JD Vance is Telegraphing a Constitutional Crisis
Is the Executive Branch telegraphing their next move based on recent statements by Vice-President JD Vance? A constitutional crisis could be much closer than we think.
Season 1, Episode 8
Morning Coffee with Professor Alex
Welcome to another episode of Morning Coffee with me, Professor Alex. I have an empty cup of coffee next to me, and I’m not wearing my bathrobe or T-shirt this time. I’m looking presentable because I have to get out the door today. I have a class coming up, so I wasn’t planning on doing any videos today or tomorrow because of my schedule. But I got so upset at what Vice-President J.D. Vance said, more disinformation, that I had to address this because a constitutional crisis would destroy our government for decades, potentially.
Listen to this podcast.
Now, let me read what’s going on out there on social media. J.D. Vance posted on Twitter: “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the Attorney General on how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Either Vice President J.D. Vance flunked out of Trump University, or he missed a lot of classes in law school and never heard of Marbury v. Madison. What is that case about? It’s the first case every law student comes across when they take constitutional law. They usually have to take it twice, as Constitutional Law 1 and 2, and Marbury v. Madison is the first case they read. What do you need to know about that case? Simply put, judicial review. The courts have the authority to review. Simple enough.
Yes, this is how it works: Congress (the Legislature) passes a law. The Executive Branch has to enforce that law, and the Supreme Court can interpret the law to determine its constitutionality.
So, if they pass a law that affects me and I file a lawsuit, the Supreme Court can come in and say, “Yes, that law’s unconstitutional.” We’ve seen this before. The first week that President Trump was in office during his first term was the Muslim ban. It was done through an Executive Order. It kept going back and forth, maybe it was modified 8 or 9 times, if I remember correctly. Why? Because the Supreme Court kept saying it was discriminatory and that the Executive Order was unconstitutional. Eventually, they got it right. That’s how it always works.
But JD Vance, who apparently knows nothing about this case or the law or the system of checks and balances, posted that. Now, let me ask you this question. He went to Harvard and graduated from Yale Law School. You don’t think he knows that the courts could absolutely issue a restraining order against any Executive Order or law that’s passed if it’s unconstitutional? Of course, he knows. So why is he doing it?
Very simple. They are laying down the foundation for Project 2025. They have one goal: add fuel to the fire; a constitutional crisis is all in a day’s work in their mind.
The same Project 2025 that the President has never heard of, doesn’t know anything about, and doesn’t know who these people are. Yet, he’s been on airplanes with them thousands of times, and most of his staff are coming from those related to Project 2025. And what’s his name? Russell. Is that his first name? Vought. He’s now canceled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I’m going to do a separate blog post on that because that one really frustrated me.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau protects consumers, but they’re in there like Edward Scissorhands, cutting up everything. They don’t even know what they’re doing. That’s the problem when you mix incompetence with power; it’s a recipe for disaster.
JD Vance Should Know This Creates a Constitutional Crisis
So now my question to you is, why is he posting that? Doesn’t he know the law? Doesn’t he have access to the White House Counsel or anybody else with a law degree who could tell him he’s wrong? They are laying down the foundation for basically saying they’re about to stop listening to what the courts say. In their opinion, they have the right to ignore the courts.
If that’s the case, what happens when a court says don’t do ABC, and they still do ABC? Normally, someone gets held in contempt. So let’s say the law is “don’t do this.” For example, don’t come pick me up at my house if the Supreme Court passes a law saying you cannot pick me up at my house. And the White House says, “We’re going to do it anyway.” Now what? How do you stop them? That’s the point of the system of checks and balances, so that it doesn’t get to that level.
Updated on May 25, 2025.
While there are now many examples of the Trump administration knowingly violating court orders, especially when it comes to immigration, the case of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia stands out
But you know who does those kinds of things? Kings, literally. That is the definition of a king. They rule the country, reign supreme, and do whatever they want, and there’s nothing that can reel them in, not law enforcement, not Congress, not the judiciary. That’s why we have laws. That’s why we have a Supreme Court. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances. And yet, they’re telegraphing their next move.
The courts cannot stop us is their approach, which means we don’t have a system of checks and balances where all three branches are equal. They’re telling you that they’re not going to listen to the courts. That’s why you hear the term “constitutional crisis,” because if they ignore Supreme Court rulings or only listen to the ones that favor them, we no longer have a balanced system.
When the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had immunity from prosecution for acts related to the presidency, they accepted that ruling. But now they’ll pick and choose the rulings they like. All the rulings made in President Trump’s favor? No one seemed to have an issue with those. But they will have an issue with the ones they don’t like.
This goes back to election fraud in 2016, where all the votes for Republican senators, members of the House, and sheriffs were deemed legitimate, but the votes for President Trump were the ones claimed to be tampered with. That’s garbage, but that’s what they fed people who believed it who believed it hook, line, and sinker.
The problem is that they just make a comment, and supporters accept it without any critical thinking. If you go to JD Vance’s profile on X, you can see all the people commenting, “Oh, yeah, we’ve got to go after these judges and impeach them publicly.” OK, moron. If someone is impeached, there will be a hearing, and everybody has access to the hearing. But these people are ignorant and regurgitating information without understanding it.
Critical thinking means applying what someone says, breaking it down, and then deciding whether it’s true, not just reaching a conclusion without analysis. That’s what they teach you in law school: issue, rule, application, and conclusion. When you’re dissecting a case, the conclusion is like this much [shows a small amount] of the answer. It doesn’t matter what the conclusion is because, depending on which side you’re on, you’re going to argue one way or the other.
But, followers just swallow whatever they’re told, and that’s why we’re going to have a constitutional crisis if they start ignoring the courts. Who knows how we’ll enforce these laws then? Keep that in mind.
Need to look for prior blog posts or other categories? Click the links below or use the search feature at the top of the page:
Please note that the information on this site does not constitute legal advice and should be considered for informational purposes only.
Disclaimer:
This podcast was transcribed from an audio recording. The transcription may contain inaccuracies or errors due to the limitations of transcription software and the quality of the audio. I have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the transcription, but we cannot guarantee it.
The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host(s) and guest(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency, organization, employer, or company. Any content provided by our host(s) and/or guest(s) is of their opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.
This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as professional advice. Please consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions based on the content of this podcast.
Discover more from Bankruptcy.Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.