Our Oregon District 2 representative in congress is apparently not well versed in what the US Constitution says about due process. The 5th Amendment says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
But when asked about the detention and transportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the concentration camp in El Salvador by Donald Trump (and about court rulings that Abrego Garcia was denied the due process described above in the 5th amendment) Bentz responded to constituents by saying:
Let me be clear: this is not about denying due process to any individual. It is about restoring the constitutional balance between our branches of government and ensuring that immigration enforcement is consistent, accountable, and rooted in the law, not subject to the ideological whims of certain judges.
This reflects Bentz’s misunderstanding of what due process means. Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States have ruled that Abrego Garcia was denied due process. Bentz flatly misunderstand that it is the courts (and judges) who are given authority in the constitution to determine what is and is not the appropriate interpretation of the law and what is due process. The first sentence of Article III of the constitution states:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Judicial power is reserved for judges and the courts, not for the executive. Trump (and the Republicans who support him) do not like this restraint, but the framers were careful to create a constitution to protect against the tyranny of a unitary executive. Bentz and the other Trump sycophants who whine about Judges either misunderstand the constitution or just don’t care about preventing tyranny.
Project 2025 was crafted by a group of writers who perversely twist the constitution in ways that would appall the framers. Project 2026 will take an originalist view of the constitution and propose policies consistent with with the values of the separation of powers that constrain the executive and prevent tyranny. In addition to supporting candidates in 2026 who support our view of the constitution, we will actively confront candidates like Bentz who willfully misrepresent what makes America great.