioritize politics over the Constitution.

Colorado's actions threaten the Republic's fabric. As Hamilton warned, without supremacy, "the cohesion of the Union" dissolves. It is time to reaffirm that states serve the people under federal law, not rule as fiefdoms.

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.

Safeguarding the Republic

Prioritizing the Constitution Over Individuals

The political landscape of modern America is rife with adulation for individuals, where cults of personality overshadow the bedrock of our nation: the United States Constitution. This document, ratified in 1788, embodies the collective wisdom of the founders, prioritizing institutional integrity over transient leaders. George Washington, in his Farewell Address of September 17, 1796, expressed profound unease with political parties, viewing them as divisive forces that obscure the Constitution's promise of individual freedom. He stated, "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government." Washington's plea was for a party-less republic, where liberty, not factionalism, guides governance. This freedom entails a solemn duty: to perpetuate it across generations, resisting encroachments masked as security or equity.

Historical Cautionary Tales of Subverted Regimes

History abounds with cautionary tales of regimes that commenced with virtuous aims only to succumb to internal subversion. The Federalist Papers, authored by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay between 1787 and 1788 to advocate for the Constitution's ratification, warn explicitly of such perils. In Federalist No. 10, Madison dissected the dangers of factions, arguing that a large republic could mitigate their effects through representation and diversity, preventing majority tyranny over minorities. These insights were informed by classical examples, such as the Athenian democracy, which began as a beacon of citizen participation but devolved into mob rule and eventual conquest by Macedon in 322 BC, undermined by demagogues exploiting divisions. Similarly, the Roman Republic, established around 509 BC with ideals of balanced power among consuls, senate, and assemblies, eroded through civil wars and populist reforms. Leaders like the Gracchi brothers initiated land redistributions with good intentions to aid the poor, but these sparked violence that paved the way for Sulla's dictatorship and Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC, marking the republic's demise. The French Revolution of 1789, inspired by Enlightenment principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, descended into the Reign of Terror under Robespierre, where revolutionary zeal justified mass executions, illustrating how noble beginnings can yield authoritarianism.

The Founders' Genius in Crafting the Constitution

The founders' genius lay in crafting a Constitution that anticipates these threats. Article I delineates Congress's powers, Article II the executive's, and Article III the judiciary's, with amendments like the Bill of Rights (1791) explicitly protecting freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. Federalist No. 51 elaborates on this separation, positing that each department should have a will of its own, with checks like veto power and judicial review to curb abuses. This structure echoes Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws (1748), which influenced the framers in dividing powers to preserve liberty. Yet, Benjamin Franklin reminded us of the fragility: at the Constitutional Convention's close in 1787, he reportedly quipped, "A republic, if you can keep it." His earlier quote from 1755, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," originated in a Pennsylvania Assembly dispute over funding defenses without taxing proprietors, but its broader application critiques any barter of rights for comfort.

Contemporary Inversions: The Gun Confiscation Debate

Today, this wisdom is tested by policies that invert priorities, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, where language distorts reality and power corrupts absolutely. Calls for gun confiscation exemplify this. Proponents argue for safety, yet empirical data challenges their premise. In 2024, gun-related deaths totaled about 40,886, with over half being suicides and roughly 16,576 homicides. Comparatively, motor vehicle fatalities hovered around 39,345 in 2024. Despite this, automobiles face no abolitionist movement, as they are deemed essential despite risks from drunk driving or mechanical failures. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, secures the right to bear arms not merely for hunting but as a check against government overreach, as articulated in Federalist No. 46 by Madison, who envisioned armed citizens deterring federal tyranny. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed this individual right, rooted in English common law and the founders' experiences under British disarmament attempts during the Revolution.

Even when narrowing the focus to children under 18, the disparity holds. In 2024, approximately 1,403 children and teenagers under 18 died from gun-related injuries overall. While comprehensive data on children killed specifically in mass shootings is limited, major incidents like school shootings claimed the lives of at least 15 people in 2024, many of whom were children. By contrast, motor vehicle crashes killed approximately 1,129 children 14 and under in 2022 (latest detailed breakdown), with teenagers 13-19 totaling 3,048 deaths in 2023, suggesting around 2,500-3,000 under 18 annually. These figures highlight how calls to restrict firearms overlook comparable or greater risks to children from vehicles, further illustrating inconsistent priorities in liberty-eroding policies.

The Abortion Debate: Masking a Grim Toll

An even more profound inversion occurs in the abortion debate, where "choice" masks a grim toll. In 2024, abortions numbered over 1,038,100, a rate of about 15.4 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This figure eclipses annual gun homicides by a factor of over 60, yet it is sanitized as "reproductive health." Constitutionally, the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause protects life, with historical interpretations viewing abortion as a state matter until Roe v. Wade (1973) imposed a federal framework. The Dobbs decision in 2022 overturned Roe, aligning with Federalist principles of federalism by returning authority to states, as Madison explained in Federalist No. 39: the Constitution creates a compound republic where national and state sovereignties coexist. Ethically, this echoes ancient warnings; even Plato in The Republic discussed infanticide's moral perils in ideal states, while Roman law under the Twelve Tables (451 BC) prohibited late-term abortions, reflecting societal valuation of life.

Broader Orwellian Shifts and Historical Parallels

These issues highlight a broader Orwellian shift: security trumps liberty, death is choice, and factions eclipse the common good. The Soviet Union's trajectory from 1917 Bolshevik promises of worker paradise to Stalinist purges exemplifies how ideological purity undermines foundations. In America, we must reclaim constitutional discourse. The Preamble's goals - to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, promote general welfare, and secure blessings of liberty - demand transcendence of individuals.

Compelling Action Through Founding Principles

Washington's farewell, Franklin's caveat, and the Federalists' expositions compel action. Legally, the Constitution's supremacy clause in Article VI binds officials to its defense. Historically, revivals like the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments (1865-1870) reaffirmed liberty amid crisis. Today, we face analogous tests: resist personality cults, scrutinize liberty-eroding policies, and educate on founding documents.

The Constitution as Our Enduring Compass

The Constitution endures as our compass, not any leader. By invoking historical collapses like Rome's or France's, legal bulwarks like amendments and precedents, and statistical realities on guns and abortions, we affirm that liberty's stewardship is generational. Let us heed Orwell's dystopia as warning, not prophecy, and restore focus on principles that unite rather than divide. Only then will we honor the founders' legacy and secure freedom's flame for posterity.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”



Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

Restraining the Leviathan:
A Call for Constitutional Scrutiny to Safeguard American Liberty

The Imperative for Reform

In an era where government expansion seems as inevitable as the tides, the foundational principle of the United States Constitution stands as a bulwark against tyranny. The document was crafted not to shackle the people but to bind the hands of those in power, ensuring that liberty remains the birthright of every citizen. Yet, history reveals a persistent pattern. Governments at every level, from municipal councils to the halls of Congress, have repeatedly overstepped their bounds, infringing on individual rights in the name of progress, security, or convenience. This incessant encroachment demands a radical yet necessary reform: the establishment of a mandatory pre-enactment constitutional review system for all laws and statutes, coupled with stringent accountability for judicial officers who defy established precedents. Such measures would honor the Constitution's intent, prevent abuses before they occur, and restore respect for the rule of law that underpins our republic.

Constitutional Foundations: Limiting Government, Empowering the People

The Constitution's primary purpose is unequivocal. It limits government authority while empowering the people. Article VI, Clause 2, known as the Supremacy Clause, declares that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, binding judges in every state notwithstanding contrary state provisions. This clause underscores that no government action can supersede the federal charter. The Bill of Rights further delineates these limits, with the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from abridging freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and petition. The Fourth Amendment shields against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the Fifth ensures due process and protects against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Crucially, the Ninth Amendment affirms that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny others retained by the people, and the Tenth reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. These provisions collectively form a framework of separation of powers, vesting legislative authority in Congress under Article I, executive power in the President under Article II, and judicial power in the courts under Article III. This tripartite structure prevents any branch from dominating, as evidenced by the requirement in Article I, Section 7, that bills pass both houses and receive presidential approval or a supermajority override.

Judicial Review: A Reactive Tool in Need of Proactive Enhancement

The Supreme Court has long recognized this limiting role through the doctrine of judicial review, established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion asserted that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, enabling courts to strike down unconstitutional acts. This power has been wielded to protect liberties in numerous instances. For example, in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the Court invalidated state anti-miscegenation laws as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, affirming that personal freedoms cannot be curtailed by arbitrary government fiat. Similarly, in Schenck v. United States in 1919, the Court clarified limits on free speech during wartime, but subsequent cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 refined these to protect expression unless it incites imminent lawless action. More recently, in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, the Court upheld federal drug laws over state medical marijuana provisions, illustrating tensions in federalism but also the need for clear boundaries on congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

Yet, judicial review as it exists today is reactive, often intervening only after laws have inflicted harm. Countless statutes have been enacted and later struck down, causing irreparable damage in the interim. The Supreme Court has invalidated over 176 acts of Congress alone, with 483 laws or provisions nullified between 1960 and 2019. Examples abound: In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Court voided parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 for exceeding congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adkins v. Children's Hospital in 1923 struck down a minimum wage law for women as violating the Fifth Amendment's due process. These post-enactment strikes highlight a flaw. Why allow unconstitutional laws to take effect at all? Pre-enactment review, though rare in practice, has precedents in advisory opinions or legislative processes. For instance, some states have mechanisms for pre-passage constitutional checks, and federalism cases like Printz v. United States in 1997, which invalidated parts of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act for commandeering state officials, could inform a proactive system.

Real-World Examples: The Cost of Inaction on Rights Like the Second Amendment

Consider the ongoing saga of Second Amendment infringements, where reactive review has led to prolonged suffering and exorbitant costs. If the proposed pre-enactment scrutiny system were in place today, Americans would not endure measures like Colorado's Senate Bill 25-003, signed into law in April 2025, which imposes mandatory safety training requirements for purchasing most semiautomatic firearms, effectively restricting access to commonly used arms. Gun rights advocates have condemned this as an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms, echoing the Supreme Court's holding in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, unconnected to militia service, and that outright bans on handguns are impermissible. Similarly, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, the Court struck down New York's restrictive concealed carry licensing regime, mandating that gun regulations must align with historical traditions of firearm regulation, without subjective barriers. Colorado's SB-3, by conditioning the exercise of this right on government-mandated training and approvals, appears to flout these precedents, inviting inevitable challenges.

This is not an isolated case. Numerous gun control laws have been defeated only after years of costly litigation, burdening taxpayers and citizens with mountains of legal expenses to reclaim rights that should never have been infringed. For instance, California's ammunition background check requirement was recently invalidated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, following extended court battles that drained public resources. In another example, a federal judge in 2022 blocked significant portions of New York's post-Bruen gun law, which attempted to restrict carrying in sensitive places, after protracted and expensive proceedings. The District of Columbia's handgun ban, struck down in Heller, reportedly cost the city millions in defense fees before its defeat. Such reactive processes not only delay justice but also impose financial hardships; states like Colorado face ongoing lawsuits over related measures, including excise taxes on firearms that critics deem unconstitutional poll taxes on Second Amendment rights. With pre-enactment review, these laws would be scrutinized against Heller, Bruen, and the Second Amendment's text—"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—and rejected or amended upfront, saving billions in litigation costs nationwide and preserving liberties without the need for citizens to fight protracted battles.

The Proposed System: Pre-Enactment Scrutiny for All Laws

To address this, we must institute a comprehensive system where every proposed law, from local ordinances to federal statutes, undergoes mandatory scrutiny for compliance with both state and federal constitutions before passage. This could involve independent constitutional review boards, composed of legal scholars and retired judges, tasked with evaluating bills against the Supremacy Clause, Bill of Rights, and relevant precedents. If a proposal fails, it must be rewritten or abandoned. Such a process aligns with the Constitution's emphasis on limited government, preventing overreach at the source. Historical analogs exist; before Marbury, early state courts exercised forms of review to invalidate laws conflicting with state constitutions. Extending this federally would echo the framers' intent, as articulated in Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned the judiciary as a guardian against legislative encroachments.

Enhancing Judicial Accountability: No Room for Defiance

Equally critical is reforming judicial accountability. Judges, under Article III, hold office during good behavior, a clause interpreted to allow removal for misconduct via impeachment. However, impeachment has been limited to severe ethical or criminal lapses, with only 15 federal judges impeached in history, eight convicted. This leaves a gap for rulings that deliberately contradict Supreme Court precedents. In cases of malice or recklessness, such as a lower court judge ignoring binding decisions like those in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, which affirmed federal supremacy and implied powers, the offender should face immediate contempt charges and permanent removal. Mechanisms like the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 provide for investigations and sanctions, including suspension or referral for impeachment. Yet, these are underutilized. A strengthened system could mandate pre-ruling checks against SCOTUS databases, with automatic appeals or contempt proceedings for deviations. This would deter activism, as seen in criticisms of rulings that expand government power beyond constitutional bounds, such as in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, where the Court upheld police powers for vaccination but warned against arbitrary exercises.

Addressing Criticisms: Balancing Independence and Accountability

Critics may argue that such reforms encroach on legislative or judicial independence. However, independence does not mean impunity. The Constitution's separation of powers includes checks, like Senate confirmation for judges under Article II, Section 2. Pre-enactment review would enhance, not undermine, deliberation, much like the veto power limits hasty legislation. For judges, the Good Behavior Clause implies accountability; historical proposals, such as those in the Judiciary Act of 1789, envisioned removal for misbehavior without full impeachment. Modern codes of conduct, like the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, prohibit retaliation and demand ethical standards, providing a foundation for stricter enforcement.

Broader Implications: Preventing Historical Tragedies

Implementing this system would require congressional action, perhaps through a new amendment or statute, but the payoff is immense. It would prevent tragedies like the internment upheld in Korematsu v. United States in 1944, later repudiated as a grave error. In recent terms, the Court has struck down laws in areas like free speech, as in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, protecting against overbroad regulations. Proactive measures could avert such battles altogether.

Restoring the Rule of Law

Ultimately, disregarding constitutional limits disrespects the people, who ratified the document to secure their liberties. As the Supreme Court noted in its role, it protects rights by striking down violative laws. By embedding scrutiny at every governmental level, we reaffirm that power derives from the governed, not the governors. This is not radicalism but restoration, ensuring the Constitution endures as a charter of freedom, not a relic of forgotten ideals.

The time has come to chain the leviathan once more. Through pre-enactment review and judicial accountability, we can fulfill the framers' vision: a government restrained, a people free. Anything less invites the very tyranny the Revolution rejected. Let us act, for liberty's sake.

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.

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!