September 23, 2025 • 37 mins
What happens when a president pushes the edges of the rulebook—and the referees look away? In this joint episode of The Logical Lawyer and It’s That Part, Jesse Lee Hammonds and attorney Bernie Brown unpack where presidential authority ends and constitutional guardrails begin. From Congress ceding ground to lifetime federal courts, to the Supreme Court’s role as (sometimes) the final brake, they trace how norms can erode when silence replaces accountability. You’ll hear a grounded walk-through of “zones” of presidential power, why civil and religious leaders matter in moments of drift, and how deploying troops in U.S. cities tests both law and public psyche. The stakes are simple: democratic resilience or gradual normalization of executive overreach. Listen for a clear framework you can use to spot power plays in real time—and a call to engage locally, vote consistently, and hold institutions to their mandates. Press play and share with someone who cares about the Constitution.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Coming up on this edition ofthe Joint Podcast, um, when you
think about presidential powersand presidential limitations, you
know, what, uh, what comes to mind?
I, well, you know,
the, the interesting thing is there's somany limitations on presidential power.
I mean.
(00:21):
First of all, obviously
at the intersection of logic and truth,
this is the logical lawyer, and it'sthat part, exploring legal, social,
and cultural issues with insight,clarity and purpose, truth and
(00:42):
logic, sharp and clear insight, and.
Where truth needs logic in action,
it's the Logical lawyerand it's that part.
Welcome to the Talk of the Times, a jointproduction of the Logical Lawyer with
(01:04):
host Bernie Brown and the It's That PartPodcast hosted by yours Truly, Jesse Lee
Hammonds and although we approach thevarious items and persons of interest.
From different backgrounds professionally.
Bernie being a prosecutor and formerLos Angeles, California Assistant City
Attorney, as well as a Hall of Fame memberof the John m Langston Bar Association
(01:28):
of Los Angeles, just to name a coupleof headliners and me, a long time.
Former manager of human resourcesand corporate assets at the Fortune
500 Company at and t and formerRadio and International Club Jock.
We have a shared commitment toclarity, logic, lawfulness, relevance,
(01:49):
as well as truth in every fact.
All brought together with realconversations amongst ourselves
and with others about the times inwhich we have and currently live.
It's the talk of the times,uh, that, that, that evil guy
in, in dc he's, he's a mess.
(02:10):
He, he, he's really a mess.
Um, um, one of the brothers in classtoday, I wonder who you're talking about.
Who could you be talking about?
Oh my goodness.
One of the brothers in class.
As a matter of fact, after class.
Um, they, uh, they, they shared with methat they would usually go through this
particular conference, uh, in Dallas.
(02:34):
Uh, and I'll just go ahead and say it.
It was the SBC conference.
Um, okay.
And, you know, I mean, it is what it is.
And, but they didn't gothis last time because
Do you, do you want to let, goahead say that what SBC stands for?
I know what it stands for andyou know what it stands for, but
(02:54):
do you want to say it directly?
Let's see.
Maybe not, maybe not.
Well,
no, no.
I thought we could, we could, uh,it, it's, it's the, uh, the Southern
Baptist, you know, conference.
And, um, because they have along history and, and they're
still dealing with that history.
Yes.
(03:14):
Um, you know, it is rather deep andrather, rather raw, you know, so
they're still dealing with that.
And fast forward to 2025as a matter of fact.
Um.
Th they, well, well, a lot of members,I suspect these, these members, the one
that I was talking to, he said that theycouldn't go, him and his wife couldn't
(03:37):
go because they were all trumped out.
You know, they, they, they could, theycouldn't, uh, you know, that was the, the
audience that was there, you know, I mean,everybody's like, you know, you know,
coming to that dinner right there, and,uh, and they couldn't be a part of that.
(03:58):
And, and our, I'll just say our pastor,I won't identify, you know, our church
or anything, but, but our pastor, youknow, he understood, you know, um.
And he's got certainly, youknow, high affiliation with them,
with the organization there.
Um, but uh, they have seem s and I don'tknow, uh, but it just seems like they're
(04:23):
kinda regressing a little bit there.
Because if they're embracing a guylike that who, I don't know if you
heard, you know, some of the latest,you know that he's spewed, uh, he said
something about, this was the otherday and this is what I was, uh, talking
with the gentleman about this morning.
(04:45):
He said, um, I need everybody togive me $15 so that I can, so God
will, will probably let me in heaven.
Now if, if, if you give me $15.
Uh, uh, God will probably let me in heaven
and um, wow.
(05:06):
It is like, and I don't know if he saidthat in the presence of some evangelicals
or what, but whether he did or not,I'm certain that they heard it directly
or heard about it, and I don't seeanybody rushing to anybody's microphone.
(05:27):
To denounce that, you know?
Yeah.
That
should have been immediately denounced.
First of all, he's wealthy, so whywould he need $15 and what would
that have to do with his salvation?
I mean, it's, it's justwrong on so many levels.
So many that it and,and totally offensive.
Totally offensive.
(05:47):
Um,
it, it, it, yeah.
I, I, I just feel, um, it justabout, and I was sharing this
with, uh, the brother this morning.
I said, you know, it, it just get,I mean, I could see him okay, but
the people that are around himthat's supposed to know better.
Uh, you know, just not saying anythingthat, that, that's like knowing
(06:10):
that this person is going to commita crime and, and you just stand by
and let 'em just commit the crime.
You know, it's me.
Or if someone.
Did anybody see that?
You don't, you don't say anything.
Yeah.
You know, you know, and that, thatkind of ties into one of the, um,
(06:33):
one of the presidential powers, uh,power zones, I guess you would say it.
Um, uh, 'cause there's like three of them.
I, I, I found that when you, uh, suggestedthe, uh, the topic there, I said, okay,
uh, that's pretty broad and, and, andthere's some nuggets in there as well.
(06:53):
And one of the aspects of thatpresidential limitations is, you know,
the, the three, you know, uh, zones.
Um, there is the, uh, let'ssee, the maximum authority zone.
They, they, instead ofthat, uh, uh, zone one.
And, uh, this is when the, thepresident, um, acts with, uh,
(07:17):
congressional approval on things.
Yeah, that's the, you, you, you'requoting from the Youngstown case.
Yeah.
That Youngstown case, which is,which is still relevant these days.
Uh, uh, now, you know,George Bush used it.
You know, George HW Bush used it.
Yes.
You know, during the Gulf War, um,and there's this, uh, Twilight Zone.
(07:44):
Uh, now that's whenthe Congress is silent.
Mm-hmm.
You know, not saying anything, whichis my point right here, uh, that, you
know, there, there are a number of peoplethat went through seminary and Bible
college and you know, even Sunday school.
They know better and they're upthere in the, in the pulpit teaching
(08:08):
everybody how to do better and howto do this and that and the other.
But, but yet it won'tsay anything to this guy.
Yeah.
They keep looking the otherway and at some point.
I, I do believe that at some pointthey will stop looking the other
way and, and get to a point wherethey will say, enough is enough.
(08:29):
Well, well, that, that was that.
He's just gone
too far.
That was the question I had whenI was talking with this brother.
W what does that look like?
What it, what does enough looked like?
Because I'm, you know, youwould think that, you know
enough was that tape of him.
(08:51):
You say he, he can grab women anywhere.
You know, you would think, yeah.
You would think that, youknow, that would be logical.
Uh, yes.
I got that.
That's, that's
pretty good.
It is logical.
Uh, you know, and, and, and the listcould go on, you know, I mean, he, he's.
(09:11):
I mean, you know, and I'm nottrying to even, you know, judge
him per se, I'm just stating facts.
It, the, the facts are right there.
You know, I don't have to add any saltor sugar or paprika or old bay to it.
You know?
It, it's, it, it is what it is.
(09:33):
Well, Christians are supposed tobe the moral compass of society.
I mean, that's.
What Christians are supposed to be.
And when they look the other way,when they think only about their own
self-interest or ignore, uh, evilintent, evil design, uh, then they're
(09:54):
just not living up to the principles ofChristianity in, in, in, in my opinion.
I, I agree with that.
And, and there's people lookingat that and listening for that.
Um.
You know, it's not necessarily, you know,what you say, but how you're living.
But it's also what yousay as well, you know?
(10:16):
Yes.
You know, it all matters.
It really all matters becausepeople receive information in
different ways, you know, so
Well, he, he, he, he, Ishould say, lost me when he.
Uh, well, he had lost me before this,but when he said two Corinthians, it was
like, oh, this guy's never been in church.
(10:38):
He doesn't even know
how to, how to pronounce.
I mean, that evidence, circumstantialevidence that that's but beyond
reasonable down there like this.
Everybody in, anybody who'sbeen to church knows that it's.
Second Corinthians and you know,nobody corrected him either.
(11:01):
No.
They let it ride.
Yeah.
You know, like, likethat's like, that's gospel.
Yeah.
I mean, that's crazy.
Yeah.
So, so, I mean,
go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead, go.
No, go right ahead.
No, no, I was, I was just great.
Uh, uh, lean into, uh, so, um, whenyou think about presidential powers
(11:25):
and presidential limitations, youknow, what, uh, what comes to mind?
Uh, I, well, you know,
the, the interesting thing is there'sso many limitations on President Power.
I mean, the, first of all, obviouslythere's the Constitution, which
has all these limitations onwhat a president can do, right?
Uh, there's the balance of powers thatare written into the Constitution.
(11:48):
Congress has certain powers.
Mm-hmm.
Article war.
The courts have certain powers.
Mm-hmm.
And the people, the peoplehave certain powers.
Right.
Send powers.
But it's kind of interesting becauseit looks like our president has figured
out a way or is figuring out ways toget around all of these, uh, powers.
(12:09):
I mean, all of theseconstraints, I should say, on his
powers and, you know, uh,something else that came up.
Uh.
Well, I'll just say in the meetingthis morning, uh, was that, uh, he,
he's obviously, and this is basedon not just the two Corinthians
statement there, but other statements.
(12:31):
He's obviously not necessarily, youknow, the brightest one, you know?
Okay.
So there's some, some sinister,you know, intelligence intelligent.
You know, in back of him that's reallyactually driving a lot of this, you know.
Easy thing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, because they're, they'recooking that up back there.
(12:55):
Uh, I, I never, I have to be honest, I'venever ceased to be amazed by the man.
He's veian, shall we say?
Yes.
He's crafty.
Mm-hmm.
Uh.
He's cunning.
He's, in my opinion, deceitful.
Yes, but he's figured it out.
I mean, he's, he got elected, reelected,even in the face of all of the things
(13:23):
he's done and said, and since he's been.
But here's the thing.
I believe that if there werean election today, he would
not be reelected at this time.
His, uh, poll ratings are, are fallingthrough the floor and rightfully so.
I mean, the things he's done, I mean,he really threw me a loop when he came
(13:47):
out and said Ukraine started the war.
Oh.
I'm like, everybody in the worldknows Russia started the war.
How could he say that?
But he said that on world,on on, you know, worldwide
television and gets away with it.
I mean, nobody said, wait aminute, what are you doing?
(14:10):
I think you know, the part that he'sfigured out or has known for a while,
I think, is that that, what was it,77 million or 70 million or whatever,
or people that voted for him, either.
They're just as nuts as he is.
Uh, or they don't care.
(14:32):
They don't care.
They, they, they, they might evenknow, 'cause I'm certain that
some of these people are doctorsand lawyers and professors and
all that, so they have to know.
That he's lying, you know, andthat that's not right and this
is wrong and blah, blah blah.
So they must not care.
And the thing that probably drawsthem all together on one accord
(14:56):
to let that slide or just not, youknow, act like it didn't happen or he
didn't say that is white supremacy.
Yeah, I think that is a major part of it.
I think that they zero in on certain.
Points that he states eitherdirectly or indirectly.
(15:18):
And as long as he'spromoting to those points,
yes, yes.
They're okay with it.
Yes.
And so I think white supremacy isa major part of, of the background
of what he is advocating.
Yep.
He does it sometimes on the down low.
And sometimes it's very obvious.
Yeah.
Of what?
(15:39):
Of what's going on.
He, he has I impunity, he, he hasthat, uh, uh, and I think that, uh,
Nixon probably, well Ford probablylaid the ground rope work for the
impunity part of it when he, uh, uh,um, pardon Nixon, you know, I mean,
(15:59):
because the walls were closing in.
You know, he had committed crimes and,and he was going to be prosecuted.
Yes.
But for that.
Pardon?
But he did.
But he did that and that set precedent.
And, and then this guy, Mr. Authoritarian.
(16:20):
He turns that all the way up.
I mean, he, he had some of the samepeople that were, they were wr with, uh,
with Nixon, because Roger Stoney, he'sback in the background here, so we, we
already know he was the dirty trickster.
And so, um, he's just, you know,injected, him and his people have just
in injected that impunity thing, youknow, with steroids, especially now
(16:42):
that they've got the Supreme Court,you know, blessing it, you know.
Absolutely.
I think it's an underlying currentof, of virtually everything he does.
This whole thing about, likeyou said, white supremacy.
What's this immigration thing about?
Hmm.
It, it seems like it's always beingenforced against people of color.
Yes.
You know, and it, and it'sdone on a blanket scale.
(17:06):
It's not like they're goingindividual by individual.
No.
They're going to, uh, areas wherethey know there are a lot of his.
Hispanics and now Koreans.
Mm-hmm.
They're going there and now they're, and,and they're doing sweeps, blind sweeps.
It, it's theoretically violatingthe constitutional Right.
Uh, right against unlawfuldetention, unlawful search.
(17:30):
Mm-hmm.
And, and yet they're doing thisand they're getting away with it.
And it seems like you, you're,you've suggested that an
underlying current seems to be.
Uh, theoretically racism.
Yeah.
I, I, I, I think it is, uh, it's, it'sunfortunately, you know, the, uh, uh,
(17:50):
part of the fabric of this country,um, and, you know, and uniquely so, not
that it's not that in other countries,but, but it's uniquely, you know, it
it, a part of this country's fabric.
Um, and it's, it's, it's likea race to get back there.
Uh, the number of things thatare being put in place because
(18:16):
this, that's happening now.
Didn't just get, get cooked up lastyear, you know, they, they've been
cooking this, you know, for a couple,a couple, at least a couple decades.
Um, and, uh, because the FederalistSociety, I mean the heritage, uh, of,
uh, society, um, and, um, you know, andthose other groups that were connected to
(18:41):
them, you know, I forget what they had.
It was, it was a plan.
Uh, but then had it, it morphed intowhat's now known as Project 2025.
Uh, and I hear they're workingon Project 2028 as well.
Oh no.
You know.
Oh, no.
Which is just a continuation of thingsthere, and I've always said it, it was
(19:05):
kind of a, a shot in the, in the, in thedark there perhaps, uh, when, uh, I first
started saying this or talking about it.
Years ago.
I think they want not onlythat 14th amendment, but they
want that 13th amendment.
They, they've already,they already have the, you
think they're goingafter the 13th amendment?
Yes.
Yes I do.
And slavery, they wanna reinstate slavery.
(19:28):
What one, one of our guests.
Suggested that, you know, not toolong ago, as a matter of fact, you
know, as far as, you know, what arepeople waiting for, you know, you
know, because if they put people, ifthey're incarcerated people, they arrest
them, put 'em incarceration when they,once they get into car incarceration.
What rights do they have?
(19:51):
What right is not applicable to them?
You know that key one, that's, thatthir at 13th Amendment, you know, they
don't have, you know, uh, the right.
They're technically.
Relegated to being, you know,uh, slaves, indigenous servants.
There are certain ordinances that doallow forced labor of people who have
(20:17):
been incarcerated and convicted ofcertain felony or felony convictions.
So, yes.
And historically, uh, as welook, uh, if we look back years
ago, uh, soon after slavery.
It was a process whereby certainsouthern states would have people
arrested and, and placed in jailfor like speeding or something.
(20:44):
Mm-hmm.
Not speeding, but certain, uh, offenses.
Minor offenses.
Right.
And then use them for forced labor.
Uh.
So, I mean, it, it certainly is possible.
I don't see the countrygoing back to slavery.
I hope not.
I think that there would be a massiverebellion, uh, amongst, uh, even amongst
(21:05):
our, uh, Caucasian, uh, sympathizers.
Uh, I think even they would.
Rise up against that.
What?
What do you think about the 14th?
And even maybe the Southern BaptistChristians would rise up against that?
Wow.
No, I don't know, man.
I mean,
because
I think they might say, wait a minute.
(21:25):
They
might, they might drift intonostalgia or something like, Hey,
that's the way it used to be.
You know?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, God bless 'em, or excuseme, God had mercy on them, but, uh.
I don't know.
I, I, I just, you know, the, the,the, the evil is just so deep.
(21:45):
You know, the, the country was builton a lot of that, you know what I mean?
Yes.
It wasn't like, like they cameover here and negotiated with the
Indians, you know, or anything.
You know, it's not like.
They, you know, went to Africa afterthe Portuguese did their thing.
They didn't go over there withcontracts and like, Hey, you know,
(22:06):
uh, we can offer you this and benefitsand, you know, uh, and a pension.
No, uh, uh, definitely not 40acres and a mule, you know?
Uh, so, uh, after the fact.
So, you know, and, and it, andover a period of time there's been
(22:27):
this concerted effort to suppress.
You know, those, you know, there's beenpeople like yourself and myself and,
and many others that have gotten througha lot of that, but as evident, uh, of
how they treated the, the first andonly black president that we've had.
(22:50):
Hmm.
They treated him just like he was that
Yes, many of them did.
You know, many of them did.
It reminds me of a story, 'causeyou mentioned that, uh, when I was,
uh, started law school, when I wasin law school, some students came
to me and said, we want you to runfor president of the student body.
Mm-hmm.
So I, I, I said, okay, and I, I,uh, we had a, a, a open forum, like
(23:15):
a debate, and I said, being fromsouth central LA not being naive Mm.
I said, well, you know, whitepeople, they enslaved blacks.
They took the Indians land.
They, they just forcefullytook their land.
They put Asians in concentration camps.
Mm-hmm.
And I went on and on and on.
(23:37):
Right.
Needless to say, I did not get elected.
Oh,
I wonder why I didn't win that election.
You know, actually, you know, and that'skind of similar to, uh, the story I,
that I got from this, uh, gentlemanthat I was speaking with this morning
of, uh, of, uh, evangelical that wentto one of the, the BC's conferences.
(24:01):
Uh, and, um, no, no, no.
He went to the White House.
He said he went to the White House.
He was, he was a part of a delegation thatwent to the White House, uh, true story.
And he said he, um, the delegationthat he was with was aware that he
was going to ask a particular questionor some particular questions and
(24:22):
is dealt with immigration and, um.
And so when they were going aroundthe room and asking whether or
not people had any questions, youknow, for the president, blah,
blah, blah, he raised his hand.
And according to, uh, the brotherthat I was speaking with, the,
(24:43):
the evangelicals that werestanding around him stepped back.
They stepped away from him.
He still asked the question.
He said he was nervous and all of that.
And, uh, you know, uh, because hewas talking about, hey, you know, uh,
he's, you know, trying to, you know,have a congregate, a congregation
(25:07):
and everything, and your guysare coming and taking my members.
You know, and et cetera,et cetera, et cetera.
But there, the, the delegationthat he was with, they didn't
want anything to do with that.
Um, and, and, and these areChristians, and to your point
of as, as far as running.
(25:27):
And speaking the truth, uh,the, the facts, you know?
Yeah.
Uh, people, people feel all kindsof ways about it, and it, it's
just, it's just stunning the, theway people react to just evil.
Right there in, in 70, 70, 70 somethingodd million people said, yes, you
(25:51):
know, we want that kind of guy.
In office.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They certainly did.
And you know, ultimately it's a questionthat everybody has to ask of themselves.
Mm. You know,
it, it is a question where you, you haveto ask yourself, what do I stand for?
You know, do I stand for what'sright or do I stand for, for
(26:13):
just my own personal interest?
You know, do I stand for justiceand truth and, and what's right?
Was morally right or do I just say,oh no, I'm, I'm just going to do
stand for what, what, what helped me?
What benefits me?
And every person has toanswer that question.
And fortunately, a lot of peopleanswer it in the affirmative
(26:37):
that is, they say, no, no, no.
I'm gonna stand up for what's right.
I'm gonna stand up for what's Jes.
I'm gonna stand up for what's moral.
I'm gonna stand up for what I believe in.
And, and, and so fortunatelythere are not a lot of people
like that, uh, unfortunately,
(26:59):
that are not, thus, thus, theconversation about these presidential
powers and limitations there.
Um, so many presidents, w we've,we've had what, 47 of them, you know?
Yes.
Some of them co couple times in.
And this one stands out.
I mean, you know.
(27:19):
Yes.
You know, we had, um, uh, Nixon, you know,in, in his situation there, and many,
you know, want, wanted to actually accuseObama of similar, um, you know, yeah.
Uh, testing of that limitation there.
(27:41):
However, I, you know, I would argue that.
He did what he had to dobecause Congress would not act.
Mm-hmm.
In fact, there was a concentrated effort,you know, to, you know, kill anything that
he was trying to do that, that was good.
Mm-hmm.
Anything, you know.
Yes, sir. Uh, in fact, if he wastrying some of the things that the
(28:02):
current one is trying right now.
In doing right now.
You know, there, there would bepeople with pitchforks and, and,
and, and, uh, uh, the fire on thesticks, you know, in, in, in the
front yard of, uh, of the White House.
Uh, it works, you know?
Uh, yeah.
I mean, yeah, when you look at it.
With regard to the limitations onpresidential power, mm, presidential
(28:27):
power is supposedly containedthrough a separation of powers.
That is the power of the Congress, USCongress, and the power of the courts.
And technically also included,uh, is the power of the people.
Mm-hmm.
With regard to their vote.
Now, when either sector of thatparticular, of those separations of
(28:50):
power, uh, when any segment doesn'tfulfill its obligation, it's moral oblig.
Uh, then the country suffers.
So what we're seeing right now is Congressjust giving up their power virtually.
Yep.
Uh, what we see is, uh, the presidentexercising authority, which is, uh.
(29:14):
Designated the Congress, the Constitution,uh, designates certain powers to Congress
and uh, certainly Congress seems tojust be kinda rolling over and allowing
him to, uh, to execute, you know, dothings that he's not authorized to do.
And he stacked.
The courts an interesting thingbecause judicial appointments.
(29:39):
Federal judicial appointmentsare lifetime appointments.
And so that means that, uh, hecan't, he can't just remove a federal
judge in Article three, judge.
Mm-hmm.
So they're there for life, and in theoryor in law, they could, they could rule
against him and many federal judges have.
(30:02):
Yep.
But the Supreme Court seems to be, uh.
Supporting him in a lot of his activities.
And that is, uh, once again, theyare, they are supposedly a stop gap.
Yeah.
They, they
are there to make, to protectdemocracy and to protect the
constitution, to make sure thepresident doesn't overstep his bounds.
(30:28):
And, uh, I, you know, you, Idon't necessarily agree with.
A lot of things they've done or mm-hmm.
Are doing.
But, uh, I hope that they will stepin and I believe that if it gets to a
certain point, they will step in, step in.
They will stop a dictatorship.
(30:48):
I believe they will do thatif it gets to that point.
And many people believe that thepresident is testing the ground.
To see just how far he can go.
Well see the thing with that and, andI hope that, that they can do that, but
(31:09):
like many of the other courts, they don'treally have an enforcement mechanism.
Yes.
You know, I mean.
Uh, and he's lining up his chesspieces, you know, around all of that.
And, and, and I don't, there's probablysome, some indicators there or whatever,
but I don't have hard evidence.
(31:30):
But it just, it seems like it hasto be a conspiracy going on here
because everybody's falling in lineway too nicely there, you know?
To, to allow this and that to go on.
You know, maybe they'll lose the casehere, lose the case there, whatever.
But they're not deterred, you know,from, you know, uh, running their
(31:52):
plays, running the plan there.
And they're not, they're not worried.
If they were worried, I thinkthey'd be acting a lot differently.
You know, but they know thatultimately, you know, they say,
the court says no, then what?
Yeah.
I think to a large degree, theSupreme Court at least philosophically
(32:14):
agrees with what he's doing.
Yes.
And your point is well taken.
That courts don't have a military?
Nope.
He's technically thecommander in chief mm-hmm.
Of the armed forces.
And he's using that now.
Technically he cannot wage war.
Only Congress can wage war.
Right.
But we see him now, uh, using his poweras commander in chief in ways that
(32:37):
we've virtually never seen before.
I mean, sitting, sendingtroops into cities.
That don't want them, the, thecities are saying we don't want them.
Our crime rate is goingdown, we don't need them.
And he's sending city, uh, troops in,in those cities, uh, which it appears as
though maybe he's just trying to, uh, flexhis muscle or, or test the boundaries.
(33:03):
Of his authority.
I think it's the test, but
I, I, I don't believe the you, if histrue motivation is to stop crime in
the major cities, unfortunately it'snot, I don't believe it's gonna work.
It will work temporarily.
When you have a bunch of military,you know, troops standing on the
corner, then your, your re youreveryday burglar is gonna say, oh,
(33:26):
well I'll just wait until they leave.
Right.
But you can't keep 'em there forever?
No.
At some point they have to goprotect the nation or, you know,
and you don't have enough of them.
So as soon as they leave,the criminals will come back.
So that's why it's better tosupport local law enforcement.
With funds and support, uh, because theyare in a position to provide long-term
(33:54):
protection against criminal activity asopposed to just a short-term temporary
fix.
Exactly.
Now, you know, because in, in, inlocal law enforcement, that's another
interesting story as far as theirorigins go, uh, as far as catching
the runaway slaves and all of that.
Uh, but then, you know, graduallygetting into others more civic,
(34:18):
you know, minded, you know, uh, uh,activities and everything, to your
point, being a permanent presence there.
Um,
the, the, there, I think, and there'smany have said the same thing.
There's, uh, uh, seamlesslyor appears to be, uh.
(34:38):
A, a, a, a real desire to normalize seeingthese soldiers, you know, and people
in uniform on corners and everything.
And I mentioned that in one of ourother podcasts that I've actually seen
that in action down in the Philippines.
Um, I mean, they were just everywhereand they were permanent fixtures
(34:59):
and, and I don't know what the crimerate or anything like that was down
in the Philippines at the time.
There, you know, it, you know, every,a lot of things were corrupt anyway.
It still is, but um.
But to normalize that, uh, you know, doessomething to a psyche, you know, to know
(35:20):
that okay, you know, we, we are not free.
And that's the talk of the times.
On behalf of the co-host BernieBrown, we thank you for listening and
we hope it compels you into actionor triggers some mindful thought
about the times in which we live.
We also invite you to check outthe Logical Lawyer, Bernie Brown
(35:43):
and the It's that Part Podcast withyours truly, Jesse Lee Hammonds.
Whenever you listen to your podcast andfor even more, Bernie, check out his
book on Amazon, a Prosecutor's Analysisof Personal Supernatural Experiences,
which is a collection of fascinatingstories awaiting your verdict of fact
(36:04):
fiction, fabrication, or fantasy.
You decide you can alsoconnect with Bernie on his
website, the Logic attorney.me.
That's the logical attorney.meand connect with me at it's that
part.com where you can also accessboth podcasts and now you've got it.
(36:27):
It's the talk of the Times
at the intersection of logic and truth.
This is the logical lawyer and it'sthat part exploring legal, social, and
cultural issues with insight, clarity.
Purpose, truth and logic, sharp andclear insight and hope we bring it here
(36:57):
where truth, logic, and action.
It's the logical lawyerand it's that part.
Coming up on this edition ofthe Joint Podcast, um, when you
think about presidential powersand presidential limitations, you
know, what, uh, what comes to mind?
I, well, you know,
the, the interesting thing is there's somany limitations on presidential power.
I mean.
(00:21):
First of all, obviously
at the intersection of logic and truth,
this is the logical lawyer, and it'sthat part, exploring legal, social,
and cultural issues with insight,clarity and purpose, truth and
(00:42):
logic, sharp and clear insight, and.
Where truth needs logic in action,
it's the Logical lawyerand it's that part.
Welcome to the Talk of the Times, a jointproduction of the Logical Lawyer with
(01:04):
host Bernie Brown and the It's That PartPodcast hosted by yours Truly, Jesse Lee
Hammonds and although we approach thevarious items and persons of interest.
From different backgrounds professionally.
Bernie being a prosecutor and formerLos Angeles, California Assistant City
Attorney, as well as a Hall of Fame memberof the John m Langston Bar Association
(01:28):
of Los Angeles, just to name a coupleof headliners and me, a long time.
Former manager of human resourcesand corporate assets at the Fortune
500 Company at and t and formerRadio and International Club Jock.
We have a shared commitment toclarity, logic, lawfulness, relevance,
(01:49):
as well as truth in every fact.
All brought together with realconversations amongst ourselves
and with others about the times inwhich we have and currently live.
It's the talk of the times,uh, that, that, that evil guy
in, in dc he's, he's a mess.
(02:10):
He, he, he's really a mess.
Um, um, one of the brothers in classtoday, I wonder who you're talking about.
Who could you be talking about?
Oh my goodness.
One of the brothers in class.
As a matter of fact, after class.
Um, they, uh, they, they shared with methat they would usually go through this
particular conference, uh, in Dallas.
(02:34):
Uh, and I'll just go ahead and say it.
It was the SBC conference.
Um, okay.
And, you know, I mean, it is what it is.
And, but they didn't gothis last time because
Do you, do you want to let, goahead say that what SBC stands for?
I know what it stands for andyou know what it stands for, but
(02:54):
do you want to say it directly?
Let's see.
Maybe not, maybe not.
Well,
no, no.
I thought we could, we could, uh,it, it's, it's the, uh, the Southern
Baptist, you know, conference.
And, um, because they have along history and, and they're
still dealing with that history.
Yes.
(03:14):
Um, you know, it is rather deep andrather, rather raw, you know, so
they're still dealing with that.
And fast forward to 2025as a matter of fact.
Um.
Th they, well, well, a lot of members,I suspect these, these members, the one
that I was talking to, he said that theycouldn't go, him and his wife couldn't
(03:37):
go because they were all trumped out.
You know, they, they, they could, theycouldn't, uh, you know, that was the, the
audience that was there, you know, I mean,everybody's like, you know, you know,
coming to that dinner right there, and,uh, and they couldn't be a part of that.
(03:58):
And, and our, I'll just say our pastor,I won't identify, you know, our church
or anything, but, but our pastor, youknow, he understood, you know, um.
And he's got certainly, youknow, high affiliation with them,
with the organization there.
Um, but uh, they have seem s and I don'tknow, uh, but it just seems like they're
(04:23):
kinda regressing a little bit there.
Because if they're embracing a guylike that who, I don't know if you
heard, you know, some of the latest,you know that he's spewed, uh, he said
something about, this was the otherday and this is what I was, uh, talking
with the gentleman about this morning.
(04:45):
He said, um, I need everybody togive me $15 so that I can, so God
will, will probably let me in heaven.
Now if, if, if you give me $15.
Uh, uh, God will probably let me in heaven
and um, wow.
(05:06):
It is like, and I don't know if he saidthat in the presence of some evangelicals
or what, but whether he did or not,I'm certain that they heard it directly
or heard about it, and I don't seeanybody rushing to anybody's microphone.
(05:27):
To denounce that, you know?
Yeah.
That
should have been immediately denounced.
First of all, he's wealthy, so whywould he need $15 and what would
that have to do with his salvation?
I mean, it's, it's justwrong on so many levels.
So many that it and,and totally offensive.
Totally offensive.
(05:47):
Um,
it, it, it, yeah.
I, I, I just feel, um, it justabout, and I was sharing this
with, uh, the brother this morning.
I said, you know, it, it just get,I mean, I could see him okay, but
the people that are around himthat's supposed to know better.
Uh, you know, just not saying anythingthat, that, that's like knowing
(06:10):
that this person is going to commita crime and, and you just stand by
and let 'em just commit the crime.
You know, it's me.
Or if someone.
Did anybody see that?
You don't, you don't say anything.
Yeah.
You know, you know, and that, thatkind of ties into one of the, um,
(06:33):
one of the presidential powers, uh,power zones, I guess you would say it.
Um, uh, 'cause there's like three of them.
I, I, I found that when you, uh, suggestedthe, uh, the topic there, I said, okay,
uh, that's pretty broad and, and, andthere's some nuggets in there as well.
(06:53):
And one of the aspects of thatpresidential limitations is, you know,
the, the three, you know, uh, zones.
Um, there is the, uh, let'ssee, the maximum authority zone.
They, they, instead ofthat, uh, uh, zone one.
And, uh, this is when the, thepresident, um, acts with, uh,
(07:17):
congressional approval on things.
Yeah, that's the, you, you, you'requoting from the Youngstown case.
Yeah.
That Youngstown case, which is,which is still relevant these days.
Uh, uh, now, you know,George Bush used it.
You know, George HW Bush used it.
Yes.
You know, during the Gulf War, um,and there's this, uh, Twilight Zone.
(07:44):
Uh, now that's whenthe Congress is silent.
Mm-hmm.
You know, not saying anything, whichis my point right here, uh, that, you
know, there, there are a number of peoplethat went through seminary and Bible
college and you know, even Sunday school.
They know better and they're upthere in the, in the pulpit teaching
(08:08):
everybody how to do better and howto do this and that and the other.
But, but yet it won'tsay anything to this guy.
Yeah.
They keep looking the otherway and at some point.
I, I do believe that at some pointthey will stop looking the other
way and, and get to a point wherethey will say, enough is enough.
(08:29):
Well, well, that, that was that.
He's just gone
too far.
That was the question I had whenI was talking with this brother.
W what does that look like?
What it, what does enough looked like?
Because I'm, you know, youwould think that, you know
enough was that tape of him.
(08:51):
You say he, he can grab women anywhere.
You know, you would think, yeah.
You would think that, youknow, that would be logical.
Uh, yes.
I got that.
That's, that's
pretty good.
It is logical.
Uh, you know, and, and, and the listcould go on, you know, I mean, he, he's.
(09:11):
I mean, you know, and I'm nottrying to even, you know, judge
him per se, I'm just stating facts.
It, the, the facts are right there.
You know, I don't have to add any saltor sugar or paprika or old bay to it.
You know?
It, it's, it, it is what it is.
(09:33):
Well, Christians are supposed tobe the moral compass of society.
I mean, that's.
What Christians are supposed to be.
And when they look the other way,when they think only about their own
self-interest or ignore, uh, evilintent, evil design, uh, then they're
(09:54):
just not living up to the principles ofChristianity in, in, in, in my opinion.
I, I agree with that.
And, and there's people lookingat that and listening for that.
Um.
You know, it's not necessarily, you know,what you say, but how you're living.
But it's also what yousay as well, you know?
(10:16):
Yes.
You know, it all matters.
It really all matters becausepeople receive information in
different ways, you know, so
Well, he, he, he, he, Ishould say, lost me when he.
Uh, well, he had lost me before this,but when he said two Corinthians, it was
like, oh, this guy's never been in church.
(10:38):
He doesn't even know
how to, how to pronounce.
I mean, that evidence, circumstantialevidence that that's but beyond
reasonable down there like this.
Everybody in, anybody who'sbeen to church knows that it's.
Second Corinthians and you know,nobody corrected him either.
(11:01):
No.
They let it ride.
Yeah.
You know, like, likethat's like, that's gospel.
Yeah.
I mean, that's crazy.
Yeah.
So, so, I mean,
go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead, go.
No, go right ahead.
No, no, I was, I was just great.
Uh, uh, lean into, uh, so, um, whenyou think about presidential powers
(11:25):
and presidential limitations, youknow, what, uh, what comes to mind?
Uh, I, well, you know,
the, the interesting thing is there'sso many limitations on President Power.
I mean, the, first of all, obviouslythere's the Constitution, which
has all these limitations onwhat a president can do, right?
Uh, there's the balance of powers thatare written into the Constitution.
(11:48):
Congress has certain powers.
Mm-hmm.
Article war.
The courts have certain powers.
Mm-hmm.
And the people, the peoplehave certain powers.
Right.
Send powers.
But it's kind of interesting becauseit looks like our president has figured
out a way or is figuring out ways toget around all of these, uh, powers.
(12:09):
I mean, all of theseconstraints, I should say, on his
powers and, you know, uh,something else that came up.
Uh.
Well, I'll just say in the meetingthis morning, uh, was that, uh, he,
he's obviously, and this is basedon not just the two Corinthians
statement there, but other statements.
(12:31):
He's obviously not necessarily, youknow, the brightest one, you know?
Okay.
So there's some, some sinister,you know, intelligence intelligent.
You know, in back of him that's reallyactually driving a lot of this, you know.
Easy thing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know, because they're, they'recooking that up back there.
(12:55):
Uh, I, I never, I have to be honest, I'venever ceased to be amazed by the man.
He's veian, shall we say?
Yes.
He's crafty.
Mm-hmm.
Uh.
He's cunning.
He's, in my opinion, deceitful.
Yes, but he's figured it out.
I mean, he's, he got elected, reelected,even in the face of all of the things
(13:23):
he's done and said, and since he's been.
But here's the thing.
I believe that if there werean election today, he would
not be reelected at this time.
His, uh, poll ratings are, are fallingthrough the floor and rightfully so.
I mean, the things he's done, I mean,he really threw me a loop when he came
(13:47):
out and said Ukraine started the war.
Oh.
I'm like, everybody in the worldknows Russia started the war.
How could he say that?
But he said that on world,on on, you know, worldwide
television and gets away with it.
I mean, nobody said, wait aminute, what are you doing?
(14:10):
I think you know, the part that he'sfigured out or has known for a while,
I think, is that that, what was it,77 million or 70 million or whatever,
or people that voted for him, either.
They're just as nuts as he is.
Uh, or they don't care.
(14:32):
They don't care.
They, they, they, they might evenknow, 'cause I'm certain that
some of these people are doctorsand lawyers and professors and
all that, so they have to know.
That he's lying, you know, andthat that's not right and this
is wrong and blah, blah blah.
So they must not care.
And the thing that probably drawsthem all together on one accord
(14:56):
to let that slide or just not, youknow, act like it didn't happen or he
didn't say that is white supremacy.
Yeah, I think that is a major part of it.
I think that they zero in on certain.
Points that he states eitherdirectly or indirectly.
(15:18):
And as long as he'spromoting to those points,
yes, yes.
They're okay with it.
Yes.
And so I think white supremacy isa major part of, of the background
of what he is advocating.
Yep.
He does it sometimes on the down low.
And sometimes it's very obvious.
Yeah.
Of what?
(15:39):
Of what's going on.
He, he has I impunity, he, he hasthat, uh, uh, and I think that, uh,
Nixon probably, well Ford probablylaid the ground rope work for the
impunity part of it when he, uh, uh,um, pardon Nixon, you know, I mean,
(15:59):
because the walls were closing in.
You know, he had committed crimes and,and he was going to be prosecuted.
Yes.
But for that.
Pardon?
But he did.
But he did that and that set precedent.
And, and then this guy, Mr. Authoritarian.
(16:20):
He turns that all the way up.
I mean, he, he had some of the samepeople that were, they were wr with, uh,
with Nixon, because Roger Stoney, he'sback in the background here, so we, we
already know he was the dirty trickster.
And so, um, he's just, you know,injected, him and his people have just
in injected that impunity thing, youknow, with steroids, especially now
(16:42):
that they've got the Supreme Court,you know, blessing it, you know.
Absolutely.
I think it's an underlying currentof, of virtually everything he does.
This whole thing about, likeyou said, white supremacy.
What's this immigration thing about?
Hmm.
It, it seems like it's always beingenforced against people of color.
Yes.
You know, and it, and it'sdone on a blanket scale.
(17:06):
It's not like they're goingindividual by individual.
No.
They're going to, uh, areas wherethey know there are a lot of his.
Hispanics and now Koreans.
Mm-hmm.
They're going there and now they're, and,and they're doing sweeps, blind sweeps.
It, it's theoretically violatingthe constitutional Right.
Uh, right against unlawfuldetention, unlawful search.
(17:30):
Mm-hmm.
And, and yet they're doing thisand they're getting away with it.
And it seems like you, you're,you've suggested that an
underlying current seems to be.
Uh, theoretically racism.
Yeah.
I, I, I, I think it is, uh, it's, it'sunfortunately, you know, the, uh, uh,
(17:50):
part of the fabric of this country,um, and, you know, and uniquely so, not
that it's not that in other countries,but, but it's uniquely, you know, it
it, a part of this country's fabric.
Um, and it's, it's, it's likea race to get back there.
Uh, the number of things thatare being put in place because
(18:16):
this, that's happening now.
Didn't just get, get cooked up lastyear, you know, they, they've been
cooking this, you know, for a couple,a couple, at least a couple decades.
Um, and, uh, because the FederalistSociety, I mean the heritage, uh, of,
uh, society, um, and, um, you know, andthose other groups that were connected to
(18:41):
them, you know, I forget what they had.
It was, it was a plan.
Uh, but then had it, it morphed intowhat's now known as Project 2025.
Uh, and I hear they're workingon Project 2028 as well.
Oh no.
You know.
Oh, no.
Which is just a continuation of thingsthere, and I've always said it, it was
(19:05):
kind of a, a shot in the, in the, in thedark there perhaps, uh, when, uh, I first
started saying this or talking about it.
Years ago.
I think they want not onlythat 14th amendment, but they
want that 13th amendment.
They, they've already,they already have the, you
think they're goingafter the 13th amendment?
Yes.
Yes I do.
And slavery, they wanna reinstate slavery.
(19:28):
What one, one of our guests.
Suggested that, you know, not toolong ago, as a matter of fact, you
know, as far as, you know, what arepeople waiting for, you know, you
know, because if they put people, ifthey're incarcerated people, they arrest
them, put 'em incarceration when they,once they get into car incarceration.
What rights do they have?
(19:51):
What right is not applicable to them?
You know that key one, that's, thatthir at 13th Amendment, you know, they
don't have, you know, uh, the right.
They're technically.
Relegated to being, you know,uh, slaves, indigenous servants.
There are certain ordinances that doallow forced labor of people who have
(20:17):
been incarcerated and convicted ofcertain felony or felony convictions.
So, yes.
And historically, uh, as welook, uh, if we look back years
ago, uh, soon after slavery.
It was a process whereby certainsouthern states would have people
arrested and, and placed in jailfor like speeding or something.
(20:44):
Mm-hmm.
Not speeding, but certain, uh, offenses.
Minor offenses.
Right.
And then use them for forced labor.
Uh.
So, I mean, it, it certainly is possible.
I don't see the countrygoing back to slavery.
I hope not.
I think that there would be a massiverebellion, uh, amongst, uh, even amongst
(21:05):
our, uh, Caucasian, uh, sympathizers.
Uh, I think even they would.
Rise up against that.
What?
What do you think about the 14th?
And even maybe the Southern BaptistChristians would rise up against that?
Wow.
No, I don't know, man.
I mean,
because
I think they might say, wait a minute.
(21:25):
They
might, they might drift intonostalgia or something like, Hey,
that's the way it used to be.
You know?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, God bless 'em, or excuseme, God had mercy on them, but, uh.
I don't know.
I, I, I just, you know, the, the,the, the evil is just so deep.
(21:45):
You know, the, the country was builton a lot of that, you know what I mean?
Yes.
It wasn't like, like they cameover here and negotiated with the
Indians, you know, or anything.
You know, it's not like.
They, you know, went to Africa afterthe Portuguese did their thing.
They didn't go over there withcontracts and like, Hey, you know,
(22:06):
uh, we can offer you this and benefitsand, you know, uh, and a pension.
No, uh, uh, definitely not 40acres and a mule, you know?
Uh, so, uh, after the fact.
So, you know, and, and it, andover a period of time there's been
(22:27):
this concerted effort to suppress.
You know, those, you know, there's beenpeople like yourself and myself and,
and many others that have gotten througha lot of that, but as evident, uh, of
how they treated the, the first andonly black president that we've had.
(22:50):
Hmm.
They treated him just like he was that
Yes, many of them did.
You know, many of them did.
It reminds me of a story, 'causeyou mentioned that, uh, when I was,
uh, started law school, when I wasin law school, some students came
to me and said, we want you to runfor president of the student body.
Mm-hmm.
So I, I, I said, okay, and I, I,uh, we had a, a, a open forum, like
(23:15):
a debate, and I said, being fromsouth central LA not being naive Mm.
I said, well, you know, whitepeople, they enslaved blacks.
They took the Indians land.
They, they just forcefullytook their land.
They put Asians in concentration camps.
Mm-hmm.
And I went on and on and on.
(23:37):
Right.
Needless to say, I did not get elected.
Oh,
I wonder why I didn't win that election.
You know, actually, you know, and that'skind of similar to, uh, the story I,
that I got from this, uh, gentlemanthat I was speaking with this morning
of, uh, of, uh, evangelical that wentto one of the, the BC's conferences.
(24:01):
Uh, and, um, no, no, no.
He went to the White House.
He said he went to the White House.
He was, he was a part of a delegation thatwent to the White House, uh, true story.
And he said he, um, the delegationthat he was with was aware that he
was going to ask a particular questionor some particular questions and
(24:22):
is dealt with immigration and, um.
And so when they were going aroundthe room and asking whether or
not people had any questions, youknow, for the president, blah,
blah, blah, he raised his hand.
And according to, uh, the brotherthat I was speaking with, the,
(24:43):
the evangelicals that werestanding around him stepped back.
They stepped away from him.
He still asked the question.
He said he was nervous and all of that.
And, uh, you know, uh, because hewas talking about, hey, you know, uh,
he's, you know, trying to, you know,have a congregate, a congregation
(25:07):
and everything, and your guysare coming and taking my members.
You know, and et cetera,et cetera, et cetera.
But there, the, the delegationthat he was with, they didn't
want anything to do with that.
Um, and, and, and these areChristians, and to your point
of as, as far as running.
(25:27):
And speaking the truth, uh,the, the facts, you know?
Yeah.
Uh, people, people feel all kindsof ways about it, and it, it's
just, it's just stunning the, theway people react to just evil.
Right there in, in 70, 70, 70 somethingodd million people said, yes, you
(25:51):
know, we want that kind of guy.
In office.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They certainly did.
And you know, ultimately it's a questionthat everybody has to ask of themselves.
Mm. You know,
it, it is a question where you, you haveto ask yourself, what do I stand for?
You know, do I stand for what'sright or do I stand for, for
(26:13):
just my own personal interest?
You know, do I stand for justiceand truth and, and what's right?
Was morally right or do I just say,oh no, I'm, I'm just going to do
stand for what, what, what helped me?
What benefits me?
And every person has toanswer that question.
And fortunately, a lot of peopleanswer it in the affirmative
(26:37):
that is, they say, no, no, no.
I'm gonna stand up for what's right.
I'm gonna stand up for what's Jes.
I'm gonna stand up for what's moral.
I'm gonna stand up for what I believe in.
And, and, and so fortunatelythere are not a lot of people
like that, uh, unfortunately,
(26:59):
that are not, thus, thus, theconversation about these presidential
powers and limitations there.
Um, so many presidents, w we've,we've had what, 47 of them, you know?
Yes.
Some of them co couple times in.
And this one stands out.
I mean, you know.
(27:19):
Yes.
You know, we had, um, uh, Nixon, you know,in, in his situation there, and many,
you know, want, wanted to actually accuseObama of similar, um, you know, yeah.
Uh, testing of that limitation there.
(27:41):
However, I, you know, I would argue that.
He did what he had to dobecause Congress would not act.
Mm-hmm.
In fact, there was a concentrated effort,you know, to, you know, kill anything that
he was trying to do that, that was good.
Mm-hmm.
Anything, you know.
Yes, sir. Uh, in fact, if he wastrying some of the things that the
(28:02):
current one is trying right now.
In doing right now.
You know, there, there would bepeople with pitchforks and, and,
and, and, uh, uh, the fire on thesticks, you know, in, in, in the
front yard of, uh, of the White House.
Uh, it works, you know?
Uh, yeah.
I mean, yeah, when you look at it.
With regard to the limitations onpresidential power, mm, presidential
(28:27):
power is supposedly containedthrough a separation of powers.
That is the power of the Congress, USCongress, and the power of the courts.
And technically also included,uh, is the power of the people.
Mm-hmm.
With regard to their vote.
Now, when either sector of thatparticular, of those separations of
(28:50):
power, uh, when any segment doesn'tfulfill its obligation, it's moral oblig.
Uh, then the country suffers.
So what we're seeing right now is Congressjust giving up their power virtually.
Yep.
Uh, what we see is, uh, the presidentexercising authority, which is, uh.
(29:14):
Designated the Congress, the Constitution,uh, designates certain powers to Congress
and uh, certainly Congress seems tojust be kinda rolling over and allowing
him to, uh, to execute, you know, dothings that he's not authorized to do.
And he stacked.
The courts an interesting thingbecause judicial appointments.
(29:39):
Federal judicial appointmentsare lifetime appointments.
And so that means that, uh, hecan't, he can't just remove a federal
judge in Article three, judge.
Mm-hmm.
So they're there for life, and in theoryor in law, they could, they could rule
against him and many federal judges have.
(30:02):
Yep.
But the Supreme Court seems to be, uh.
Supporting him in a lot of his activities.
And that is, uh, once again, theyare, they are supposedly a stop gap.
Yeah.
They, they
are there to make, to protectdemocracy and to protect the
constitution, to make sure thepresident doesn't overstep his bounds.
(30:28):
And, uh, I, you know, you, Idon't necessarily agree with.
A lot of things they've done or mm-hmm.
Are doing.
But, uh, I hope that they will stepin and I believe that if it gets to a
certain point, they will step in, step in.
They will stop a dictatorship.
(30:48):
I believe they will do thatif it gets to that point.
And many people believe that thepresident is testing the ground.
To see just how far he can go.
Well see the thing with that and, andI hope that, that they can do that, but
(31:09):
like many of the other courts, they don'treally have an enforcement mechanism.
Yes.
You know, I mean.
Uh, and he's lining up his chesspieces, you know, around all of that.
And, and, and I don't, there's probablysome, some indicators there or whatever,
but I don't have hard evidence.
(31:30):
But it just, it seems like it hasto be a conspiracy going on here
because everybody's falling in lineway too nicely there, you know?
To, to allow this and that to go on.
You know, maybe they'll lose the casehere, lose the case there, whatever.
But they're not deterred, you know,from, you know, uh, running their
(31:52):
plays, running the plan there.
And they're not, they're not worried.
If they were worried, I thinkthey'd be acting a lot differently.
You know, but they know thatultimately, you know, they say,
the court says no, then what?
Yeah.
I think to a large degree, theSupreme Court at least philosophically
(32:14):
agrees with what he's doing.
Yes.
And your point is well taken.
That courts don't have a military?
Nope.
He's technically thecommander in chief mm-hmm.
Of the armed forces.
And he's using that now.
Technically he cannot wage war.
Only Congress can wage war.
Right.
But we see him now, uh, using his poweras commander in chief in ways that
(32:37):
we've virtually never seen before.
I mean, sitting, sendingtroops into cities.
That don't want them, the, thecities are saying we don't want them.
Our crime rate is goingdown, we don't need them.
And he's sending city, uh, troops in,in those cities, uh, which it appears as
though maybe he's just trying to, uh, flexhis muscle or, or test the boundaries.
(33:03):
Of his authority.
I think it's the test, but
I, I, I don't believe the you, if histrue motivation is to stop crime in
the major cities, unfortunately it'snot, I don't believe it's gonna work.
It will work temporarily.
When you have a bunch of military,you know, troops standing on the
corner, then your, your re youreveryday burglar is gonna say, oh,
(33:26):
well I'll just wait until they leave.
Right.
But you can't keep 'em there forever?
No.
At some point they have to goprotect the nation or, you know,
and you don't have enough of them.
So as soon as they leave,the criminals will come back.
So that's why it's better tosupport local law enforcement.
With funds and support, uh, because theyare in a position to provide long-term
(33:54):
protection against criminal activity asopposed to just a short-term temporary
fix.
Exactly.
Now, you know, because in, in, inlocal law enforcement, that's another
interesting story as far as theirorigins go, uh, as far as catching
the runaway slaves and all of that.
Uh, but then, you know, graduallygetting into others more civic,
(34:18):
you know, minded, you know, uh, uh,activities and everything, to your
point, being a permanent presence there.
Um,
the, the, there, I think, and there'smany have said the same thing.
There's, uh, uh, seamlesslyor appears to be, uh.
(34:38):
A, a, a, a real desire to normalize seeingthese soldiers, you know, and people
in uniform on corners and everything.
And I mentioned that in one of ourother podcasts that I've actually seen
that in action down in the Philippines.
Um, I mean, they were just everywhereand they were permanent fixtures
(34:59):
and, and I don't know what the crimerate or anything like that was down
in the Philippines at the time.
There, you know, it, you know, every,a lot of things were corrupt anyway.
It still is, but um.
But to normalize that, uh, you know, doessomething to a psyche, you know, to know
(35:20):
that okay, you know, we, we are not free.
And that's the talk of the times.
On behalf of the co-host BernieBrown, we thank you for listening and
we hope it compels you into actionor triggers some mindful thought
about the times in which we live.
We also invite you to check outthe Logical Lawyer, Bernie Brown
(35:43):
and the It's that Part Podcast withyours truly, Jesse Lee Hammonds.
Whenever you listen to your podcast andfor even more, Bernie, check out his
book on Amazon, a Prosecutor's Analysisof Personal Supernatural Experiences,
which is a collection of fascinatingstories awaiting your verdict of fact
(36:04):
fiction, fabrication, or fantasy.
You decide you can alsoconnect with Bernie on his
website, the Logic attorney.me.
That's the logical attorney.meand connect with me at it's that
part.com where you can also accessboth podcasts and now you've got it.
(36:27):
It's the talk of the Times
at the intersection of logic and truth.
This is the logical lawyer and it'sthat part exploring legal, social, and
cultural issues with insight, clarity.
Purpose, truth and logic, sharp andclear insight and hope we bring it here
(36:57):
where truth, logic, and action.
It's the logical lawyerand it's that part.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!