Monday, 02 June 2025

BREAKING: President Trump May SUSPEND Habeas Corpus To Deport All Illegals (Three Other Presidents Did It Too!)

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 16

This is a huge breaking news alert!

President Trump doesn’t want to have to do this, but he’s considering suspending Habeas Corpus in order to deport all the tens-of-thousands of illegal aliens.

It’s not without precedent either — three other Presidents have done it before, including perhaps the most well-respected President of all time.

More on that in a minute, but first what is Habeas Corpus anyway?

Habeas corpus is a legal rule that protects people from being thrown in jail without a good reason.

It means “present the body” in Latin, and it gives someone the right to go before a judge and ask, “Why am I being held?”

If the government or police arrest you, they have to explain to a court why you’re being detained. If they can’t give a valid reason, the judge can order them to release you.

It’s a way to stop unfair or secret imprisonments, and it’s a basic part of protecting personal freedom.

I personally don’t think Habeas Corpus or other Constitutional Rights should apply to illegal non-citizens, but there is some Supreme Court precedent saying it does.

And that’s why President Trump just said this:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

You mentioned this last night in your speech in the column, that we’re facing an unprecedented situation
where there’s a lot of abuses of nationwide injunctions—sort of seemingly designed
to curtail your power specifically when it comes to deporting these illegal violent aliens
that came in under the previous administration.

Have you spoken to your team about ways to mitigate this and continue
to deliver to the American people on that?

Yeah, well, there are ways to mitigate it, and there’s some very strong ways.
There’s one way that’s been used by three very highly respected presidents,
but we hope we don’t have to go that route.

But there is one way that has been used very successfully
by three Presidents, all highly respected.
And hopefully, we don’t have to go that way.

But there are ways of mitigating that.

I want to thank you all very—

Full screen video player here:

Now the crazy part….

Would this just be President Trump being a loose cannon again and not following the law?

No.

Not unless you also think Abraham Lincoln was also a loose cannon not following the law, because Lincoln, Grant and Bush43 all did it too.

Here are the details surrounding those suspensions of Habeas Corpus:

1. Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865)

Suspension:
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, beginning in April 1861, to suppress Confederate sympathizers and maintain order in border states like Maryland.

Circumstances:

  • Riots and attacks on Union troops occurred in Maryland.

  • Confederate sympathizers were disrupting Union war efforts.

  • Lincoln authorized military commanders to arrest and detain individuals without trial.

    • Constitutional Basis:

  • Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:
    “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

  • But Article I pertains to Congress, not the President. Critics (including Chief Justice Roger Taney in Ex parte Merryman) argued Lincoln had no authority to suspend it unilaterally.

  • Lincoln defended his actions as necessary to preserve the Union and later sought and received retroactive authorization from Congress in 1863.

    • Evaluation:
    Lincoln operated in a gray area, using executive emergency powers. While controversial, it was later legitimized by Congress, and generally defended as a necessary wartime measure.

    2. Ulysses S. Grant (1871)

    Suspension:
    Grant suspended habeas corpus in parts of South Carolina during Reconstruction to combat the Ku Klux Klan under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

    Circumstances:

  • Widespread racial terrorism and voter intimidation.

  • Federal troops arrested hundreds of suspected Klan members.

    • Constitutional Basis:

  • Grant acted with explicit congressional authorization under the Enforcement Acts, especially the Klan Act.

    • Evaluation:
    Grant’s action is considered constitutional, since it was done under statutory authority and aimed at protecting civil rights and restoring lawful government.

    3. George W. Bush (Post-9/11)

    (More nuanced case – not a formal suspension but a major curtailment of habeas rights)

    Action:
    After 9/11, Bush authorized the indefinite detention of enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, without trial or formal charges (e.g., José Padilla).

    Circumstances:

  • Bush administration argued this was necessary to fight terrorism.

  • Detentions occurred at Guantanamo Bay and on U.S. soil.

    • Constitutional Basis:

  • The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress was cited.

  • However, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that detainees do have habeas rights, even in Guantanamo.

    • Evaluation:
    Bush didn’t “formally suspend” habeas corpus but sought to evade or limit it through legal loopholes. His actions were partially ruled unconstitutional.

    There are times when common sense and saving a nation require extreme measures.

    Lincoln knew it and he acted.

    We might not have the Country we do today if he didn’t take action.

    President Trump may be forced to do the same, time will tell.

    Perhaps history will again repeat itself as it did once with Andrew Jackson.

    Do you know this story?

    The quote attributed to Andrew Jackson—“The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it”—is famously linked to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832). While these exact words may be apocryphal (i.e., no verified written source from Jackson himself), they accurately reflect Jackson’s defiant attitudetoward the ruling and highlight a key historical moment when executive power conflicted with judicial authority.

    Historical Background: Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

  • The Cherokee Nation had been forcibly targeted for removal by the state of Georgia, even though they had adopted many aspects of white American society (schools, a written language, a constitution, etc.).

  • Georgia passed laws to assert state control over Cherokee lands, including requiring white people living among them (like missionaries) to obtain a license from the state.

  • Samuel Worcester, a missionary living on Cherokee land without a Georgia permit, was arrested and convicted under Georgia law.

  • He challenged the conviction, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • The Supreme Court Ruling

    In Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled:

  • The Cherokee Nation is a distinct, sovereign political community.

  • Georgia’s laws had no force within Cherokee territory.

  • The state’s actions violated federal treaties and the Constitution.

    • This was a landmark decision affirming tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s exclusive authority in dealings with Native American nations.

    Jackson’s Reaction

    Although Jackson never officially said, “Now let them enforce it,” the quote summarizes how he responded in practice:

  • Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision.

  • He allowed Georgia to continue its policies, leading to the forced removal of the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears (1838–1839, under President Martin Van Buren, but rooted in Jackson’s policies).

  • Jackson’s defiance highlighted a major limitation of the Court: it has no enforcement power—that relies on the executive branch.

    • Contemporary sources and Jackson’s allies later paraphrased his sentiment. One version, from historian Horace Greeley, recounted Jackson saying:

    “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

    Legal and Constitutional Implications

  • Separation of powers was seriously tested—Jackson essentially nullified a Supreme Court ruling by refusing to act on it.

  • It showed that judicial authority can be ignored if the executive chooses not to enforce it.

  • This became a cautionary tale about checks and balances failing when one branch refuses to cooperate.

    • Legacy

    Jackson’s attitude toward the ruling contributed to:

  • The Trail of Tears, in which thousands of Cherokee died.

  • Long-term damage to Native American rights and sovereignty.

  • Ongoing debates about executive power vs. judicial authority.

    • This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

    View the original article here.


    Source link

    Search