A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Rule of Law, Checks and Balances, and the Constitutional Crossroads

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i 

WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:

https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured

As political tensions rise over immigration enforcement and judicial authority, this episode revisits the timeless wisdom of Benjamin Franklin’s warning: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Exploring recent clashes between the executive branch and the courts, the conversation highlights the critical role of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution—even when it frustrates political agendas. From due process rights for non-citizens to the dangers of overreach by any branch of government, this is a powerful reminder of why America is a republic, not a pure democracy—and why that distinction matters more than ever. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Watchdog on Wall Street podcast, explaining the news coming
out of the complex worlds of finance, economics, and politics
and the impact it we'll have on everyday Americans. Author,
investment banker, consumer advocate, analyst, and trader Chris Markowski.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
A republic if you can keep it. It's been said
that Ben Franklin was asked what they came up with
constitutional convention, and that's what he replied with, A republic,
if you can keep it. I want to talk about
what it means to be a republic. I know we're
getting close to close again. Coming up, coming up. We

(00:37):
had about a month fourth of July holiday, and there's
been some issues back and forth, issues between the current
administration and the legal system, the court system, the judicial
system here in the United States. And it's not just
this administration. We had similar issues in the past. Chuck

(00:59):
Shue threatening justices, Joe Biden taking great liberties with the
United States Constitution. Jade Vance was actually just interviewed and
I actually talked about this interview yesterday, and it was
actually expressing the White House and their frustration over the
role the judiciary is playing in immigration controversies. He complained

(01:24):
that the courts are making it very, very hard for
us to support illegal aliens. The president, he insisted, has
extraordinary lenary power over deportations. Now again, it's it's a
conversation that needs to be hashed out, needs to be had. Again,

(01:46):
it's something that's where it belongs in the courts. Now
you hear, you hear from the you know, the Trump
supporters of Trump administration, the people on social media, the
you know, the paid people that are there to support
Donald Trump. We don't elect judges. We voted for president,
I jay, we don't elect judges. No, you really don't elect.

(02:11):
I mean certain parts of the country you get local
judges you elect. But let's let's be honest here. We
elect people that appoint judges. So yeah, we I guess
we indirectly do elect judges. But that's kind of besides
the point the issue at hand. Okay, and bear with me. Okay,

(02:34):
bear with me, because trust me. Okay, I want I
want illegals to be deported too. I do. But I'm also,
at the same time a big believer in the rule
of law and the importance of the rule of law.
The courts are saying, because the Fifth Amendment states every person,

(02:58):
and that is a term that includes non citizens, is
entitled to do process before being deprived of life, liberty,
or property. Again, certain laws specify what is due to
a person in specific cases. In other cases, it falls
to the judiciary to make this determination. Laws and executive

(03:24):
orders are subject to judicial challenge and review. This is
our system. And to all of the people out there
that are getting all upset about the courts and whatnot, hey,
trust me. I know they've got a lot of judges
that are biased. We all know about political appointments. I

(03:45):
get all that. But would you really want to get
rid of that? Would you really want to get rid
of that? Because guess what, it's there to protect you
as well. You know what, your guy doesn't always win anyway.

(04:06):
This process and there's a good piece by William Galston
talking about this has left Vice president of Vance unsatisfied.
He warns of a looming clash between two important principles.
He says that courts interpret the law and that the
American people decide how they're governed. I disagree. I mean

(04:34):
the American people. We can't just up and decide that
we are going to change the way we're governed. I
mean it's a constitutional convention. Did you understand you can't
just do that? We are not again they always talking
about democracy. The word democracy doesn't appear one time, doesn't

(04:57):
appear one time in the United States Constitution because our
founders in the democracy. Pure democracy is friggin dangerous. It's scary,
yann He canna make the old uh analogy there? You know,
it's what's a democracy? Eight wolves and five sheep deciding
what they're going to have for dinner that night? How's
that going to work? The we, the people, we make

(05:21):
our choice within the framework of the constitution. The President
of the United States puts his hand on the Bible
and takes the oath of office to uphold the Constitution,
even if it goes against what his supporters or her

(05:45):
supporters want. Do you understand that that's important? You're supposed
to follow the Constitution first and foremost. You know. It
reminded me of I remember getting really ticked off about
this was when George W. Bush did veto vin veto
McCain Finegold. There was some campaign finance law that quite frankly,

(06:07):
was unconstitutional. He just felt that the courts were going
to throw it out. But in his heart hes you
wrote about this in his heart. He believed that it
was unconstitutional, but he was going to leave it up
to the courts. And I said to myself, wait a second,
you basically put you're out in a bible. Put you
had a Bible and swore to uphold the constitution. Why
would you sign something if you knew or if you

(06:29):
felt that it was unconstitutional. I know it's taking everybody
back in time, But anyway, anyway, the court system John
Roberts Supreme Court, they're supposed to check on the excesses
of other branches of government. The executive is supposed to

(06:53):
check on the excesses of other branches of governments. The
legislative is supposed to check on the excessive branches of others.
And it's also supposed to keep track of their own
to make sure that they're working within the law. This
deportation thing, I'll get back to that. You know, I

(07:13):
have a solution to it. You want to talk about
getting people to self deport I can see. I've watched
it firsthand here in the state of Florida. Ron DeSantis
really up the ante when it came to everify here
in the state, and people left that could work. If

(07:33):
you're not giving people anything, if not handing anything out
and they can't work, well, then what are they going
to do. There's no point in them staying here. People
will self deport at that point in time. But again
there's politics involved with that here. Even in the state
of Florida, there was pushback from the Republican legislature in
certain industries that basically made some of those everify requirements

(07:59):
a little bit more lacks. Let's just leave it at that. Anyway, yes,
do we have and the Trump administration is absolutely right
that you have various different individual district courts out there
basically filing junctions against the administration. And again, could they

(08:23):
be exceeding their authority more likely? And I see that,
but we all know how these various different cases people
go about jurisdiction shopping, finding an area that might be
friendly to their cause. Anyway, again, Trump moves very very quickly,

(08:43):
and there's nothing wrong with that, but you have to
understand that there's going to be some sort of pushback
from the courts trying to digest everything that's going on.
And the fifth one, again, judges don't like to be
overruled as well. Doesn't look good for their permanent record,

(09:04):
if you will, So they're gonna they're gonna basically err
on the side of course. Now you might upset you,
but that's that's the reality. In this interview as well,
and Galson writes about this, he argues that the courts
need to be extremely deferential to the political judgments made

(09:24):
by the people's elected president of the United States. And again,
I'm gonna be honest, and I would say, JD, you're
missing it, man, Okay, you again, this is about elections
and the wins of people, the rule of law. The
rule of law. It's not up to political judgment. It

(09:48):
is what it is. And the you know John Marshall,
Chief Justice John Marshall. Again, we studied this in junior
high high school. You know, Marbury versus Madison. It is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial Department to

(10:09):
say what the law is. And Galson gets this right
and basically reiterating what I say all the time. The
President of the United States is not the he's not king,
he's not a dictator. He's not the sole representative of
we the people. We vote, we vote for the House,

(10:30):
we vote for the Senate, and the President and the
Senate work together to select members of the federal judiciary.
These are all what Republican institutions are republic if you
can keep it, and they get their authority from us,

(10:51):
and each branch is supposed to check the others. And
again it's a great article by Galson. I want to
conclude with this because there was kind of genius the
czechs ensure that power again, this is Civics class, whether
it be junior high or high school, suing that power
isn't concentrated in any one institution, a condition which James

(11:14):
Madison reminds us would be the definition of kearny watchdog.
On Wall Street dot Com,