Grayson Beckham penned an opinion piece in The Observer on Feb. 24. In the article, Beckham casts numerous aspersions about Notre Dame College Republicans (NDCR), all of which fail to find their mark. It is gratifying to see the meticulous attention our Democratic colleague devotes to the Notre Dame College Republicans’ communications. As the preeminent political organization on campus, we welcome such scrutiny — it highlights our central role in fostering substantive discourse amid widespread superficiality. Unfortunately, Beckham’s column relies on cherry-picked excerpts and inflammatory caricatures rather than engaging our actual arguments. His argument is functionally a strawman, a misrepresentation of what our position actually is. A fairer reading would expose the inconsistencies in his narrative, revealing not Republican bias, as he claims, but a deliberate evasion of inconvenient truths.
Beckham attacks what he falsely portrays as the Republican position, asserting that the NDCR “openly rejects the existence of constitutional norms.” He similarly criticizes our view that debating the far left has become futile, and he hypocritically asks, “Is there a debate left to be had with the modern right?” These are grave charges that deserve serious consideration. When I reached out to ND College Democrats as president of BridgeND, hoping to conduct another debate with NDCR as was held in the fall, their president declined. If Beckham feels NDCR is unwilling to debate with the progressive left, perhaps he should consult with the CDems’ board. Where NDCR debated in the fall and is willing to debate again, CDems are dodging.
The immediate trigger for Beckham’s piece was our recent post urging President Trump to defy the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20, 2026, ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Democrats have framed this decision as a noble defense of constitutional order, but that framing assumes — without proving — that the judiciary’s interpretation is supreme. Beckham implies the court’s view is not merely authoritative, but unquestionably sovereign — a position deeply at odds with American tradition. We categorically reject judicial supremacy untethered from the other branches. As Hamilton explained in “Federalist No. 78”, the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch precisely because it lacks enforcement power. The separation of powers was crafted to preserve equilibrium among the branches — not to enthrone one as ultimate arbiter over the others. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurrence in Gamble v. United States, “When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.” We have the obligation to uphold the law as it is, not as an obviously erroneous ruling mistakes it to be.
History confirms this view. At the outset of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to counter rebellion. When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared the suspension unlawful in Ex parte Merryman and ordered a prisoner’s release, Lincoln refused to comply. He justified his action to Congress as essential to preserve the Union, asking whether all laws but one should be ignored while the government collapsed. Lincoln arrested Maryland’s Legislature and held its members captive. One may debate Lincoln’s choices, but they cannot be dismissed as anti-constitutional. It was an assertion that constitutional interpretation does not belong exclusively to the courts.
The same principle applies today. If the executive, acting under delegated emergency authority, concludes that the Court has overreached into foreign policy and economic security, immediate compliance is not the only constitutional option. Inter-branch tension is not lawlessness; it is inherent to our system, which Beckham ignores.
This episode illuminates a deeper hypocrisy: Democrats act with sanctimonious insistence on unyielding legal rigor for Republicans, even as they systematically dismantle those norms to consolidate power. They want strict rules for us but none for themselves — blatant double standard that poisons the well of governance. Their playbook is rife with affronts to constitutional order — routinely obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations to harbor lawbreakers at taxpayer expense; erecting sanctuary jurisdictions that brazenly flout federal statutes and endanger communities; issuing unilateral edicts to erase student debt sans legislative consent, in flagrant disregard of separation of powers; prosecuting political adversaries via invented legal contortions, as seen in the partisan witch hunt of New York’s case against President Trump; engaging in warrantless surveillance of opponents through abuses like the Crossfire Hurricane fiasco; weaponizing the FBI to harass devout Catholics under the guise of combating “extremism”; and endorsing activist jurisprudence that fabricates phantom rights to family-killing abortion and same-sex marriage. This tramples the proper role of the judiciary and democratic accountability. Beckham demonstrates an incomprehensibly entrenched double standard with his selective outrage.
Such duplicity erodes the foundation of fair play, which Beckham claims to value. As the metaphor from NDCR’s remarks aptly captures, it’s like playing soccer with your feet tied to the rules while your opponents brazenly handball at will, expecting you to pretend it’s a level field. Democrats do not merely bend rules — they shatter them, expecting conservatives to capitulate in the name of decorum. If they truly cared about the rule of law, their governors would cease obstructing ICE, repeal the unconstitutional judicial overreach of Obergefell v. Hodges, enforce the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, dismantle sanctuary city policies and cease support for Soros-backed prosecutors who unilaterally abrogate their responsibility to enforce the law in the name of progressive partisan politics.
The Constitution has not failed, and Republicans do not oppose it; regrettably it is Democrats who have failed it through relentless institutional subversion and selective outrage. This asymmetry — where one side adheres scrupulously to the rules while the other flouts them at every turn — inevitably consigns the rule-followers to perpetual defeat, allowing Democrats to rack up so-called “cultural victories” that have ravaged the fabric of American society. In this breach, Republicans are compelled to invoke the imperative of necessity — a doctrine enshrined in common law and articulated by Thomas Jefferson: “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation” than rote compliance in the face of tyranny. Constitutionalism is an admirable ideal, but it is no suicide pact. Democrats protest now only because Republicans are finally willing to use their own playbook against them. To adhere to constitutional norms is more than to blindly obey legal fiction put forth by leftist outrage; rather it is to defend the larger American system as laid out by the document Beckham fails to cite once.
To our counterparts across the aisle: Spare us the feigned mirage of patriotism while your party foments division through unchecked, anti-American radicalism. We reject not the rule of law, but its perversion at the hands of those who prioritize ideological conquest over shared governance. Ultimately, the Constitution depends on people who believe in it, and it works only when both sides agree on its fundamental principles. But for decades, this sacred compact has been defiled by Democrats through their ceaseless assaults on its integrity, leaving Republicans with no choice: We will now do anything necessary to save the republic, unhindered by Democratic abandonment of the rules.
Sam Marchand
Notre Dame College Republicans
Feb. 26
