Host Left Stammering After Stephen Miller Drops Constitutional Truth Bomb on MSNBC [WATCH]

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller engaged in a heated exchange with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt on The Rachel Maddow Show Monday, debating the President’s constitutional authority over national security and the limits of judicial interference.

The discussion centered around a district court judge’s ruling that sought to challenge the administration’s enforcement of immigration laws.

Hunt pressed Miller on whether the Trump administration intended to comply with the order, while Miller firmly defended the President’s constitutional powers.

Elon Musk Called This Financial News ‘Terrifying’

Hunt asked Miller if the administration would ignore the judge’s ruling.

“The President of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States,” Miller responded.

Miller cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants the President the authority to counter foreign threats.

He argued that a district court judge does not have the power to override the President’s authority in matters of national security.

American Made Patriotic Apparel – Save 15% with Promo Code MERICA

“That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way. You can read the law yourself. There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review,” Miller stated.

Hunt countered, arguing that judicial review is a fundamental part of the U.S. legal system.

“At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment? I fail to see how there’s any other way but to start with where we’re starting here before you get to, eventually, the Supreme Court,” Hunt said.

Miller responded that the issue was “not justiciable”, meaning it was not subject to judicial remedy.

“When the President is exercising his Article 2 powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article 2 powers as Commander-in-Chief,” he explained.

Hunt then questioned Miller about Venezuela, asking if the situation at the border qualified as an invasion under the law.

“Is Venezuela invading the U.S.?” Hunt asked.

Miller responded by pointing to Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang with ties to Venezuela.

“Under the terms of the statute, Tren de Aragua is an alien enemy force that has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation, at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a President has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government,” Miller explained.

Hunt pushed further, questioning whether Venezuela qualified as a foreign government engaging in hostile action.

“By a state or a government, right? Are they a state or a government?” Hunt asked.

“Yes, it is documented that Tren de Aragua was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation,” Miller replied.

He then pressed Hunt on judicial overreach, asking, “Can a district court judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no?” Hunt did not directly answer the question.

Hunt then asked whether the administration believed it was “at war” with Venezuela or acting above the authority of federal courts.

Miller again referred to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, explaining that it outlines three qualifying actions: active war, predatory incursion, or a foreign-directed attack.

“You’re not hearing me, and you’re not understanding me,” Miller told Hunt. “Read the statute: Alien Enemies Act, 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government, it lists the three qualifying actions.”

When Hunt suggested the law required a formal declaration of war, Miller pushed back.

“No. That’s not what it says. No. Wrong. Look at the statute. It’s on my account on social media,” he said.

As the debate continued, Hunt attempted to argue that the Supreme Court has the authority to weigh in on the issue.

“Do you think the Supreme Court has any say over this or not? Does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were just outlining right here?” she asked.

Miller acknowledged the Supreme Court’s role but argued that its ruling would support the administration’s stance.

“I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the President’s conduct here is not subject to judicial review,” Miller responded.

Hunt then attempted to suggest that Miller was contradicting himself.

“You are acknowledging that they do, in fact, have a say here, even though you think they may agree with you,” she said.

Miller clarified that the Supreme Court would likely confirm that “the President’s designation of Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy is part of his inherent plenary authority.”

Hunt continued pressing on whether the administration had defied the judge’s order, but Miller dismissed the argument.

“The Department of Defense has been clear that they are not in conflict,” he said. “But I’m making a more fundamental point.”

Miller concluded by addressing what he described as a judicial double standard.

“The same district court judges didn’t do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens,” he said. “These district court judges didn’t issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Nungaray or Laken Riley or anyone else.”

When Hunt asked whether the White House believed it was above federal courts, Miller reaffirmed that the judiciary does not have authority over military operations.

“Under a proper reading of the Constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority, as a general matter, to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch, but their authority is at its lowest point when the President is exercising his powers as Commander-in-Chief,” Miller said.

As the discussion wrapped up, Miller challenged Hunt one final time:

“Can a judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Can a district court judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no?”

Hunt declined to answer directly.

Miller ended with a pointed remark: “Just say no, and then you’ll know that I’m right.”

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.