When Federal Courts Try To Run Immigration

One federal district judge can’t be allowed to function like a national legislature, yet that’s exactly what it feels like when courts block immigration enforcement and claim constitutional protections in ways the Founders never intended. We dig into the uproar over Judge James Boasberg, Marco Rubio’s attempt to remove visa holders accused of spreading propaganda, and the larger constitutional question behind it all: who has legitimate authority to set policy, and what happens when an unelected judge overrides elected leadership?

We also go straight at the “three coequal branches” mantra and compare it to what the Founders actually said. David Barton and Rick Green walk through the logic of checks and balances, why Federalist No. 78 calls the judiciary “beyond comparison the weakest,” and why impeachment exists as a real restraint when judges act outside their bounds. From there, we trace how progressive ideology can erode civic memory, elevate courts over self-government, and even reshape law schools and legal writing into something ordinary citizens can’t easily challenge.

Then the conversation pivots to a listener question with real historical stakes: did Declaration of Independence signer Richard Stockton recant? We tell the story of his capture, the brutality of the Provost Jail, and why signing a wartime parole is not the same as abandoning a cause. We also revisit the Battle of Saratoga and the surprising example of how Americans treated British prisoners of war with honor, even while British prisons proved deadly for Americans.

If you care about the Constitution, separation of powers, judicial activism, and accurate American Revolution history, subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.

Support the show