the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
Trump’s Deportation Play: Right Move, Stronger Foundation
post photo preview

A recent article titled "Trump’s Deportation Play: Right Goal, Wrong Move" argues that President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is legally and strategically flawed. However, this argument misunderstands the constitutional authority of the executive branch, the validity of the AEA, and the role of the judiciary in national security matters. Let’s break it down point by point.

The Alien Enemies Act Is Not a Stretch, It’s the Law

The claim that the AEA is meant only for wars between nations ignores the text of the statute itself. The law grants the President the power to act against foreign nationals during times of conflict or invasion not just in declared wars. The article dismisses the idea that Tren de Aragua qualifies under this law, but that argument ignores the evidence that Venezuela’s government facilitated their entry into the U.S.. When a criminal force enters the country with state backing or direction, it meets the criteria for a “predatory incursion” under the AEA.

Furthermore, the argument that the AEA is "outdated" is legally meaningless. The U.S. Constitution itself is older than the AEA; does that mean it’s no longer valid? A law remains enforceable unless repealed, and the AEA has never been struck down or repealed by Congress. It is still part of the legal framework for national security.

Judicial Overreach Is the Real Issue

The article claims that Trump’s use of the AEA gave activist judges an easy legal excuse to block him. But the bigger issue is judicial overreach. Federal courts do not have unlimited power to interfere with executive national security decisions. The President, not unelected district judges, is responsible for national defense. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, but courts cannot seize executive powers that the Constitution explicitly grants the Commander-in-Chief.

The courts did not stop the Biden administration from mass-releasing illegal aliens, yet they now block a president from removing dangerous foreign criminals. This double standard is a constitutional crisis, and Trump is addressing it by using laws that Congress has already passed.

Existing Immigration Laws? Not a Better Option

The article argues that Trump should have relied on existing immigration laws instead of invoking the AEA. But immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and activist judges often block deportations on technicalities. Waiting for years of litigation is not a real solution; it’s an excuse for inaction.

The suggestion that Trump should have sent Tren de Aragua members to Guantanamo Bay instead does not solve the legal issue. If judges are willing to block deportations now, they would also find ways to challenge Guantanamo detentions. The President’s approach of invoking a clear, existing statute that does not require endless court battles is legally sound and ensures immediate action.

Trump Is Following the Law, Not Bending It

The article suggests that Trump is setting a dangerous precedent by using a national security law for deportations. But this argument is backwards. The real danger is allowing courts to override the President’s constitutional authority to defend the country.

Trump’s move is not about political optics. It is about restoring executive authority that has been eroded by activist judges and bureaucratic delays. The Constitution does not give federal judges command over immigration enforcement. The President is acting well within his authority to remove foreign threats without having to litigate every single case for years in immigration courts.

In other words...

Tren de Aragua must be deported, and President Trump has the legal and constitutional power to do so under the Alien Enemies Act. The judicial overreach that has stalled deportations for years is the real crisis, and Trump’s actions are a direct challenge to a broken system that has failed to protect American citizens.

Ignoring the clear text of the AEA, misrepresenting the President’s constitutional role, and claiming that existing immigration laws would have made this easier are flawed arguments that do not hold up to scrutiny. If the courts continue to interfere with the President’s national security decisions, Congress has the power to check the judiciary through impeachment, defunding, or restructuring lower courts. The separation of powers must be restored, and enforcing the law as written is the only way to do it.


Legal Precedents & Laws That Support Trump’s Authority

  1. Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – Grants the President power to detain or deport nationals of hostile nations during times of invasion or conflict. Still valid and in effect today.

  2. Haig v. Agee (1981) – Supreme Court ruled that the President has broad authority in national security matters, including actions against foreign threats.

  3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – While limiting executive power in domestic matters, the ruling affirmed that the President has greater authority in foreign affairs and national security.

  4. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) – The Supreme Court held that the executive branch has plenary power over the admission and exclusion of aliens, and that courts should not interfere with national security decisions.

  5. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – The Court reaffirmed that the President has broad discretion to exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. when national security is at stake.

  6. Congress’s Power Over the Judiciary – The Constitution gives Congress the ability to remove lower courts, limit their jurisdiction, defund them, or impeach judges who abuse their authority. This is a legitimate constitutional check when courts overstep their bounds.


President Trump is enforcing a law written by the Founding Fathers, not twisting legal boundaries. The real constitutional crisis isn’t his enforcement of immigration laws. It’s the judiciary’s overreach into executive national security decisions. The Commander-in-Chief has the authority and obligation to protect the nation from foreign threats, and Congress has the power to rein in activist judges when they obstruct that duty for political reasons.

As Stephen Miller laid out in his recent interview (watch here), the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gives the President clear and unquestionable authority to remove foreign threats without interference from unelected judges. In the interview, Miller obliterates a CNN reporter, exposing their misrepresentation of the law and refusal to acknowledge the President’s constitutional powers. When pressed, the reporter couldn’t even answer basic legal questions about whether a district judge has the right to direct troop movements, because they do not.

This is not a legal gray area; the Constitution is clear. Allowing a single judge to override the President’s national security decisions is not law and order—it’s legal chaos.

placeholder



 

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.

I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.

What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.

The real takeaway is...

🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
Lafayette: The Fire and the Fog

Act 1: Foundations and Fault Lines

In a quiet chateau nestled in the green hills of Auvergne, a boy was born into a name older than most nations. Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier—known simply as Gilbert to those who loved him—would grow to be one of history’s most celebrated revolutionaries. But from the very start, Lafayette's world was one of contradictions.

He was born into nobility, yet surrounded by stories of poverty and loss. His father, a decorated grenadier, was killed by a British cannonball before Lafayette ever saw his face. His mother, devastated by grief, fled to Paris, leaving young Gilbert to be raised by his stern but kind grandmother in the countryside. She taught him duty, discipline, and stories of battlefield glory. Under the watchful eyes of abbés and aristocrats, Lafayette soaked in the values of the French Enlightenment. Reason, liberty, the rights of man—these became the drumbeat of his youth.

But knowledge alone doesn’t make a man wise.

From the halls of Paris to the salons of Versailles, Lafayette learned to charm and maneuver. He married Adrienne de Noailles, a fourteen-year-old girl from one of France’s most powerful families. At sixteen, Lafayette was rich, married, and well on his way to joining the king’s elite guard. But behind the courtly elegance, something restless stirred in his heart. He longed for purpose—glory, as he called it. The kind that would echo through time.

So when whispers of rebellion across the Atlantic reached his ears, he was enthralled. America, a land fighting for liberty against the British—the very empire that had taken his father—became an obsession. Even when King Louis XVI forbade it, Lafayette defied him, sneaking across the sea to join George Washington’s struggling army.

From a worldly point of view, it was heroic. A young man leaving behind wealth, a pregnant wife, and privilege to fight for strangers. But beneath the idealism, there was a flaw—a subtle one, but dangerous.

Lafayette believed that man could save himself.

Through reason. Through revolution. Through liberty unanchored from any higher truth.

He didn’t yet understand what the Bible makes clear: that the heart of man is “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and that liberty without virtue is just another form of chaos. Lafayette loved the idea of freedom, but he lacked a framework that could keep that freedom from becoming an idol. He was, in many ways, a knight in search of a cause—but without a compass pointing to God's moral order.

While Lafayette crossed the Atlantic in search of glory, Adrienne was left behind in Paris, pregnant and alone. She received glowing letters—tales of cannons and courage—but little concern for her own trials. She had married a boy still chasing the ghost of a father he barely knew.

In America, Lafayette was welcomed… reluctantly. The Continental Congress had seen too many glory-seeking Europeans hoping to play general. At first, they dismissed him. But when Lafayette offered to serve without pay, and when they read letters of praise from Benjamin Franklin, they reconsidered. Lafayette was given the honorary title of major-general—though he would command no troops.

He met George Washington soon after, and an unexpected friendship blossomed. Washington, a man of discipline and restraint, took the fiery Frenchman under his wing. Lafayette found in Washington a father figure, and in the American cause, a sense of belonging.

But even as Lafayette fought bravely in battle—earning respect and even suffering wounds—he never stopped chasing applause. And back in France, Adrienne suffered silently, raising children alone, enduring gossip about Lafayette’s rumored mistresses, and using her influence to protect his reputation.

She loved him. He often forgot to love her in return.

The story of Lafayette was already being written in two parallel threads: the public hero, adored on two continents, and the private man, blind to the cost others paid for his ambitions.

Even his noblest efforts—his fight for liberty, his calls to end slavery, his dreams of global reform—were built on a foundation that was subtly cracked.

He believed, as many Enlightenment thinkers did, that humanity was basically good, that progress was inevitable, and that the right ideas could fix the world.

But history—and Scripture—tell a different story.

"Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1)

Lafayette’s foundation was bold. But it wasn’t biblical.

And the storm was coming.

Let me know if you're ready for Act 2: Fallout and Fractures. It will dive into the French Revolution, betrayal from both sides, Adrienne’s suffering, and the unraveling of Lafayette’s ideals.


Act 2: Fallout and Fractures


The smell of smoke lingered in the Paris air. The Bastille had fallen. The people roared. The king trembled. And in the center of it all stood Lafayette—beloved by some, cursed by others, and no longer sure who he truly was.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
Slavery, Union, and Constitutional Compromise: A Study of the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment (1860–1861)

Abstract

This article explores two major political proposals advanced in the final months before the American Civil War: the Crittenden Compromise (1860) and the Corwin Amendment (1861). Both efforts sought to preserve the Union through constitutional concessions on slavery. We examine their content, motivations, political support and opposition, and how they reflected  (and ultimately failed to resolve) the irreconcilable tensions between North and South. Special attention is given to the evolving role of President-elect and later President Abraham Lincoln, whose principled opposition to slavery’s expansion shaped Republican resistance to compromise efforts. The article situates these proposals within a broader constitutional framework of federalism, natural rights, and the limits of amendment power.

I. Introduction

In the months following Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860, the United States faced an unprecedented crisis. Southern states began seceding from the Union, fearing that a Republican administration would restrict or abolish slavery. As secessionist sentiment grew, Congress and national leaders proposed several last-ditch efforts to avoid civil war through constitutional compromise. Among the most notable were the Crittenden Compromise, introduced in December 1860, and the Corwin Amendment, proposed in early 1861. Though differing in scope and content, both proposals reflect the extent to which the federal government was willing to entrench slavery in constitutional law in hopes of maintaining Union.

II. The Crittenden Compromise

A. Background and Purpose

On December 18, 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky introduced a series of six proposed constitutional amendments and four congressional resolutions, collectively known as the Crittenden Compromise. Crittenden, a member of the Constitutional Union Party, sought to calm Southern fears and avert secession by providing federal guarantees for slavery.

B. Main Provisions

The core elements of the compromise included:

  • A constitutional amendment reinstating the Missouri Compromise line (36°30′ N latitude), permanently prohibiting slavery north of the line and guaranteeing it south of the line in current and future U.S. territories (U.S. Senate Journal, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1860).

  • A prohibition on Congress interfering with slavery in states where it already existed.

  • A federal guarantee for enforcement of fugitive slave laws.

  • A requirement that future constitutional amendments could not abolish or interfere with slavery in slaveholding states.

C. Reception and Defeat

The Crittenden Compromise was broadly supported by Southern politicians and some Northern moderates, but strongly opposed by Republicans, including Lincoln, who rejected any compromise that would allow the expansion of slavery into new territories. Through backchannels and private correspondence, Lincoln discouraged Republican senators from supporting the proposal (Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, p. 152).

The compromise ultimately failed in committee in January 1861, and its defeat accelerated Southern secession.

III. The Corwin Amendment

A. Introduction and Legislative History

In the aftermath of the Crittenden proposal’s failure and with several states having already seceded, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced a new constitutional amendment intended to reassure the South. The Corwin Amendment passed the House on February 28, 1861, and the Senate on March 2, 1861, just days before Lincoln’s inauguration.

The proposed text read:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
— Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1861)

B. Purpose and Scope

Unlike the Crittenden Compromise, which addressed slavery in territories, the Corwin Amendment focused exclusively on preserving slavery in existing states, permanently prohibiting Congress or any future constitutional amendment from interfering with state domestic institutions, including slavery.

It was a more limited proposal, intended as a symbolic assurance to slave states that the federal government would not abolish slavery where it existed, even under future administrations.

C. Lincoln’s Position

Though a longtime opponent of slavery’s expansion, Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861:

“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (1861)

Lincoln directed Secretary of State William Seward to send the amendment to the states for ratification. Some states, including Ohio and Maryland, ratified it, but the amendment never achieved the necessary approval from three-fourths of the states, especially as war broke out shortly after.

IV. Comparative Analysis

FeatureCrittenden CompromiseCorwin Amendment
ProposedDec 1860Feb–Mar 1861
ProposerSen. John Crittenden (KY)Rep. Thomas Corwin (OH)
Key ObjectiveAllow slavery south of 36°30′ in territoriesConstitutionally prohibit federal interference with slavery in states
Lincoln’s ViewOpposedSupported (as peace gesture)
StatusRejected in committeePassed Congress; unratified
Amendment NatureMultiple amendments and resolutionsSingle proposed amendment
Historical ResultFailed to prevent secessionSuperseded by Civil War and 13th Amendment


V. Constitutional and Originalist Considerations

A. Federalism and State Sovereignty

The Corwin Amendment affirmed the federalist structure of the Constitution, where states retained authority over domestic institutions, including slavery. Its logic aligned with the Madisonian view that powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states (see Federalist No. 45).

B. Limits on Constitutional Amendment Power

The Corwin Amendment attempted to shield certain subjects from future amendment. Although Article V allows for limitations (as with the equal suffrage of states in the Senate), many legal scholars debate whether any constitutional amendment can permanently bar future amendments. This raises complex issues about constitutional entrenchment.

C. Slavery and the Founding Vision

The Crittenden and Corwin proposals represent divergent paths in response to a growing national crisis. While the Founding generation accepted slavery as a temporary evil (e.g., Madison at the Constitutional Convention), these 1860–1861 efforts reflect a move to permanently constitutionalize an institution many of the founders viewed as incompatible with natural rights.

VI. Conclusion

Both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment reveal the lengths to which American politicians were willing to go to preserve the Union through accommodation of slavery. However, their failure also underscores the irreconcilability of a republic founded on liberty with a system built on bondage. Abraham Lincoln’s careful balancing act was opposing slavery’s expansion while tolerating its existence where entrenched, framed the constitutional limits of compromise.

With the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the era of compromise ended. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, would abolish slavery entirely,  reversing the direction of both earlier proposals and reaffirming the Declaration’s principle that all men are created equal.

Sources

Read full Article
The Prophet of Progress: Woodrow Wilson's Road to Power and Ruin

Act I: Foundations and Fault Lines


Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 into a deeply religious Southern Presbyterian family. His father, Joseph Ruggles Wilson, was a respected minister and educator. His mother, Janet—called Jessie—was a devoted Scottish churchwoman. From the outside, the Wilson home seemed soaked in Scripture and tradition, but beneath the surface, a different foundation was quietly forming.

As a boy, “Tommy” Wilson was clever but struggled to read until age twelve—what today might be considered dyslexia. Still, he grew to admire ideas and institutions more than people. Though he spent his childhood in the Confederate South during the Civil War, the conflict seemed to leave little mark on him emotionally. His loyalties remained Southern, though, and he absorbed the white supremacist thinking that had gripped post-war Democratic circles.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals