You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers. Government authority ends when its actions violate the Constitution (especially when checks and balances have failed) and the people are the final arbiters of what the government can and cannot do. Your analysis is completely antithetical to the values and ideals the United States was founded to protect.
If the government repeatedly uses violence outside of the bounds of the Constitution and checks and balances have failed to correct that behavior then that is a real crossing of a redline based on the principles outlined in our founding documents.
1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected.
2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution?
The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosses the line into rioting or obstructing government operations.
The Fourth has allowed for brief questioning, reasonable suspicion, and the recent Vasquez Perdomo emergency order held that these recent stops are constitutional - so even your “checks and balances” idea is working against you, as multiple branches of government are in concurrence here.
The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.
On “what actions violate the Constitution”: you’re also overstating what’s been “held.” An emergency order/stay is not a merits ruling that a policy is constitutional; it’s often just “this can proceed for now while litigation continues.” And the fact that multiple branches haven’t stopped something yet doesn’t mean checks and balances are “working”, it can just mean they’re failing in slow motion, which is exactly the scenario the founders warned about.
As for the specific amendments: time/place/manner doesn’t cover suppressing disfavored speech under pretext, and reasonable suspicion can’t be race/ethnicity-by-proxy or broad dragnet logic. If you want to argue the recent ICE-related tactics are clearly constitutional, cite the exact language you’re relying on and I’ll read it. But “emergency order exists” does not equal “constitutional on the merits.”
>…the Constitution they wrote and endorsed…restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens.
Sure, it does now, but your original statement was “You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers”. But, do remember the founding fathers didn’t seem very concerned about the early government’s treatment or protections of many groups of people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have needed:
The Bill of Rights
Amendments 13,14,15, and 19
The civil rights act
Title 9, etc
>Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.
Sure, and those protections aren’t being violated, as evidenced by the Supreme Court holding that doesn’t even find enough risk to the plaintiffs to temporarily pause these enforcement actions. Just like they also agreed that TPS could be ended, parole could be ended, 3rd country deportations were allowed, etc.
At a certain point, when Congress doesn’t care to legislate against it, the Supreme Court via rulings/shadow docket allows it to continue, and the President authorizes it, the action is legitimate.
You can not like it, and you’re welcome to vote against it in the midterms and in 2028, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
Just as emergency order doesn’t equal constitutional, complaints about enforcement of existing laws does not equal unconstitutional.
You’re conflating three different things: (1) founders’ personal moral failures, (2) the legitimacy theory they articulated, and (3) what an emergency posture from SCOTUS actually proves.
On (1) vs (2): yes, the founding generation tolerated massive injustice. That doesn’t refute the point I was making. The Enlightenment idea they leaned on is that rights pre-exist government and government power is delegated and limited. The later amendments you list aren’t a rebuttal to that framework, they’re the country painfully applying it more consistently over time via the mechanisms the Constitution itself provides.
On the Court point: “SCOTUS didn’t temporarily pause X” does not equal “no constitutional violation.” Emergency stays/injunctions turn on things like posture, standing, likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and deference; not a full merits finding that the challenged conduct is constitutional. “Shadow docket lets it continue” is not the same as “the Court blessed it.”
And the biggest issue is your last paragraph: legitimate does not equal constitutional.
Congress failing to act, the President authorizing something, and courts not immediately stopping it may show the government has the power to do it right now; it does not show the action is within constitutional limits. If that were the test, then any coordinated abuse across branches would become “legitimate by definition,” which is exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent.
If you want to argue “these protections aren’t being violated,” then argue the specifics: what’s the standard being used for stops, entries, detentions, and removals, and how is it being applied? “It’s enforcement” is not a constitutional analysis.
You’re just trying to robe your personal idea of what’s constitutional in some fairytale amalgamation of modern social justice and enlightenment writings.
The reality is simple: the founding fathers did not and would not care that illegal (or heck, even legal) African immigrants were being arrested and deported, as evidenced by the fact that many of them literally held slaves. So, your opening position that I “should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers” is wrong.
To checks and balances, the current state of government action is ironically in line with how those founding fathers would want government run.
Hamilton: “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature… to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority”. If the courts don’t see fit to constrain this exercise of power, it’s within the authority.
Washington himself led a militia against the Whiskey Rebellion, since the members were using intimidation, violence, and obstruction to impede a government function (wow, sounds familiar…)
Turning back to the present day, the standard being used is simple: The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes
immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person
believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in
the United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1).
Immigration officers “may briefly detain” an individual “for
questioning” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on
specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned
. . . is an alien illegally in the United States.” 8 CFR
§287.8(b)(2) (2025); see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U. S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266, 273 (2002). The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns on
the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni-
Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273.
If you want to argue these protections are being violated, you should probably make a stronger case than the one before the court that’s likely to lose. I’ll defer to the Supreme Court for constitutional analysis, as the founding fathers intended.
You’re still dodging the point by arguing founders’ personal depravity instead of the political theory they articulated: rights don’t come from government, authority is delegated, and it has limits. The fact that many founders violated their own principles doesn’t erase the principles, it proves why limiting doctrines and later amendments were necessary.
And the “they wouldn’t care” claim is overstated even on its own terms. The founders were divided and inconsistent, but several explicitly condemned slavery and/or refused to participate in it:
Jefferson (who was deeply compromised personally) still wrote this about slavery’s corruption and consequences:
> “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever…” (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII (1784), as transcribed by Encyclopedia Virginia)
Jefferson also documented that Congress removed an anti–slave trade passage from his draft for political reasons (i.e., to get unanimity):
> “The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves…” (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography (1821), as reproduced by Monticello / Avalon Project)
John Adams:
> “my opinion against it has always been known… and never in my Life did I own a Slave.” (John Adams to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley, Jan. 24, 1801; Gilder Lehrman Institute primary source)
So no, it’s not accurate to collapse “the founders” into “they endorsed whatever abuses you can point to.” Some did; some didn’t; many were hypocrites; but the rights-and-limits framework is real, and it’s the framework the country later used to correct (some of) those failures.
On Hamilton: yes, courts are an intermediate body. But it does not follow that “if the Court doesn’t stop it (especially on an emergency posture), it’s therefore within authority.” Courts can be wrong, courts can be procedural, and emergency orders are not merits adjudications. “Not enjoined today” is not the same thing as “constitutional.” If that were the rule, coordinated abuse across branches would become self-legitimating (exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent).
Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is a non sequitur. Nobody is arguing the government can’t enforce laws or respond to violence. The question is whether current enforcement is staying inside constitutional rails.
And on your legal citations: sure, INA authority exists. But statutory authority doesn’t dissolve the Fourth Amendment. Your own lead case, Brignoni‑Ponce, is precisely about limits: reasonable suspicion has to be based on specific articulable facts, and it can’t collapse into ethnicity/race-by-proxy plus “totality of circumstances” handwaving.
So let’s keep it concrete: what specific factors are officers using in practice to form reasonable suspicion, and what safeguards prevent that from becoming a dragnet? “The INA authorizes questioning” is not an answer to whether particular stops/detentions are constitutional.
Finally: “I defer to the Supreme Court” is fine as a personal posture, but it’s not an argument that the Constitution has no redlines unless five Justices say so on a given day (especially not on the shadow docket).
> “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” (Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
On the other hand, the gov using violence to break the law (e.g. detaining citizens who have committed no crimes under the pretense of immigration enforcement) is not silly.
If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful.
But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised:
Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained.
Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory.
So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions.
If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?
