February 27, 2025 • 32 mins
In the latest episode of Liberty and Learning, Mark Levin and Dr. Larry Arnn engage in a captivating discussion about the role of federal district judges and their impact on the executive branch. As the conversation unfolds, they explore the historical context of judicial power, the implications of overreach by judges, and the urgent need for Congress to take action to restore balance within the government.
Levin and Arnn begin by discussing how federal judges are created by Congress and the limitations of their authority. They highlight the importance of the separation of powers, a fundamental principle that ensures no single branch of government can dominate the others. This principle is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.
One of the key points raised is the alarming trend of federal judges making nationwide rulings that disrupt the functioning of the executive branch. Levin and Arnn argue that this overreach not only violates the common sense understanding of judicial authority but also undermines the very foundation of our constitutional system. They emphasize that judges should only decide cases that directly involve the parties before them, rather than issuing sweeping injunctions that affect the entire nation.
As the conversation progresses, the duo delves into the role of Congress in addressing judicial overreach. They stress that Congress has the power to legislate and could easily pass laws to limit the authority of district judges. This is a crucial point, as it highlights the responsibility of elected officials to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the government operates within its designated boundaries.
The discussion also touches on the historical significance of the Dred Scott decision, which serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of judicial overreach. Levin and Arne draw parallels between past and present, suggesting that we are at a critical juncture in history where the balance of power is being tested once again.
Liberty and Learning with Mark Levin and Larry Arnn is a 10-part series, hosted by veteran broadcaster and constitutional law expert, Mark Levin, and his good friend, Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, dives deep into the founding principles of the U.S., as Americans face both crisis and opportunity. Levin and Arnn take listeners on a journey forward, as they unpack the country’s basic foundations and the self-government they require.
Mark Levin and Dr. Arnn bring their knowledge and wisdom to bear in a candid conversation between lifelong friends on today’s latest news events. They will touch on the points of crisis in America, addressing each in light of our constitutional government, and tackling the pressing issues of our time to see how they fit into the grand tapestry of American history. The discussion will delve deep into the issues at the forefront of our nation’s concerns, like education, borders, citizenship, separation of powers, state and local government, and much more.
To learn more about Hillsdale College, go to https://www.hillsdale.edu/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:02):
You're invited to take a deep dive into the founding
principles of the United States. Join Mark Levin and Larry Arnn,
the president of Hillsdale College, as they present Liberty and Learning.
S2 (00:20):
Hello, America. This is Mark Levin, and I'm here with
the president of Hillsdale College, my dear friend Larry Arnn.
This is Liberty and Learning, our joint podcast between Westwood
One and Hillsdale College, episode six already. And by the way,
I want you to check out Hillsdale's website. They have
all kinds of things going on in there, a lot
(00:40):
of free things that you can do. Educate yourselves and
family members. It's a lot of fun. It's very entertaining
and interesting. You go to Hillsdale.edu Hillsdale.edu Larry Arnn a
lot going on these days, my friend, and a lot
that requires your thinking and understanding of the Constitution. We
have a lot of federal judges out there who think
(01:01):
they run the executive branch. Everything from what language should
be on a website to how many people can be
removed and so forth and so on. So let's start
at the beginning. Let's start at the beginning. What are
the powers of federal district judges, and are they even
in the Constitution?
S3 (01:19):
Yeah, the federal judges, the district judges are created by
the Judiciary Act of 1789. John Marshall decision. So they're
old and they're created by Congress. That's what the Constitution says.
The Supreme Court and such lower courts. And they you know,
they have intervened in the in the in the history
(01:41):
of America. The second case ever declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court was Dred Scott versus Sanford. The first was
one part of that 1789 Judiciary Act. The Supreme Court
can do that because the Constitution is supreme. And if
a statute is passed that violates it, they can't enforce
(02:04):
it against an individual or a party. And that's the
key power of the court's separation of powers means if
the long arm of the law reaches out and gets you,
you get hauled in front of somebody that can't be
fired by the other branches. And he judges whether your
punishment is lawful. That's the independent courts. It's fundamentally important.
(02:27):
And then an implication arises because of that, because that
means that if the Supreme Court says this thing is unconstitutional,
it's likely to say that again. And that gives it
an authority over statute law. And that that is written
(02:47):
in the system in the way of the system. It's
not explicit in the Constitution, but it's a necessary implication.
And then what's arisen in its it's strictly modern. There's
only one case in the 19th century or before, where
a district judge declares an act of the executive nationwide unconstitutional.
(03:13):
And that case is Roger Taney, who was the Supreme
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as a circuit judge.
So he was a very bad overreacher that guy. And
after that, such cases are rare. There's one in about 1950.
There's another one in about 1960. And now they've become common.
(03:34):
And so now the 677 federal district judges, each one
feels empowered to disrupt the whole operation nationwide of the
actions of an executive. And that's what's wrong. And that's
what's happening. It's happened 4 or 5 times now to
Trump in his first month.
S2 (03:54):
Let's dig into this doctor Aaron. First of all, you
have what are called, as you said, federal district judges.
They're not federal national judges. Correct. So they they have
rulings in historically, their rulings impact the district in which
they're in. These districts are created by Congress, not the Constitution.
(04:16):
These judges are created by Congress, not the Constitution. The
Constitution gives Congress the power to create both. So when
a federal district judge issues, say, a temporary restraining order,
a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction, and does that nationwide,
they're really operating outside their lane, aren't they? They're grabbing
power that a federal district judge does not have. Correct?
S3 (04:39):
Yeah, it violates practice. But also obviously it violates common sense. Right.
How can you do business if one of 677 guys
becomes the national authority on some major national level of policy?
S2 (04:54):
And so it's really going to take the US Supreme
Court Itself to put this back in the box, isn't it?
It's going to take the Roberts Court at some point.
And Justice Clarence Thomas has raised concerns about it. Justice
Gorsuch has raised concerns about it. Justice Alito has raised
concerns about it, that it's really out of control. And
(05:15):
unless these federal district judges and we get a ruling
from down high on the Supreme Court are told, no,
that's not your place. They're going to keep doing this,
aren't they? Because there's really no way to stop them.
S3 (05:29):
That's right. And, you know, both Republican courts and Democratic
courts have done this, Democratic courts more. But that's right.
And see, Congress has powers here. Right. It could pass
a law that says they may not do this. And
what can it not do? Remember, judging is an awesome power.
(05:50):
And district judges have an awesome power and they need it.
And that is a bunch of parties show up in
front of them. Let's take the case of these fired
officials who got an injunction that they can't be fired
if they show up in court. A judge could rule
that in their case, they can't be fired pending appeal.
(06:14):
What they can't rule is that the president may not
do such things. That has to go to the Supreme Court.
So they need to get back in their lane. And
you know, this guy in New York, Engelman, I think
is his name.
S2 (06:27):
Something like that.
S3 (06:28):
He actually ruled that the Department of Government Official Efficiency,
which is a appointee of the president of the United
States and acting on his authority, not only they their
members cannot see the data of the Treasury Department. The
appointed and confirmed Secretary of the Treasury may not see
(06:49):
the data, and they he ordered them to destroy the
data they had collected it. And that just directly cuts
off the president from management of. You know, one of
the four departments of government that are actually named in
the Constitution. There are way too many departments of government now,
but the Treasury is one of the original ones. Alexander
(07:12):
Hamilton was the first Secretary of Treasury. And so Scott
Bessent is under court order not to supervise the operation
of his department from a New York judge.
S2 (07:24):
Well, let's get into this, because, you know, I wrote
a book many years ago about the courts, and I
indicated many of the things that these federal district judges do.
They run federal prisons, they run school systems. And you
go on and on and on and on. It was
bad enough back then, 20 some years ago. But now
there's a direct constitutional confrontation, isn't there? Not between Trump
(07:46):
and the courts, but the courts against Trump. And that
is basic HR decisions, basic restructuring decisions. Basic employment number decisions.
Judges now are intervening on what can and cannot be
on the CDC's website. And as you point out, this
(08:08):
judge and there's another one, too, telling Trump and his designees,
you don't even get access to information to determine if
there's waste, fraud and abuse. So my question to you
is this. Let's let's start at the basics. What is
the executive branch under the Constitution? Who runs the executive
(08:29):
branch under the Constitution? And aren't these the basic functions
of the chief executive of the executive branch?
S3 (08:35):
The reason politics are so interesting and promising right now
is that the new administration has taken on the question
of who is sovereign in America and their claim and
their very explicit and clear about this is that when
article two of the Constitution says the executive power shall
be vested in a president. that's what it means. And
(08:57):
the reason it's right for the for it to be
vested in one person. There's a big argument about why
that's better in the Federalist Papers is that he is
elected by us and we are sovereign. Right. And so
the alternative claim is that this administrative state, which is
purportedly in the executive branch, that they are sovereign, they
(09:21):
are outside politics, above politics. That's one, you know, the
progressives who invented this whole thing and has grown up
in our government over the last 100 years. They actually
argued that take it out of the hubbub of politics,
which means taking it away from the authority of the people,
because the great thing about the president is not just
that we elected him. We can also elect somebody in
(09:45):
his place, and that means he must be responsible to us.
And that's consent of the governed. It's the most fundamental thing.
And there's a question about that now. And what this
judge in New York appears to think is that they.
These officials, whoever they are, and by the way, they're innumerable.
There's a. Scholars have been arguing for years how many
(10:09):
independent agencies there are. And I once spoke to a
high official in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and I.
Know him a little. And I said to him, I
hope you're not mixed up in all that mess. And
I meant, you know, them intervening in two elections. And
he said, I'm just trying to keep the agency independent.
(10:31):
And I said, independent of what? And he paused. He's
a very good guy. Retired now. He said, I don't
think I've ever been asked that question before. Isn't that interesting? And,
you know, independent of you know, I commented, I said,
do you have the authority to shoot me? And if
(10:53):
you do, where'd you get it? You know, and that's
the question, isn't it? And, you know, consent of the
governed means that for the massive monopoly power of government
to do something to somebody, it has to have consent
from that somebody. And that's what's at stake in this argument.
(11:15):
And and the progressive arguments don't work. And, you know,
they're they first of all, they've near bankrupted the country.
And second of all, they've made it terribly inefficient. And
third of all, we're not very good at fighting our
wars lately. And that's because bureaucracy, right. This divided this idea.
It's not even really divided the idea that experts should
(11:38):
rule instead of ordinary people.
S2 (11:40):
When we come back, I want to pursue this and pursue, well,
what do we do about it? Seems to me Donald
Trump's trying to do a lot about it. What does
Congress do about it? What are the courts do about it?
What are we the people do about it? This is
liberty and Learning episode six. I'm Mark Levin, he is
Doctor Larry Arnn. It is a Westwood One Hillsdale College
(12:02):
podcast partnership. On both of our networks. We'll be right back.
Welcome back America, this is Mark Levin, and I'm here
with the president of Hillsdale College, my dear friend Larry Arnn.
(12:23):
This is the Liberty and Learning Podcast episode six partnership
with Westwood One and Hillsdale College, our podcast networks. Now,
Doctor Arnn, I mean, Congress has a role too, other
than sitting there and watching what's taking place between the
executive branch and the courts, isn't that right?
S3 (12:41):
Yeah, Congress has a role. Of course it has a role.
This weekend I've started posting on X to give me
something to do because I don't have any time, and
also a whole new opportunity to make a fool of
myself and And on the weekend, Mike Lee, a very
good senator, came up with the idea that there should
be a three judge panel with immediate appeal to the
(13:02):
Supreme Court, and that would be better than what we've got,
but much better than that, because that presents a danger to.
And the danger is the Supreme Court will then become
a standing body to judge everything that goes on in
the executive branch, but the branches are co-equal. Lincoln makes
the point in the Dred Scott in his speech about
the Dred Scott decision, the second law ever overturned by
(13:25):
the Supreme Court, that each branch takes an oath to
the Constitution, and they must follow it as they understand
it and not as somebody else understands it. And so
conflict among the branches is bound to happen, and the
courts only decide them finally, in some cases. And that
(13:46):
means we all have to have an opinion about the Constitution.
And this conflict between the branches, as is going on now,
is a clue to the people that they should pay
attention and vote for the people they like who are
on the right side of the conflict. That means we
get to govern ourselves still. But anyway, Lee's opinion is
better than what we got. The best opinion I know is,
(14:08):
of course, the very great Clarence Thomas, and what he
says is the district courts should be confined to deciding
the matter. For the people who are in the room,
the ones before them, the parties to the case, they
should decide that subject, of course, to appeal and then
whatever they decide will be consequential and decisive for those
(14:30):
people until an appeal. And then higher courts can get
involved and sort it out. And in the meantime, work
can go on in the executive branch and the Congress
can continue to legislate. I think it's true. You're the
lawyer and you know more about this than I do.
But I think it's true that Congress could pass a
(14:51):
bill that said that, and that would because they defined
the lower courts under the Constitution.
S2 (14:55):
They could abolish the courts if they wanted to. But
here's my question to you about the proposal as you
explain it. I'm a little perplexed by this. Number one,
Congress won't do it. Number two, it depends who's on
this new court. So we're back at that again. And
number three, how does that fix anything? In other words,
I guess the argument is, well, at least the other
(15:16):
courts aren't doing it. Well, then the other courts aren't
doing it because somebody stepped in and told the other
courts not to do it. Why don't we just tell
the other courts not to do it?
S3 (15:24):
That would do just fine. And that it's better to write,
in other words, the Supreme Court when it becomes a
legislative body. It's not very good at it and it
loses prestige. Whereas if what it does is outside politics,
according to the law, strictly decide the cases that are
(15:45):
in front of it. And then there are appeals up
to the Supremes. And, you know, we have to remember
what the Dred Scott decision did is horrific, right? The
Republican Party was born with a plan to forbid slavery
expanding into any of the land not yet organized as
(16:07):
states that I'm very proud to report and claim all
the time. It's true that that idea was partially invented
here at Hillsdale College in a building that still stands.
S2 (16:18):
That's amazing.
S3 (16:19):
Isn't it great? I just love that. And, and and,
you know, it's one of the greatest acts of a
political party in history because it devised a constitutional way
to fight slavery without abolishing the authority of the states,
all the new land, and that was most of the
land of America in those days, would come in as
free states, and slavery would be placed in the course
(16:41):
of ultimate extinction. And then in 1857, Dred Scott was
a slave who'd been taken first into a federal territory
where there was no slavery, and then into Illinois for
a time when there was no slavery. Slavery. Then back
to Missouri, where there was. And he sued that he
should have his freedom. And Roger Taney, the aforementioned Supreme
(17:02):
Court chief justice, ruled in a very divided court that
the federal government had no power to regulate slavery, including
in the land not yet organized as states. And that's
just a horrific decision. And then, you know, it just
so happened Abraham Lincoln was alive, and he got to
(17:23):
answer that. And his speech on the Dred Scott decision
is one of the profoundest of his speeches and explains
the rightful and great authority of the courts and the
limits on that authority. And his argument is that when
the Supreme Court, these district court things are just crazy,
by the way, and outside all practice for the first
(17:45):
150 years of America, he said, is it a consensus Opinion.
Does it fit with the legal expectations that prevail at
the time? Are the historical and factual claims that it
makes true? Does it violate common sense? And if it does,
(18:05):
then it's worthy of great respect. But he says if
it's not, if it doesn't meet those criteria and the
people submit to it, quote, they shall have ceased to
be their own rulers. So and now it's much worse
than that horrific Dred Scott decision. Now, ordinary district judges
677 of them are doing it, and we can't govern
(18:29):
the country that way.
S2 (18:30):
Mhm. And who are these people? We don't even know
who they are.
S3 (18:35):
The guy in New York.
S2 (18:36):
There are lawyers who who got lucky.
S3 (18:38):
Yeah that's right. Got the guy in New York got
appointed by Obama. Another lady I think another female judge,
I think also an Obama appointee has taken over the
case now and sustained it so far. So in at
least four big cases, things that Trump has come in
to do, like a whirlwind, are in suspension right now.
(19:00):
And and you know he's and you know that's the
tactic right. Delay let time pass hope for relief in
the midterms right. And Trump was elected to do a
bunch of stuff. And Lord is he not sitting about it.
S2 (19:15):
And I think people need to understand it's not just
Trump's responsibility, which is I think what we're getting at here,
it is a key responsibility of his. But this other
elected entity, the United States Congress, I mean, they created
these courts. The Senate has to give its rubber stamp
on anybody that's going to serve in these courts. And
they ought not just walk away from their responsibilities here.
(19:37):
I mean, I don't even know if somebody put a
bill in the hopper that already says that. Excuse me,
you don't get to issue nationwide anything. Whatever you do
is in your district, period. And that would go a
long way in curtailing a lot of this abuse of power.
So why don't they just do that?
S3 (19:54):
You know, I don't know if there's a bill. There's
a bunch of smart senators. Tom Cotton should do such
a bill.
S2 (20:00):
Yeah, he'd be great.
S3 (20:01):
And, uh, I don't who's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee? But, uh,
you really.
S2 (20:07):
Want to know? I think it's Lindsey Graham.
S3 (20:10):
Okay, well.
S2 (20:11):
If I had to guess.
S3 (20:12):
He's imaginative.
S2 (20:14):
He could.
S3 (20:15):
Do it.
S2 (20:15):
That's a good way to put it. Yeah.
S4 (20:19):
If, uh.
S3 (20:20):
Yeah, they're.
S2 (20:21):
Busy in Saudi Arabia these days. But anyway, go ahead.
I'm listening.
S4 (20:24):
And see, you know, the what's.
S3 (20:26):
Happened in this building of the bureaucratic state. I was
in the course of saying maybe didn't finish it, that forever.
Scholars have debated. Are there 150 or more or fewer
of these rule making agencies because it's hard to count them, right.
And nobody can name them. You can't even count them? No. Well,
the Doge has been saying lately that they have found 450,
(20:49):
and that's plausible, right? Because they grow up over time,
there's no central record of them. They pass these regulations.
They've got you know, we now know look at USAID,
that they effectively have unlimited budgets. One of the things
that Doge has reported is like, you know, Hillsdale College
is a business and your radio show is a business,
(21:11):
and Westwood One is a business. And that means that
it goes through three simple steps. It decides what it's
going to spend money on, and then people spend the
money or apply to get a payment made. And then
somebody checks to see if it fits with what's been decided.
Three steps. Apparently they don't do the third step in
(21:33):
the federal government. As I say, their appropriations bills and
the massive amounts of money. And if one of these
agencies presents a bill to the Treasury, they just pay it.
And that's one of the reasons why they've not been
able to complete an audit of the Pentagon for five
years because the records are not there. They don't keep them.
That's why they're not there. So it's just limitless money
(21:57):
and it just flows. Right. And of course, the people
who work under those conditions, that two things follow from that,
by the way, being in an unaccountable position. The first
is you. You treasure it. You like it. The second
is it does not make you happy, right? Because where's
(22:17):
the achievement? Where's the accomplishment? Right. If all you've got,
there's no deadline. You just. I mean, what is it?
I it's been in the papers that 6% of the
federal workforce shows up for work every day. That's amazing.
S4 (22:34):
Crazy.
S3 (22:35):
And check in by the month. Right. And we need
to get some discipline over this, because we're $37 trillion
in debt. For what? What do we get for it
except interference? So that's that's the argument we're having today.
And these district judges who've intervened, four or 5 or
(22:55):
6 of them. They're on the front lines of that.
And they're exercising a power they ought not to have,
do not rightfully have.
S2 (23:03):
When we come back, ladies and gentlemen, Elon Musk. The
Democrats keep saying he's unconstitutional. He doesn't have this power.
He's unelected. What's all that mean? We'll be right back
with Larry Arnn on Mark Levin on liberty and Learning.
Episode six A partnership between Westwood One and Hillsdale College
(23:25):
and our podcast networks. We'll be right back. Welcome back America.
This is Liberty and Learning with Doctor Larry Arnn, president
of Hillsdale. I'm Mark Levin here, the joint podcast of
(23:47):
Westwood One and Hillsdale College. We love this partnership. It's
so important that we convey to you real constitutional notions
and ideas about your rule of law. And that's the
purpose of this program, among other things. Now, Larry Arnn,
Elon Musk, the Democrats, who, by the way, despise the Constitution,
they've spent years telling us they despise it, that it's
(24:09):
too white, that it's too old, that the framers, their monuments,
need to be torn down. And then they keep waving
the Constitution in front of us. Pretty, pretty pathetic. But
they're telling us Elon Musk is unconstitutional. How do you
reply to that?
S3 (24:24):
Well, I would say that Elon Musk is in his
role as the Doge is plainly and clearly constitutional, although
as a personal figure, he transcends any document. He's an
amazing guy. True enough. You know, he's going to Mars, but.
And he made my Cybertruck and I really like it. Uh, well, it.
S2 (24:46):
Drives it, you know.
S3 (24:47):
Yeah. It does. Yeah. It drives itself. Amazing. Anyway, so
that guy, you know, is not constrained by much of
anything except in this role. And that is to say,
he doesn't actually have any power except to find stuff
out and report it. And only Donald Trump and his
long established agents, key among them, a really great man
(25:09):
named Russ Vought, who's the director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Only they can do anything. And the
Duchess comes in and finds out stuff, and they seem
to be really good at it. And, uh, you know,
hee hee, the way it's like, it's it's fun to
listen to the debate on both sides, by the way,
(25:31):
because both sides are making fundamental points now. But what
Musk does is compare it, what he sees to what
a business is like. And it's just different as night
and day and it's corrupt or unaccountable or both. They
go together, those two things. And so like that thing
about how they don't reconcile what's been approved with what's paid,
(25:56):
they don't take that step. And that's crazy that they don't.
And it means they can't be audited. And that's unaccountable. Right.
And and then, you know, the way he runs his company,
I saw a really funny thing. Somebody, you know, they're
saying it's Elizabeth Warren. I think the senator said, uh,
(26:18):
it's dangerous to have a guy like Musk messing around
with the air traffic controllers. And somebody replied, hey, the
dude caught a rocket in midair.
S2 (26:30):
Yeah, yeah.
S3 (26:31):
So so that was pretty good. I think he's a
historic human being, and he really knows how to run
a business, and he seems to really know how to
analyze one. And so I think just the transparency of
all of this. My friend Roger Kimball keeps writing, and
(26:51):
I may have said it to him first. Maybe this
whole state is like vampires. They die in the sunlight.
And I hope so.
S2 (26:59):
Mhm. Mhm. Now, how is it possible that a GS 13,
a mid-level bureaucrat in the Department of fill in the blank,
has all kinds of powers to make decisions about employment
funding policies and so forth. But his boss, the president
of the United States, as you note, who was actually
in the Constitution does not.
S3 (27:22):
That's that's the thing, right? I mean, you have to
go back to the early days. So progressivism comes into
America in the late 19th and early 20th century, and
it comes into America by a bunch of people who
were very influenced by German thought, German historicism. And they thought,
you know, Woodrow Wilson is the most successful politically of them.
(27:45):
He was president of Princeton before he was president. And
he writes in the most telling essay that the Constitution
was written in a time accountable to Isaac Newton. And
they thought of it as a mechanism. But now we
have Darwin, and we know that everything must evolve. Government
must be a living and changing thing. And he and
(28:08):
John Dewey and Frank Goodenough and those guys, Herbert Croly,
you can read about them all in the Constitution, reader
of the Hillsdale College, what they thought was, we're going
to build a new kind of state run by experts,
and it will still be under the authority of the people,
but it will propose everything, and the people can veto it.
And the president becomes a national spokesman for what the
(28:33):
bureaucracy recommends. And that's laid out in their early writings.
And now it has come to be. And there's a
man named James Landis who's an important author, and he
writes that you won't need separation of powers anymore because
these people will have guaranteed tenure and guaranteed salaries, and
(28:56):
so they won't have any interest against the public interest.
And you just have to put that statement against the
best statement in the Federalist Papers, to my mind, written
by James Madison. You have to have controls on the
government because men are not angels, and angels do not
govern men. If you just compare those two claims by
(29:18):
Lantis and Madison, then you can decide which side you're on.
S2 (29:22):
Mhm. Where do you see this going? I think at
some point the Supreme Court is not going to allow
this judicial chaos to go on under it. It's not
going to allow these federal district judges to act like
rogue individuals, Supreme Court type justices, who can just make
these decisions for everybody. I mean, at some point, I
(29:45):
think Roberts and the majority of the court are going
to have to step in. Don't you?
S3 (29:49):
I do. I predict that they will, but who knows?
I think we know how 4 or 5 of them
are going to vote, maybe six, probably because they're on
record about this. Four of them at least. And you know,
it's a it's a it's a very important thing. It
can't ultimately depend on them. I like to say in
(30:12):
a crisis like that, like the like the Civil War,
this is like the Civil War crisis, right? In the
Civil War. It was very difficult to think that we'd
be able to get rid of slavery, and it was
very difficult to think that it could continue. Both were hard.
It's very difficult to think that we can overcome this
massive mess, and it's very difficult to think that it
(30:34):
can continue and that we won't overcome it. And so
right now, we're at a moment of crisis, which means
turning point, right? One thing or the other. And we
have to we have to choose now to. That's another thing.
One of the things that caused the Civil War was
that it really couldn't go on anymore, because we were
(30:54):
trying to settle the Western lands and, you know, Kansas
and Nebraska was the big there was an actual war
in those places. The little mini civil war, a lot
of big body count. Because are you going to take
your slaves there or not? Right. And so finally, something
had to be done. And this is like that. Uh,
(31:16):
we are apparently generating $1 trillion in deficit every hundred days,
and the pace is quickening. Something's got to be done.
And and so because something has to be done, probably finally,
at last, something will be done. And one can hope
a restoration of constitutional government is what's possible.
S2 (31:39):
All right. Fantastic. We can go on hour after hour
after hour. But time is limiting. I want to thank you,
doctor Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, as usual, for
your incredible insight. I enjoy just listening to it. Um,
and you folks, you're listening to Liberty and Learning. This
is episode six. If you want to learn more about
(32:00):
Hillsdale College, it's actually quite simple. Go to hillsdale.edu. They
have a fantastic website, hillsdale.edu. They have over 40 courses
that are available to you for free. They're absolutely fascinating
and a whole lot of information in there right at
your fingertips. And they take the time and put the
resources in collecting all this information and bringing the sort
(32:22):
of the brilliant constitutional scholars and others to you. It's
the only college I know that does this sort of thing.
So it's very, very important. Hillsdale.edu. Doctor Larry Arnn, until
next time. God bless you and be safe, my brother.
S3 (32:35):
Thank you very much. You're a great man.
S2 (32:37):
Take care and see you next time.
You're invited to take a deep dive into the founding
principles of the United States. Join Mark Levin and Larry Arnn,
the president of Hillsdale College, as they present Liberty and Learning.
S2 (00:20):
Hello, America. This is Mark Levin, and I'm here with
the president of Hillsdale College, my dear friend Larry Arnn.
This is Liberty and Learning, our joint podcast between Westwood
One and Hillsdale College, episode six already. And by the way,
I want you to check out Hillsdale's website. They have
all kinds of things going on in there, a lot
(00:40):
of free things that you can do. Educate yourselves and
family members. It's a lot of fun. It's very entertaining
and interesting. You go to Hillsdale.edu Hillsdale.edu Larry Arnn a
lot going on these days, my friend, and a lot
that requires your thinking and understanding of the Constitution. We
have a lot of federal judges out there who think
(01:01):
they run the executive branch. Everything from what language should
be on a website to how many people can be
removed and so forth and so on. So let's start
at the beginning. Let's start at the beginning. What are
the powers of federal district judges, and are they even
in the Constitution?
S3 (01:19):
Yeah, the federal judges, the district judges are created by
the Judiciary Act of 1789. John Marshall decision. So they're
old and they're created by Congress. That's what the Constitution says.
The Supreme Court and such lower courts. And they you know,
they have intervened in the in the in the history
(01:41):
of America. The second case ever declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court was Dred Scott versus Sanford. The first was
one part of that 1789 Judiciary Act. The Supreme Court
can do that because the Constitution is supreme. And if
a statute is passed that violates it, they can't enforce
(02:04):
it against an individual or a party. And that's the
key power of the court's separation of powers means if
the long arm of the law reaches out and gets you,
you get hauled in front of somebody that can't be
fired by the other branches. And he judges whether your
punishment is lawful. That's the independent courts. It's fundamentally important.
(02:27):
And then an implication arises because of that, because that
means that if the Supreme Court says this thing is unconstitutional,
it's likely to say that again. And that gives it
an authority over statute law. And that that is written
(02:47):
in the system in the way of the system. It's
not explicit in the Constitution, but it's a necessary implication.
And then what's arisen in its it's strictly modern. There's
only one case in the 19th century or before, where
a district judge declares an act of the executive nationwide unconstitutional.
(03:13):
And that case is Roger Taney, who was the Supreme
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as a circuit judge.
So he was a very bad overreacher that guy. And
after that, such cases are rare. There's one in about 1950.
There's another one in about 1960. And now they've become common.
(03:34):
And so now the 677 federal district judges, each one
feels empowered to disrupt the whole operation nationwide of the
actions of an executive. And that's what's wrong. And that's
what's happening. It's happened 4 or 5 times now to
Trump in his first month.
S2 (03:54):
Let's dig into this doctor Aaron. First of all, you
have what are called, as you said, federal district judges.
They're not federal national judges. Correct. So they they have
rulings in historically, their rulings impact the district in which
they're in. These districts are created by Congress, not the Constitution.
(04:16):
These judges are created by Congress, not the Constitution. The
Constitution gives Congress the power to create both. So when
a federal district judge issues, say, a temporary restraining order,
a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction, and does that nationwide,
they're really operating outside their lane, aren't they? They're grabbing
power that a federal district judge does not have. Correct?
S3 (04:39):
Yeah, it violates practice. But also obviously it violates common sense. Right.
How can you do business if one of 677 guys
becomes the national authority on some major national level of policy?
S2 (04:54):
And so it's really going to take the US Supreme
Court Itself to put this back in the box, isn't it?
It's going to take the Roberts Court at some point.
And Justice Clarence Thomas has raised concerns about it. Justice
Gorsuch has raised concerns about it. Justice Alito has raised
concerns about it, that it's really out of control. And
(05:15):
unless these federal district judges and we get a ruling
from down high on the Supreme Court are told, no,
that's not your place. They're going to keep doing this,
aren't they? Because there's really no way to stop them.
S3 (05:29):
That's right. And, you know, both Republican courts and Democratic
courts have done this, Democratic courts more. But that's right.
And see, Congress has powers here. Right. It could pass
a law that says they may not do this. And
what can it not do? Remember, judging is an awesome power.
(05:50):
And district judges have an awesome power and they need it.
And that is a bunch of parties show up in
front of them. Let's take the case of these fired
officials who got an injunction that they can't be fired
if they show up in court. A judge could rule
that in their case, they can't be fired pending appeal.
(06:14):
What they can't rule is that the president may not
do such things. That has to go to the Supreme Court.
So they need to get back in their lane. And
you know, this guy in New York, Engelman, I think
is his name.
S2 (06:27):
Something like that.
S3 (06:28):
He actually ruled that the Department of Government Official Efficiency,
which is a appointee of the president of the United
States and acting on his authority, not only they their
members cannot see the data of the Treasury Department. The
appointed and confirmed Secretary of the Treasury may not see
(06:49):
the data, and they he ordered them to destroy the
data they had collected it. And that just directly cuts
off the president from management of. You know, one of
the four departments of government that are actually named in
the Constitution. There are way too many departments of government now,
but the Treasury is one of the original ones. Alexander
(07:12):
Hamilton was the first Secretary of Treasury. And so Scott
Bessent is under court order not to supervise the operation
of his department from a New York judge.
S2 (07:24):
Well, let's get into this, because, you know, I wrote
a book many years ago about the courts, and I
indicated many of the things that these federal district judges do.
They run federal prisons, they run school systems. And you
go on and on and on and on. It was
bad enough back then, 20 some years ago. But now
there's a direct constitutional confrontation, isn't there? Not between Trump
(07:46):
and the courts, but the courts against Trump. And that
is basic HR decisions, basic restructuring decisions. Basic employment number decisions.
Judges now are intervening on what can and cannot be
on the CDC's website. And as you point out, this
(08:08):
judge and there's another one, too, telling Trump and his designees,
you don't even get access to information to determine if
there's waste, fraud and abuse. So my question to you
is this. Let's let's start at the basics. What is
the executive branch under the Constitution? Who runs the executive
(08:29):
branch under the Constitution? And aren't these the basic functions
of the chief executive of the executive branch?
S3 (08:35):
The reason politics are so interesting and promising right now
is that the new administration has taken on the question
of who is sovereign in America and their claim and
their very explicit and clear about this is that when
article two of the Constitution says the executive power shall
be vested in a president. that's what it means. And
(08:57):
the reason it's right for the for it to be
vested in one person. There's a big argument about why
that's better in the Federalist Papers is that he is
elected by us and we are sovereign. Right. And so
the alternative claim is that this administrative state, which is
purportedly in the executive branch, that they are sovereign, they
(09:21):
are outside politics, above politics. That's one, you know, the
progressives who invented this whole thing and has grown up
in our government over the last 100 years. They actually
argued that take it out of the hubbub of politics,
which means taking it away from the authority of the people,
because the great thing about the president is not just
that we elected him. We can also elect somebody in
(09:45):
his place, and that means he must be responsible to us.
And that's consent of the governed. It's the most fundamental thing.
And there's a question about that now. And what this
judge in New York appears to think is that they.
These officials, whoever they are, and by the way, they're innumerable.
There's a. Scholars have been arguing for years how many
(10:09):
independent agencies there are. And I once spoke to a
high official in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and I.
Know him a little. And I said to him, I
hope you're not mixed up in all that mess. And
I meant, you know, them intervening in two elections. And
he said, I'm just trying to keep the agency independent.
(10:31):
And I said, independent of what? And he paused. He's
a very good guy. Retired now. He said, I don't
think I've ever been asked that question before. Isn't that interesting? And,
you know, independent of you know, I commented, I said,
do you have the authority to shoot me? And if
(10:53):
you do, where'd you get it? You know, and that's
the question, isn't it? And, you know, consent of the
governed means that for the massive monopoly power of government
to do something to somebody, it has to have consent
from that somebody. And that's what's at stake in this argument.
(11:15):
And and the progressive arguments don't work. And, you know,
they're they first of all, they've near bankrupted the country.
And second of all, they've made it terribly inefficient. And
third of all, we're not very good at fighting our
wars lately. And that's because bureaucracy, right. This divided this idea.
It's not even really divided the idea that experts should
(11:38):
rule instead of ordinary people.
S2 (11:40):
When we come back, I want to pursue this and pursue, well,
what do we do about it? Seems to me Donald
Trump's trying to do a lot about it. What does
Congress do about it? What are the courts do about it?
What are we the people do about it? This is
liberty and Learning episode six. I'm Mark Levin, he is
Doctor Larry Arnn. It is a Westwood One Hillsdale College
(12:02):
podcast partnership. On both of our networks. We'll be right back.
Welcome back America, this is Mark Levin, and I'm here
with the president of Hillsdale College, my dear friend Larry Arnn.
(12:23):
This is the Liberty and Learning Podcast episode six partnership
with Westwood One and Hillsdale College, our podcast networks. Now,
Doctor Arnn, I mean, Congress has a role too, other
than sitting there and watching what's taking place between the
executive branch and the courts, isn't that right?
S3 (12:41):
Yeah, Congress has a role. Of course it has a role.
This weekend I've started posting on X to give me
something to do because I don't have any time, and
also a whole new opportunity to make a fool of
myself and And on the weekend, Mike Lee, a very
good senator, came up with the idea that there should
be a three judge panel with immediate appeal to the
(13:02):
Supreme Court, and that would be better than what we've got,
but much better than that, because that presents a danger to.
And the danger is the Supreme Court will then become
a standing body to judge everything that goes on in
the executive branch, but the branches are co-equal. Lincoln makes
the point in the Dred Scott in his speech about
the Dred Scott decision, the second law ever overturned by
(13:25):
the Supreme Court, that each branch takes an oath to
the Constitution, and they must follow it as they understand
it and not as somebody else understands it. And so
conflict among the branches is bound to happen, and the
courts only decide them finally, in some cases. And that
(13:46):
means we all have to have an opinion about the Constitution.
And this conflict between the branches, as is going on now,
is a clue to the people that they should pay
attention and vote for the people they like who are
on the right side of the conflict. That means we
get to govern ourselves still. But anyway, Lee's opinion is
better than what we got. The best opinion I know is,
(14:08):
of course, the very great Clarence Thomas, and what he
says is the district courts should be confined to deciding
the matter. For the people who are in the room,
the ones before them, the parties to the case, they
should decide that subject, of course, to appeal and then
whatever they decide will be consequential and decisive for those
(14:30):
people until an appeal. And then higher courts can get
involved and sort it out. And in the meantime, work
can go on in the executive branch and the Congress
can continue to legislate. I think it's true. You're the
lawyer and you know more about this than I do.
But I think it's true that Congress could pass a
(14:51):
bill that said that, and that would because they defined
the lower courts under the Constitution.
S2 (14:55):
They could abolish the courts if they wanted to. But
here's my question to you about the proposal as you
explain it. I'm a little perplexed by this. Number one,
Congress won't do it. Number two, it depends who's on
this new court. So we're back at that again. And
number three, how does that fix anything? In other words,
I guess the argument is, well, at least the other
(15:16):
courts aren't doing it. Well, then the other courts aren't
doing it because somebody stepped in and told the other
courts not to do it. Why don't we just tell
the other courts not to do it?
S3 (15:24):
That would do just fine. And that it's better to write,
in other words, the Supreme Court when it becomes a
legislative body. It's not very good at it and it
loses prestige. Whereas if what it does is outside politics,
according to the law, strictly decide the cases that are
(15:45):
in front of it. And then there are appeals up
to the Supremes. And, you know, we have to remember
what the Dred Scott decision did is horrific, right? The
Republican Party was born with a plan to forbid slavery
expanding into any of the land not yet organized as
(16:07):
states that I'm very proud to report and claim all
the time. It's true that that idea was partially invented
here at Hillsdale College in a building that still stands.
S2 (16:18):
That's amazing.
S3 (16:19):
Isn't it great? I just love that. And, and and,
you know, it's one of the greatest acts of a
political party in history because it devised a constitutional way
to fight slavery without abolishing the authority of the states,
all the new land, and that was most of the
land of America in those days, would come in as
free states, and slavery would be placed in the course
(16:41):
of ultimate extinction. And then in 1857, Dred Scott was
a slave who'd been taken first into a federal territory
where there was no slavery, and then into Illinois for
a time when there was no slavery. Slavery. Then back
to Missouri, where there was. And he sued that he
should have his freedom. And Roger Taney, the aforementioned Supreme
(17:02):
Court chief justice, ruled in a very divided court that
the federal government had no power to regulate slavery, including
in the land not yet organized as states. And that's
just a horrific decision. And then, you know, it just
so happened Abraham Lincoln was alive, and he got to
(17:23):
answer that. And his speech on the Dred Scott decision
is one of the profoundest of his speeches and explains
the rightful and great authority of the courts and the
limits on that authority. And his argument is that when
the Supreme Court, these district court things are just crazy,
by the way, and outside all practice for the first
(17:45):
150 years of America, he said, is it a consensus Opinion.
Does it fit with the legal expectations that prevail at
the time? Are the historical and factual claims that it
makes true? Does it violate common sense? And if it does,
(18:05):
then it's worthy of great respect. But he says if
it's not, if it doesn't meet those criteria and the
people submit to it, quote, they shall have ceased to
be their own rulers. So and now it's much worse
than that horrific Dred Scott decision. Now, ordinary district judges
677 of them are doing it, and we can't govern
(18:29):
the country that way.
S2 (18:30):
Mhm. And who are these people? We don't even know
who they are.
S3 (18:35):
The guy in New York.
S2 (18:36):
There are lawyers who who got lucky.
S3 (18:38):
Yeah that's right. Got the guy in New York got
appointed by Obama. Another lady I think another female judge,
I think also an Obama appointee has taken over the
case now and sustained it so far. So in at
least four big cases, things that Trump has come in
to do, like a whirlwind, are in suspension right now.
(19:00):
And and you know he's and you know that's the
tactic right. Delay let time pass hope for relief in
the midterms right. And Trump was elected to do a
bunch of stuff. And Lord is he not sitting about it.
S2 (19:15):
And I think people need to understand it's not just
Trump's responsibility, which is I think what we're getting at here,
it is a key responsibility of his. But this other
elected entity, the United States Congress, I mean, they created
these courts. The Senate has to give its rubber stamp
on anybody that's going to serve in these courts. And
they ought not just walk away from their responsibilities here.
(19:37):
I mean, I don't even know if somebody put a
bill in the hopper that already says that. Excuse me,
you don't get to issue nationwide anything. Whatever you do
is in your district, period. And that would go a
long way in curtailing a lot of this abuse of power.
So why don't they just do that?
S3 (19:54):
You know, I don't know if there's a bill. There's
a bunch of smart senators. Tom Cotton should do such
a bill.
S2 (20:00):
Yeah, he'd be great.
S3 (20:01):
And, uh, I don't who's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee? But, uh,
you really.
S2 (20:07):
Want to know? I think it's Lindsey Graham.
S3 (20:10):
Okay, well.
S2 (20:11):
If I had to guess.
S3 (20:12):
He's imaginative.
S2 (20:14):
He could.
S3 (20:15):
Do it.
S2 (20:15):
That's a good way to put it. Yeah.
S4 (20:19):
If, uh.
S3 (20:20):
Yeah, they're.
S2 (20:21):
Busy in Saudi Arabia these days. But anyway, go ahead.
I'm listening.
S4 (20:24):
And see, you know, the what's.
S3 (20:26):
Happened in this building of the bureaucratic state. I was
in the course of saying maybe didn't finish it, that forever.
Scholars have debated. Are there 150 or more or fewer
of these rule making agencies because it's hard to count them, right.
And nobody can name them. You can't even count them? No. Well,
the Doge has been saying lately that they have found 450,
(20:49):
and that's plausible, right? Because they grow up over time,
there's no central record of them. They pass these regulations.
They've got you know, we now know look at USAID,
that they effectively have unlimited budgets. One of the things
that Doge has reported is like, you know, Hillsdale College
is a business and your radio show is a business,
(21:11):
and Westwood One is a business. And that means that
it goes through three simple steps. It decides what it's
going to spend money on, and then people spend the
money or apply to get a payment made. And then
somebody checks to see if it fits with what's been decided.
Three steps. Apparently they don't do the third step in
(21:33):
the federal government. As I say, their appropriations bills and
the massive amounts of money. And if one of these
agencies presents a bill to the Treasury, they just pay it.
And that's one of the reasons why they've not been
able to complete an audit of the Pentagon for five
years because the records are not there. They don't keep them.
That's why they're not there. So it's just limitless money
(21:57):
and it just flows. Right. And of course, the people
who work under those conditions, that two things follow from that,
by the way, being in an unaccountable position. The first
is you. You treasure it. You like it. The second
is it does not make you happy, right? Because where's
(22:17):
the achievement? Where's the accomplishment? Right. If all you've got,
there's no deadline. You just. I mean, what is it?
I it's been in the papers that 6% of the
federal workforce shows up for work every day. That's amazing.
S4 (22:34):
Crazy.
S3 (22:35):
And check in by the month. Right. And we need
to get some discipline over this, because we're $37 trillion
in debt. For what? What do we get for it
except interference? So that's that's the argument we're having today.
And these district judges who've intervened, four or 5 or
(22:55):
6 of them. They're on the front lines of that.
And they're exercising a power they ought not to have,
do not rightfully have.
S2 (23:03):
When we come back, ladies and gentlemen, Elon Musk. The
Democrats keep saying he's unconstitutional. He doesn't have this power.
He's unelected. What's all that mean? We'll be right back
with Larry Arnn on Mark Levin on liberty and Learning.
Episode six A partnership between Westwood One and Hillsdale College
(23:25):
and our podcast networks. We'll be right back. Welcome back America.
This is Liberty and Learning with Doctor Larry Arnn, president
of Hillsdale. I'm Mark Levin here, the joint podcast of
(23:47):
Westwood One and Hillsdale College. We love this partnership. It's
so important that we convey to you real constitutional notions
and ideas about your rule of law. And that's the
purpose of this program, among other things. Now, Larry Arnn,
Elon Musk, the Democrats, who, by the way, despise the Constitution,
they've spent years telling us they despise it, that it's
(24:09):
too white, that it's too old, that the framers, their monuments,
need to be torn down. And then they keep waving
the Constitution in front of us. Pretty, pretty pathetic. But
they're telling us Elon Musk is unconstitutional. How do you
reply to that?
S3 (24:24):
Well, I would say that Elon Musk is in his
role as the Doge is plainly and clearly constitutional, although
as a personal figure, he transcends any document. He's an
amazing guy. True enough. You know, he's going to Mars, but.
And he made my Cybertruck and I really like it. Uh, well, it.
S2 (24:46):
Drives it, you know.
S3 (24:47):
Yeah. It does. Yeah. It drives itself. Amazing. Anyway, so
that guy, you know, is not constrained by much of
anything except in this role. And that is to say,
he doesn't actually have any power except to find stuff
out and report it. And only Donald Trump and his
long established agents, key among them, a really great man
(25:09):
named Russ Vought, who's the director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Only they can do anything. And the
Duchess comes in and finds out stuff, and they seem
to be really good at it. And, uh, you know,
hee hee, the way it's like, it's it's fun to
listen to the debate on both sides, by the way,
(25:31):
because both sides are making fundamental points now. But what
Musk does is compare it, what he sees to what
a business is like. And it's just different as night
and day and it's corrupt or unaccountable or both. They
go together, those two things. And so like that thing
about how they don't reconcile what's been approved with what's paid,
(25:56):
they don't take that step. And that's crazy that they don't.
And it means they can't be audited. And that's unaccountable. Right.
And and then, you know, the way he runs his company,
I saw a really funny thing. Somebody, you know, they're
saying it's Elizabeth Warren. I think the senator said, uh,
(26:18):
it's dangerous to have a guy like Musk messing around
with the air traffic controllers. And somebody replied, hey, the
dude caught a rocket in midair.
S2 (26:30):
Yeah, yeah.
S3 (26:31):
So so that was pretty good. I think he's a
historic human being, and he really knows how to run
a business, and he seems to really know how to
analyze one. And so I think just the transparency of
all of this. My friend Roger Kimball keeps writing, and
(26:51):
I may have said it to him first. Maybe this
whole state is like vampires. They die in the sunlight.
And I hope so.
S2 (26:59):
Mhm. Mhm. Now, how is it possible that a GS 13,
a mid-level bureaucrat in the Department of fill in the blank,
has all kinds of powers to make decisions about employment
funding policies and so forth. But his boss, the president
of the United States, as you note, who was actually
in the Constitution does not.
S3 (27:22):
That's that's the thing, right? I mean, you have to
go back to the early days. So progressivism comes into
America in the late 19th and early 20th century, and
it comes into America by a bunch of people who
were very influenced by German thought, German historicism. And they thought,
you know, Woodrow Wilson is the most successful politically of them.
(27:45):
He was president of Princeton before he was president. And
he writes in the most telling essay that the Constitution
was written in a time accountable to Isaac Newton. And
they thought of it as a mechanism. But now we
have Darwin, and we know that everything must evolve. Government
must be a living and changing thing. And he and
(28:08):
John Dewey and Frank Goodenough and those guys, Herbert Croly,
you can read about them all in the Constitution, reader
of the Hillsdale College, what they thought was, we're going
to build a new kind of state run by experts,
and it will still be under the authority of the people,
but it will propose everything, and the people can veto it.
And the president becomes a national spokesman for what the
(28:33):
bureaucracy recommends. And that's laid out in their early writings.
And now it has come to be. And there's a
man named James Landis who's an important author, and he
writes that you won't need separation of powers anymore because
these people will have guaranteed tenure and guaranteed salaries, and
(28:56):
so they won't have any interest against the public interest.
And you just have to put that statement against the
best statement in the Federalist Papers, to my mind, written
by James Madison. You have to have controls on the
government because men are not angels, and angels do not
govern men. If you just compare those two claims by
(29:18):
Lantis and Madison, then you can decide which side you're on.
S2 (29:22):
Mhm. Where do you see this going? I think at
some point the Supreme Court is not going to allow
this judicial chaos to go on under it. It's not
going to allow these federal district judges to act like
rogue individuals, Supreme Court type justices, who can just make
these decisions for everybody. I mean, at some point, I
(29:45):
think Roberts and the majority of the court are going
to have to step in. Don't you?
S3 (29:49):
I do. I predict that they will, but who knows?
I think we know how 4 or 5 of them
are going to vote, maybe six, probably because they're on
record about this. Four of them at least. And you know,
it's a it's a it's a very important thing. It
can't ultimately depend on them. I like to say in
(30:12):
a crisis like that, like the like the Civil War,
this is like the Civil War crisis, right? In the
Civil War. It was very difficult to think that we'd
be able to get rid of slavery, and it was
very difficult to think that it could continue. Both were hard.
It's very difficult to think that we can overcome this
massive mess, and it's very difficult to think that it
(30:34):
can continue and that we won't overcome it. And so
right now, we're at a moment of crisis, which means
turning point, right? One thing or the other. And we
have to we have to choose now to. That's another thing.
One of the things that caused the Civil War was
that it really couldn't go on anymore, because we were
(30:54):
trying to settle the Western lands and, you know, Kansas
and Nebraska was the big there was an actual war
in those places. The little mini civil war, a lot
of big body count. Because are you going to take
your slaves there or not? Right. And so finally, something
had to be done. And this is like that. Uh,
(31:16):
we are apparently generating $1 trillion in deficit every hundred days,
and the pace is quickening. Something's got to be done.
And and so because something has to be done, probably finally,
at last, something will be done. And one can hope
a restoration of constitutional government is what's possible.
S2 (31:39):
All right. Fantastic. We can go on hour after hour
after hour. But time is limiting. I want to thank you,
doctor Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, as usual, for
your incredible insight. I enjoy just listening to it. Um,
and you folks, you're listening to Liberty and Learning. This
is episode six. If you want to learn more about
(32:00):
Hillsdale College, it's actually quite simple. Go to hillsdale.edu. They
have a fantastic website, hillsdale.edu. They have over 40 courses
that are available to you for free. They're absolutely fascinating
and a whole lot of information in there right at
your fingertips. And they take the time and put the
resources in collecting all this information and bringing the sort
(32:22):
of the brilliant constitutional scholars and others to you. It's
the only college I know that does this sort of thing.
So it's very, very important. Hillsdale.edu. Doctor Larry Arnn, until
next time. God bless you and be safe, my brother.
S3 (32:35):
Thank you very much. You're a great man.
S2 (32:37):
Take care and see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.