“SCOTUS’s intentional or unintentional use of nebulous language to interpret the U.S. Constitution constitutes an act even more egregious than the perpetrator who violated the U.S. Constitution.” John Johnson II 05/07/25
By John Johnson II
President Trump during a national televised interview asserted that pending information from his Attorney General, expressed uncertainty about his need to provide “due process”. And frankly, this assertion does not suggest that he will not uphold the Constitution. The oath taken by the President during the swearing-in to the Presidential Office is not merely a ceremonial oration. It is a binding legal oath with both legal and constitutional mandates. However, a Constitutional crisis could occur when the President loses at both a lower court and the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and defies SCOTUS’s orders.
Upon a review of the U.S. Constitution, it becomes clear that both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain a ‘Due Process Clause.’ These clauses, while pertaining to court cases at the Federal and State levels, respectively, serve a crucial role. They are designed to ensure fundamental fairness and that legal procedures are adhered to, regardless of whether it’s a civil or criminal matter. The importance of due process cannot be overstated.
Upon further review of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, neither does it “explicitly differentiate between citizens’ and non-citizens’ entitlement to due process. This distinction does not necessarily require added clarity!
Consequently, they both protect individuals, including those who are undocumented in civil or criminal cases, thus entitling them to due process. The Fifth Amendment also clarifies that “due Process” is guaranteed to “no person,” regardless of their immigration status. As strange as it sounds, this phrase refers to all individuals residing legally or illegally in the U.S.
Given the above information, would you agree that the President’s oath to the U.S. Constitution is merely a ceremonial oration? And a mere utterance of questioning his adherence does not constitute a crime or a breach of duty to defend and protect the Constitution. Suppose you were an advisor to the President. Would you advise him that all individuals are entitled to “due process” in the U.S.?
Unfortunately, the lack of a new updated Immigration Policy, the existing Constitutional Amendments render the President’s deportation policies cumbersome, costly, and in violation of undocumented immigrants’ due process rights. Additionally, policies for immigrants detained at the borders are outdated. Spending millions to process individuals stopped at the borders to determine who has a legitimate case deserving asylum in the U.S. is a timely, wasteful, and inefficient process. Remember, prior to becoming America’s 47th President, bipartisan support for immigration reform collapsed.
Nevertheless, even if elected by a majority of the popular and Electoral College votes, the president cannot claim that this constitutes a mandate to violate the U.S. Constitution. History reveals that the government has faced the following constitutional crises: the Nullification Crisis of 1832, the Secession Crisis (1860-1861), the Civil War (1861-1865), and the Watergate Scandal (1972-1974). The last two crises respectively ended Slavery, preserved the Union, and forced the resignation of former President Nixon.
Pundits and political commentators suggest that our nation may face a Constitutional crisis if President Trump continues to defy the Supreme Court’s order to facilitate Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s (immigrant) return to the U.S. The situation is further complicated by the vague term “facilitate,” like “deliberate speed,” used in Brown v. Board of Education. Following the Brown’s decision, segregation remained the law of the land for decades.
This past scenario suggest that President Trump can comply with (SCOUTS’s) order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Garcia by merely forwarding a letter to the President of El Salvador requesting the return of Kilmar Garcia with “deliberate speed “to the U.S. It is amazing how (SCOTUS) continues to use nebulous language to avoid granting immediate relief to those suffering injustices.
Webster’s Dictionary defines “facilitate” as “to make easier.” Sadly, again (SCOUTS’s) use of the word “facilitate” is again a 21st-century disingenuous way to avoid a Constitutional crisis and delay indefinitely providing relief as well as due process to an immigrant.
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
