250 Years Ago, Alexander Hamilton Told Us How to Handle These Anti-Trump Judges
Thanks to Cancel Culture, Now Even 'Hamilton' Is Off Limits. Hamilton wrote that the courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” and cannot effectuate those judgments on its own.
March 31, 2025
Why, precisely, is a judge in Washington allowed to decide what illegal immigrants with alleged gang affiliations, who were being detained in Texas, are entitled to before they’re deported from the country they’ve unlawfully entered?
That’s what Alexander Hamilton might like to know.
Thanks to Cancel Culture, Now Even 'Hamilton' Is Off Limits
By Isabel Brown
As cancel culture continues to rise in the United States, it is inevitable that everything we enjoy will ultimately be deemed offensive by the radical left — even the progressive cultural icons it has previously praised.
A perfect example of this was highlighted with the cinematic release of “Hamilton” on Disney’s new streaming service, Disney+.
Shortly after, the previously hallowed musical quickly became the latest target of oppression by the cancel culture mob.
In 2015, the release of “Hamilton” on Broadway stunned our nation, quickly becoming a phenomenon.
The progressive recounting of our nation’s history through hip hop music with a racially diverse cast allowed Americans from all backgrounds to engage with the story of our Founding Fathers in a manner never before seen.
Praised by celebrities, journalists and politicians alike, the cutting-edge production was turning heads and exciting countless Americans to learn and understand more about our nation’s history.
It received 11 Tony Awards (including Best Musical), a Grammy Award and even the Pulitzer Prize.
Speaking objectively, “Hamilton” was the hallmark of a culturally progressive lens through which to view the true events of American history.
Incredibly, in early 2020, the progressive cultural mentality had shifted so substantially that #CancelHamilton was a hashtag gaining significant traction on Twitter, with one user even tweeting,
“Can we cancel Hamilton for glorifying our racist founding fathers and painting America as a good country?”
Numerous opinion pieces have been published by CNN, The New York Times, Oprah’s O magazine and more describing the musical as “problematic” and “[incompatible] with our current moment.”
So, what happened in the last five years?
When the musical debuted in early 2015, traitor Barack Obama’s second term in office was coming to a close.
America had gone through a progressive and cultural transformation with the first black president, and the Black Lives Matter organization was formed following the death of Trayvon Martin.
To see a racially diverse cast performing as America’s Founding Fathers while rapping on a Broadway stage was a major cultural victory for the left.
The musical quickly became beloved by lovers of the theater and history alike.
As President Donald Trump assumed office in early 2017, the progressive left had taken much deeper roots throughout American culture, particularly on college campuses, where students were encouraged to engage in cancel culture in a much more prominent and vocal way than ever before.
Allegedly “offensive” speakers were targeted on campus with extreme protests and violence, students were attacked by professors and even received failing grades for supporting the president or conservative thought and “free speech guides” were issued on hundreds of campuses to limit what students should and shouldn’t say at the risk of being offensive.
Today, the students who attended college during these days of extreme ideological indoctrination have graduated; now we are seeing the results through the growth of cancel culture.
Goya Foods, the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the United States, was targeted with calls to boycott the brand after its CEO publicly supported President Trump.
America’s most popular fast-food chain, Chick-fil-A, was constantly under attack for being a Christian-affiliated company and labeled “anti-LGBT” before ultimately caving to cancel culture.
Goya CEO Defies Mob, Declares 'Hell No! Hell No!' I Won't Apologize for Pro-Trump Comments
And, of course, statues of many of the Founding Fathers have been torn down and vandalized for being associated with any time period which related to historical slavery.
Before Protesters Tear Down More Washington Statues, Let's Remember His Opposition to Slavery
Even statues of President Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president and the man credited with preserving the Union and ending slavery in the United States, has been canceled by the radical left. Wait, what?
Wisconsin College Students Call To Remove Lincoln Statue: 'Single-Handed Symbol of White Supremacy'
With the emotionally driven, hungry mob leading the charge to cancel anything that could possibly be deemed offensive by someone, somewhere, it’s inevitable that everything will become a target of cancel culture at some point in time.
Apple Pie? Oh no, you’re next.
As the needle of the cultural acceptance gauge continues to change with time, eventually even the icons of progressivism like “Hamilton” will become the targets of the very culture it sought to uplift.
The radical left is an increasingly progressive entity with constantly changing standards for what is politically correct.
The movement is eroding its own credibility and exposing itself for nothing more than a rogue attempt at anti-anything.
Sadly, as long as the silent majority remains silent, it is possible that unchecked cancel culture could eliminate any sense of independent identity in our nation.
Yes, Hamilton might be the one founding father that it’s OK for Gen Z liberals to like because they can spit verses from “My Shot” on command — likely because the hip social studies teacher in high school let them listen to the “Hamilton” soundtrack for extra credit.
But before he was a rapping puppet for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s take on revolutionary American history, he was actually writing stuff that didn’t involve hip-hop jams with the Marquis de Lafayette.
Miranda’s tweet came a day after President Trump denigrated Democrats who were on Puerto Rico for a Congressional Hispanic Caucus event that included a trip to see “Hamilton.”
“I’d rather see the Democrats come back from their vacation and act,” President Trump told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro.
“They’re not acting, and they’re the ones that are holding it up. It would take me 15 minutes to get a deal done, and everybody could go back to work.
In particular, Hamilton was one of the three authors of “The Federalist Papers,” a series of 85 essays that argued in favor of the U.S. Constitution at the time of its ratification.
And, lo and behold, he has something to say about the kind of activist jurists like the now incarcerated U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying a 1798 law to summarily deport illegal immigrants associated with transnational gangs — in this case, Tren de Aragua, one of the most powerful gangs that’s thrived in the power vacuum created by the dysfunctional Maduro government.
READ MORE:
Military Arrests Deep State Radical Leftist Judge James Boasberg for Treason
D.C. Judge presiding over a lawsuit challenging deportation signed two rulings blocking President Trump from removing Venezuelan Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gang members from US soil.
“Given the exigent circumstances that [the court] has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set,” Boasberg, an Obama appointee, said in an order March 15, according to Fox News.
Boasberg continued to block any sort of removal under the Alien Enemies Act by challenging the government to prove why each individual being deported is, in fact, an “alien enemy.”
“Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all,” Boasberg wrote in a Monday ruling, according to the Miami Herald.
“Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge.”
It’s unclear what these individualized hearings would look like, as per the Boasberg model, or even whether he’d then acquiesce to the deportations at that point.
In fact, it’s unclear what Boasberg is doing adjudicating this case at all, given that the aliens in question were apparently detained in Raymondsville, Texas — a cool 1,700 miles from the District of Columbia — aside from naked venue-shopping from the American Civil Liberties Union, who (because of course) is representing the Venezuelan migrants.
(“You can do all that, you’ve just got to do it in the right court. And the right court was in Texas,” said Judge Justin Walker, another member of the D.C. district court appeals panel, when summarizing the government’s argument against the case.)
READ MORE:
JAG Detains Another Radical Federal Judge
White Hats have “detained” radicalized Deep State US District Judge for the District of Columbia Beryl Howell impeding the President’s mandate to make America great again and safe again.
Howell, who on March 26 refused a Trump administration request to recuse herself from a case wherein the President, via executive order, rescinded security clearances of employees of a law firm with ties to Democratic policy politics.
The Trump administration has more or less telegraphed its willingness to ignore Boasberg and his ilk to the extent possible and let the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of the mess.
Tom Homan Has Defiant Response to Judge Who Ordered Deportation Flight Halt: 'Not Gonna Stop Us'
Is this some sort of crisis for the rule of law?
Not at all, if one were to read Hamilton’s thoughts on the matter.
In Federalist No. 78, one of the most influential documents pertaining to the role of the judiciary in the then-proposed Constitution, Hamilton wrote that the courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” and cannot effectuate those judgments on its own.
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” Hamilton wrote.
“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.
“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
This view, Hamilton said, “suggests several important consequences.
“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks,” he wrote.
“It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.”
Naturally, the argument against this would be that Hamilton was writing to a much different world and audience than these United States in the 21st century.
This isn’t an argument in favor of the anti-Trump forces if one thinks about it too deeply — for example, the fact that Hamilton couldn’t have contemplated a world in which jurists would be asked to decide on whether alleged Venezuelan transnational gang members being flown to El Salvador for detention should be returned to the U.S. for a hearing would reflect poorly not on the lack of foresight Hamilton had but to those who have let America degenerate to such a state in the first place — but these things aren’t thought about too deeply, even at the bench level, which is (alas) the point here.
The Federalist No. 78 clearly and concisely stated the limits that the founders imagined for the judiciary.
Anyone who alleges an original intent that goes beyond that is simply fooling themselves — and original intent is what matters.
For anti-Trumpers wondering why the administration’s response isn’t a “crisis” of the rule of law by any stretch of the imagination, perhaps try looking into some Hamilton that isn’t “My Shot.”
And no, “It’s Quiet Uptown” doesn’t count, either.
READ MORE:
Judge shopping, Never Trump leader, and J6 cruelty: Judge James Boasberg is the Antifa of the bench…
This is the most dangerous and outrageous ‘activist judge’ overreach yet…
The Left’s Sue-Everything-That-Moves Strategy May End Up Delivering President Trump Ultimate Victory
Share or comment on this article.
Your support is crucial in exposing fake news and in helping us defeat mass censorship.
If this were a tv cartoon, it would be abundantly clear that the court is king.
I don’t get why a local judge can stop the president, can anyone explain this?