French Constitutional Crossroad – JP

Please Follow us on  Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube 

Doral, Florida – The French Republic stands at a constitutional crossroad. The question, as in all other Western democracies, is whether it will remain a representative republic, with its officeholders accountable to its citizens, or become a technocratic republic, governed by credentialed experts with little accountability. These technocrats promise to lead the people to a secular utopia. They claim that, in order to do so, they are entitled to use lying, suppression of free speech, and lawfare against opponents.
As Juvenal, the Roman satirist, asked after reading Plato’s vision of a technocratic republic: “Who guards the guardians?” In other words, who holds the technocrats to account?

Last month, a French court—without a jury—ruled that Marine LePen, leader of the National Rally (a nationalist and populist party that opposes mass immigration), is barred from running for President in the 2027 election. LePen was convicted of misusing European Parliament funds to pay party workers. Other politicians have faced similar accusations, yet received far less severe penalties—or none at all. For example, in 2016, Christine Lagarde, now President of the European Central Bank, was convicted of authorizing illegal payments during her tenure as French Finance Minister. The court imposed no penalty. The rule of law demands equal treatment—but LePen did not receive it.

Adding to the controversy: LePen currently leads decisively in polls for the next presidential election. With President Macron term-limited, the 2027 race will be for an open seat. In effect, Macron is a lame duck.

President Macron, who twice defeated LePen while leading a centrist technocratic coalition, defended the court’s decision, proclaiming the judiciary’s independence. He added, “everyone has the right to equivalent justice.” But Macron’s administration is deeply unpopular due to economic stagnation and rising mass immigration. His denials of political interference ring hollow.

LePen’s niece and political rival, Marion Maréchal, defended her aunt and criticized the judiciary as biased against the right. She cited a statement from the Syndicat de la Magistrature—France’s second-largest union of judges and magistrates—which last year called for “resistance” to the “accession to power of the extreme right.” This appeal included “all those involved in judicial activity,” which includes lawyers and law firms. Maréchal asked: “Is that not political justice?”

Even the far-left socialists condemned LePen’s disqualification. They argue that the only place to defeat her is at the ballot box—not in the courthouse. To them, the issue is political, not legal. Their calculation is that a far-right opponent in a runoff gives them their only chance to win the presidency.
President Trump noted the parallels between progressive legal warfare in America and the treatment of LePen in France. “The witch hunt against Marine LePen is another example of European leftists using lawfare to silence free speech and censor their political opponents,” he said. He added a direct message to Macron: “Free Marine LePen.”

This pattern isn’t limited to France—it’s spreading across Western democracies:

1. In Israel, since the 1990s, the Supreme Court has overstepped separation of powers by eliminating standing requirements, issuing nationwide injunctions, and installing judicial monitors over executive functions.
2. In Brazil, the Supreme Court released ex-President Lula from prison (where he was serving time for corruption), facilitated a questionable election via electronic voting in 2022 that saw Lula defeat President Bolsonaro, then barred Bolsonaro from running again on dubious charges.
3. In Romania, the European Union annulled the electoral victory of a nationalist populist, accusing him of being a Russian agent. He is now barred from participating in the upcoming election.
4. In Germany, both the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have pledged to exclude the nationalist-populist AfD party from any governing coalition, regardless of vote share.

Vice President Vance may be right to call out Europe’s progressive elites for using totalitarian means to suppress democratic opposition.

One and Indivisible

The French Republic claims to be one and indivisible—but in reality, it has lost control over some 700 no-go zones across the country. These are de facto sanctuary zones for Islamist extremists, particularly in cities like Marseille and the suburbs of Paris. While Russia remains a conventional geopolitical threat, the more immediate danger to the Republic comes from jihadist enclaves already within its borders—not Russian tanks rolling in from the east. The latter threat can be deterred by NATO. But where is NATO for defense against jihadists?

Stateside

In America, progressive lawfare could not stop President Trump’s re-election. Now, however, rogue federal district judges are attempting to hamstring the Trump administration with their over-reaching injunctions. The Constitution starts Article II thereof with: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It starts Article III with: “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Thus, federal district and appellate courts are not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Those injunctions from federal district courts, even when upheld by appellate courts, violate the following judicial doctrines: (1) the doctrine of separation of powers, and thereby encroach on the executive power of the President: (2) the doctrine that judges should avoid meddling in political questions, and should remain focused on justiciable matters; (3) the doctrine that courts should not issue injunctions binding beyond their territorial jurisdiction; and (4) the doctrine that courts should only bind the parties before them, and especially should not issue judgments without having in court all parties affected.

The solutions to these rogue judges should come from Congress, pursuant to Article III of the Constitution cited above. However, that requires new legislation, which Senate Democrats are likely to block with their power of the filibuster.

Accordingly, the power to block these rogue federal judges lies in the Supreme Court, and especially with Chief Justice Roberts. However, we have already seen that: (1) Roberts reprimanded Trump for suggesting that rogue judges should be impeached; (2) he has a track record of putting politics above the law, as when he turned judicial somersaults in order to approve the constitutionality of ObamaCare in June 2012; and (3) he is a member of an American Inns of Court group that includes leading progressive Democrat judges, plus his name is listed on a passenger list for a flight to Epstein’s pedophile island. Roberts is an unexploded bomb left behind for grassroots conservatives by the unworthy Bush dynasty.

The Supreme Court should provide a decision before its recess in June.