This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats since before President Donald Trump was elected a second time have claimed that his very presence in the presidential race was a constitutional crisis.

After all, their talking points portrayed him as a "Hitler" who was setting himself up for a lifetime tenancy in the White House, how he would be a "dictator," how he would destroy "democracy."

Then after he took office their rhetoric ratcheted up, as he was doing things that the Constitution allows the president to do, but they didn't like, like cracking down on illegal alien criminals, the flow of illegal drugs into America, the rampant waste fraud and corruption in the federal government.

Now, there is a real constitutional crisis, according to a new report in the Federalist, but it's not because of something Trump did; it's because of what a judge did in response to Trump's Constitution-authorized management of the executive branch.

It was Judge Amy Jackson, one of Barack Obama's choices for the federal bench, who ordered multiple individuals in the executive branch to "recognize" Hampton Dellinger as "Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel" and not "obstruct" his job.

It sets up the possibility of a constitutional crisis because Trump, in ordering Dellinger dismissed, was within the authorities the Constitution grants him, the report said.

"Consider the scenario: Donald Trump calls Hampton Dellinger, telling him 'I'm firing you again.' The president then directs other officials — not the named defendants — to process Dellinger's termination papers, to prevent Dellinger's access to federal property or his former office, and to disconnect Dellinger's cell phone and computer access," the report explained.

"As Judge Berman Jackson recognized in her accompanying 67-page opinion, federal courts lack the power to enjoin the president of the United States. So, the Obama appointee could not — and thus did not — order Trump to recognize Dellinger as the special counsel, enjoin him from firing Dellinger again, or otherwise prohibit Trump from doing anything to obstruct or interfere in Dellinger's performance of his duties. Instead, she entered that command against the five defendants in the case."

Her orders are for five people only, so that means "Trump could easily sidestep them to out Dellinger as the special counsel."

The report noted that's unlikely to happen as the Supreme Court is expected to step in.

"But the fact that scenario could play out, launching a revolving door of new defendants ordered by a federal judge to ignore the staffing decisions of the president of the United States, reveals the danger that efforts over the last month to obtain a coup by court order represents to our constitutional republic," the report said.

The facts are that Article II of the Constitution gives the president executive power.

"American voters elected Donald Trump president, giving him the executive power and the authority to delegate it, or not delegate it, as he believes appropriate. The Constitution provides some checks to that authority, for instance by requiring 'the Advice and Consent of the Senate' for certain appointments, such as 'Officers of the United States.' In contrast, Article II's silence concerning removal, 'confers upon the President an absolute and unqualified removal authority.'"

Jackson claimed Trump couldn't remove Dellinger because Congress allocated to him a five-year term.

But the Supreme Court previously has ruled that such congressional provisions cannot violate the actual words of the Constitution, in multiple previous cases.

In fact, the report said, Joe Biden in 2021 fired the head of the Social Security Administration without cause.

Two members of the Supreme Court already have pointed out that it's interference in the president's command of the executive branch for a judge to order the administration to recognize and work with someone who was fired.

Trump's lawyers already have argued that the order "manifestly violates the Constitution."

The report explains that Jackson's orders "represent a clear and intolerable interference in the president's executive authority."