Letters to the Editor: No, Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t cheer Trump steamrolling the judiciary

To the editor: Josh Hammer misrepresents history and the law, taking quotes out of context and ignoring facts. As a U.S. government teacher, I find his invitation to imagine President Trump channeling Alexander Hamilton egregious. (“I’m glad Trump and the courts are squaring up. We’re overdue for a civics lesson,” Opinion, Feb. 13)

The Federalist Papers, which Hammer cites, were penned in 1787 and 1788 in support of ratifying the newly written Constitution. At the time, the legislative branch already existed, but the executive and judicial branches would be new.

Hammer quotes Hamilton as writing in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary is so functionally impotent that it “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” However, Hamilton also wrote in the same essay:

“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”

Yes, Hamilton argued for a strong executive that could act decisively, but he also believed limits were crucial. He warned in Federalist No. 1:

“History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

Jocelyn Contestabile, Mission Viejo

..

To the editor: I will not go through the points made by the author. His assertions come directly from the fascism playbook.

My point is that The Times is now giving voice to those who intend to explode our democracy, pretending it is a viable alternative opinion. The paper’s turn to propaganda disappointingly continues.

Doug Evenson, Helendale, Calif.

..

To the editor: Hammer makes no legal argument that the courts are exceeding their duty to enforce the law and the Constitution. Rather, he implies that Trump’s actions and orders should not be subject to judicial review at all. He spins the argument away from the obviously wrong claim that the executive is above the law.

He argues that the courts are powerless to enforce judgments if Trump and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi refuse to do so. To him, this seemingly proves that the courts are exceeding their authority. What it actually reveals is that we should expect this administration to violate its duty to enforce court judgments.

Hammer wants us to believe that Trump’s abysmal record of injunctions is proof of judicial overreach. In reality, it shows the president has repeatedly tried to violate the law. Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden also faced injunctions due to “judicial resistance,” but not at the same rate because they did not “flood the zone.”

Hammer is right that the courts will suffer and lose standing, but he is insanely wrong to suggest that is a good thing. There is better conservative thought out there.

Michael Snare, San Diego