July 3, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 4 of the July 3,2025 A&G Replay contains:
- Jack Teenage Sex Bot Chat
- Gavin Newsom on Bill Maher BS
- Tim Sandefur SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Part 1
- Tim Sandefur SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Part 2
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe, Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Arm Strong and Jettie and he Armstrong and Getty Strong.
And so I got a couple of stories. One of
them I told before, and I got to be vague
(00:38):
about them because they're They're real life stories people have
told me, and I don't want them to get in
trouble for you know, passing along more or less confidential information.
But I told the story a while back about somebody
who was talking to a group of working class assault
of the Earth gentlemen, the last kind of dudes that
(00:59):
you'd ever think that this would be a thing for.
I'm not talking about like some Berkeley androgynous poetry majors.
I'm talking about like work in class, work with their
hands guys, blue collar guys, talking about how much they
enjoyed the companionship of the female chatbots when they came
(01:23):
home from you know, a long day in the field
at night, and how you know they listen to them
and understand them and they look forward to it all
day long, and that sort of thing. And I thought, wow,
I mean, if that crowd can fall under the sway
of this in its current form, mankind is doomed. No,
I've never tried it, but I almost don't want to
(01:47):
because I have some concern but with like a lot
of other things that I've dismissed and joked about, and
find it more appealing than I'd like it to be.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
You know, I would hope that your oogie factor would
overcome that temptation, but your illustration of the sort of
fellows who r like it is troubling.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Although I'm luckily I'm not. I don't feel trapped in
a lonely world like a lot of people do. And
if you feel like it's you know, you're lonely and
it's really difficult out there to meet people and everything
like that, then this answer comes along. It must feel
(02:32):
good to you. So a slightly different version of this,
and also a real life story a mom was telling
me the other day, and it's a troubling story from
the beginning, as the daughter involved as twelve, but let's
go with thirteen because it's they're close enough to thirteen
but still are actually twelve had ended up in a
(02:52):
situation by being in a friend's house or whatever. This
seventeen year old boy was hitting on this young girl
in a way that they wouldn't if they weren't a creep,
but they were, and apparently they are a very handsome,
smooth talking dude, so really got the attention of this
quite young girl.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Anyway, mom gets contacted by the school saying, hey, we
are taking a look at your kid's search history and
computer use because maybe you know this, maybe you don't.
I mean, I've had kids in the public school. They
(03:32):
allow you to use the Chrome book or you buy
your own Chromebook, but you have to be on the
school system and they have the right to check and
see what stuff you're doing on that computer, which I'm
fine with, but they have a variety of protection programs
that you know, if you're eighth grade boys looking at
(03:55):
porn on the Chromebook, the school will contact you and say, hey,
your kid's using a Chromebook for porn, and then you know,
you talk to them or step in or do whatever,
and then if you continue doing it, there's penalties down
the road.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
But he's in many schools. If you say I'm I
want to be transgender, then they won't tell your parents.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Excellent point. Wow, that is really good. Caught your thirteen
year old looking at naked women. Oh no, what a shock.
Your thirteen year old wants to become a woman. Keep
it on the down low, not a mom and dad's business. Wow,
good point. But so anyway, this mom got contacted by
the school. Hey, you, your twelve year old daughter's computer
(04:35):
was showing them on this site talking to an advice
chat bot, sex chat bot. I guess it's particularly in
the area of sex advice. That twelve year old and mom.
I don't remember from reading the back and forth or
asking the kid now, but either way found out the
(04:58):
kid was regularly going on this sex chat bot to
get advice on how to please a seventeen year old boy,
and really like got addicted and it'd be too much,
but like really kind of obsessed with, you know, as
soon as you get home from school, checking in with
the chat bot and see what the latest advice is
(05:20):
on how to please a seventeen year old boy. And
it just became a like hard to break cycle.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Wow, Now if there had been, I can't imagine it
when I was like thirteen, fourteen years old. You know,
when you're a young man starting to understand things, your
body is capable of doing or certain urges that can
be enjoyed in a certain way. And there had been
(05:50):
some sort of chatbot I could talk to that would
tell me sexy stories or do whatever. Oh my god,
I would have never been I don't know how you
got me out of my room, but you know, so
you can have the sex talk with your kids. They're
having the sex talk with some chatbot.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
What's really interesting is that, so far, as far as
I can observe, the premature sexualization of children, which the
left is so enthusiastic about, has mostly resulted in people
not pairing off, not actually having sex, not having relationships.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
An interesting coexistence of those two things.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Although it makes intuitive sense that there would be some,
maybe most, who having their normal development blocked in this way,
if you can picture that as a metaphor, A lot
of people go to the left toward this is all
sick and weird and I can't handle it, never mind,
(06:54):
and some people will go to the right being hyper sexualized,
addicted to pornography. Whatever. The point is the step by
step natural progression of the way you become aware of
the world in adulthood, everything from sex to taxes and
responsibility and paying bills and real deep emotional relationships with
(07:16):
another adult. That's an inch by inch process for the
entire history of mankind, except now now, and I can't
resist another shot at the left.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Forgive me. Now.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
You go to your woke school where you're immediately sexualized
and you're surrounded by poor or whatever, and that step
by step is like vaulting a mile at a time
in a way that their pre young mind, skin and
hearts can't handle. It's incredibly troubling to me.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I know, I can't imagine learning all the things that
I learned, like you said, little by little, inch by
inch over a period of years and just got dumped
on me, you know, like a bucket on my head,
a lot of it, really bad ideas and bad advice
and all kinds of things. Yeah, I mean, so you're
(08:02):
gonna have the sex talk with your teenage daughter to
make sure she's said, well, she's fine, she's got you know,
you're not the only role model for them. They've got
another role model. It's the AI bot that they get
to talk to. And apparently it's a thing like they
this person became aware of it from friends because that's
what the friends are doing. Too, and god knows what
sort of you know, the whole garbage in, garbage out.
(08:23):
Why is why are AI systems woke? Well because the
people programming them are and blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
You got that issue as well. You know, I keep
every time we talk about this sort of thing, I
have the same urge toward you know, some sort of
fundamentalist subcultural civilization or community or or you know, build
your own compound or something. And you know, people I'd say, yeah,
we're fundamentalists, and they say, like religious fundamentalists. No, Islamic fundamentalists. No, no, no, no,
(08:55):
we're just fun to We just concentrate on the fundamentals
of life in worship whatever. And no I'm not a
cult leader, and no I'm not sexing up the young women,
which tends to be an inevitable thing in these little
off hue communities. But yeah, we just there's a lot
of the modern world that sucks. Oh do you like
not do medicines and stuff? Oh no, no, no, we
(09:16):
do medicines and vaccinations, you know, and all this. Yeah,
we you know, we're not lunatics. We've just we've learned
to separate the wheat from the chaff of the modern
world because and this is this is so obvious and
so fundamental it almost seems stupid to say. But we all,
as human beings, tend to be swept up. And we
(09:37):
talked about this a couple of days ago in fascinating fashion.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
We all tend to be.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Swept up by the culture and assume everything that is
offered to us is something we ought to take in.
And that's not true. There is some wheat, but there's
some not only chaff, but poison, like thumb tacks in
the wheat of the modern world.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
This is a great idea. Man, if I had billions
fight elons billions, I would start towns like this, or
communities or I don't know how. You don't have it
them unfold, but you'd be like the Amish, except for No,
we're not gonna write buggies down the road to work.
It's ridiculous. But we're not gonna have the damned Internet.
We're not gonna have smartphones. We're not gonna have all
(10:18):
this stupid stuff. We're gonna go back to like way
back to two thousand and six. Okay, maybe I don't
know on the internet. I have to think about that.
But definitely not smartphones, Definitely not Ai, Definitely none of
that stuff. And I think a lot of people gravitate
toward that.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
We're gonna have backyard barbecues and the kids are gonna
all go off to the side, and they're gonna talk
and giggle and laugh, and we'll wonder what they'll say
and if they're saying, and then they'll invent if in
a game with a ball and a stick, and you know, yeah,
And is there any way to program morality into any
of this chatbot stuff? I mean, you couldn't force it,
but I mean, is there any way to have a
(10:55):
chatbot says, Wait a second, how old are you?
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I'm twelve. Well you shouldn't be having said and certainly
not being in a relationship with a seventeen year old.
There's either something wrong with them or they're just wanting
to use you for sex. But this is a bad idea.
Is there any way a chatbot whatever say that?
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Well, the issue is since groups, since we don't really
have shared a shared sense of morality anymore, because we've
become a much more diverse country, the it's impossible to
quote unquote infuse morality into it because nobody can agree
on what morality is or should be. Therefore, all things
(11:36):
digital are utterly a moral They are without morals. Does
that trouble anybody sending your child into a completely a
moral environment? In this particular story, so chromebook got taken
away mom late at night. At one point realizes computers missing.
(12:00):
Oh goes in the daughter's bedroom. Couldn't stay away from
the sex advice chatbot to please a seventeen year old
now has to sleep with the computer, all computer devices
in the bedroom to make sure they I mean, oh
my god, this is not something our parents had to
deal with. No, I realized that I had to deal
(12:22):
with and my kids are now mid twenties to early thirties.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, I realized the hubris that comes with saying this
is a harder time to be a parent. This is
a harder time to be a parent that it was
for previous generations. It's horrible.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Yes, as somebody raised the just one more generation earlier,
You're right, you're one hundred percent. God, it's so crazy.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Anyway, if you know anything about this or had any
experiences our text line four one five two nine to
five KFTC.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Jack Armstrong and Joey, The Armstrong and Getty Show, The
Armstrong and take Out.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Now I haven't heard this. Gavin Newsom and Bill Maher
discussing some California policies.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
We'll discuss I see today the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
They talked about the fact that California had a rule
that schools cannot be required to notify parents if their
kids in school have changed their gender, their pronouns. That's
the kind of thing, even though it doesn't affect a
lot of people, that makes a lot of people go, well,
you know what, that's the party without common sense. Now,
(13:37):
if that's your state, how are you are you?
Speaker 2 (13:41):
I just disagree with that. I mean, the law was
you would be fired.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
A teacher would be fired if a teacher did not
report or snitch on a kid talking about their gender identity.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I just think that was wrong.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
I think teachers should teach. I don't think they should be.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Required to turn in kids. And by the way, turning
that we're talking about their parents.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
How can I snitch? The idea of a niche.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
And a parent to me doesn't combine.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
I just I don't. But what is what is the
job of a teacher.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
It's to teach if Johnny's talking about some identity issue
or some issue about liking someone of.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
The same sex, is that the teacher's job.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Oh well, the one thing that's clear from that he
is not confidently coming out and saying it's ridiculous that
teachers would not be allowed to tell parents about it,
And he didn't say that. He had the opportunity right
off the bat to say that, and he didn't. So
there's no chance he's gonna be president the United States.
You cannot be president in the United States unless you're
(14:33):
willing to take a position on this. It's been proven
over and over the candidates who try to like fudge
these things and be into thinking they're gonna have it
both ways. Never works. Never works. Didn't work for Kamala,
ain't gonna work for Gavin. I can't believe he doesn't
have the balls to come out and say, even in California,
what just has gotta be an eighty twenty issue, maybe
to ninety ten.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I can't believe he didn't have the balls to say
that out loud and to claim that Johnny, who now
wants to be called Jenny, that that would be snitching
on the kid and akin to maybe the kid hints
that maybe he likes boys. That's just that is so
with false. I mean, it's so funny. And also the
job of a teacher is to teach, to teach Hi
(15:15):
about the genderbread person in radical gender theory, Gavin, you
require them to teach that stuff.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Now, with all the crap in California that they have
him teach that's not reading, writing and arithmetic, that ain't
gonna fly. And he's trying to conflate what DeSantis is
doing in Florida, where they have the law that you'll
be fired if you don't tell the parents, and he's
trying to act like that's what he's fighting against. No, no, no, no, no,
you went completely the other direction where the teacher is
not allowed to tell the parent. That's nuts. Yeah, and
(15:47):
every most people think it's nuts. As Bill Maher points out,
most people think that's nuts. I thought Gavin was smarter
than that. Here's the deal.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
What's really wrecking him and people like him, thank God,
is more and more people are understanding the relationship between
the neo Marxists, the radical you know, gender theory crowd,
or the queer theory crowd, all these lunatics, the neo
Marxists and their connection to frans stance, the teachers Union,
which is down with all this stuff. Gavin doesn't dare
(16:19):
defy the teachers Union, which is down with all this stuff.
So he went as far as he's gonna go with
his Yeah, there's a injustice there. We need to strike
a balance with the girls.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And so it's not the vice versa. So it's not
the voters that he has in the back of his
mind when he's answering those questions. It's the teachers union.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
We have the teachers unions and the radical activist class,
of which he I think is to the extent that
he has any beliefs whatsoever, they seem to be quite progressed.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
I think he believes he wants to be president.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Yeah, I'd like to hear more of that exchange.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yeah, no kidding, because.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Mar cannot be I got to be able to say this.
He cannot be bull asked. I'll just say that, why
do you so oily?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Why do you take so much joy and cursing?
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I don't know, No, it's just it's it's a wonderful thing.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
It's a wonderful thing.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well, you know, I consider bull as to be a
perfect work universally understood and its meaning. It is brief,
it has a ring tw it, it has a rhythm
to it. It's perfect work.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Yeah, And unfortunately the substitutes do not carry the same
weight arm Strong, the Armstrong and Getty shot.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Seven track.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
The President decides to do something with an executive order
or whatever, often that they promised on the campaign trail,
their voters get all excited, Yay, they did it day
one like they promised. And then then I get an
alert on my phone. Some judge somewhere I've never heard
of it said no, you can't do that. And then
it stops, and everybody's like groans, like, oh, they can
(18:25):
do that, and it keeps happening over and over again.
And do we want that system to continue that way
or not? As part of what the Supreme Court was
arguing about yesterday, and as one of the justices said,
there are six hundred some federal judges and while I
do not question their motives, sometimes they are wrong. So
do we want them to be able to hold up
the whole country?
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments
yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president
for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles,
author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's Fories, How
Isabel Patterson, Rosewilder and Ein Rand Found Liberty and Age
(19:04):
of Darkness. I've recommended it many times. It's terrific, Tim,
How are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Just great?
Speaker 5 (19:09):
Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Guys published poet got to throw that in there, true, Yes,
a polymath, as they say.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Anyway, Tim, So, ostensibly everyone's talking about that we're going
to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court,
and that did come up. But would you agree that
the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual
federal judges.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (19:33):
Yes, absolutely. That was the focus of the argument, and
it was a very interesting argument. But I don't think
that it's a hard question. I think the answer is obviously,
nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of
doing business in the courts, and people who complain about
them either don't understand the system or are trying to
get away with something illegal.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I don't always like that it happened, but I can't
see what the alternative would be as somebody pointed out.
So you're gonna let I guess it was you that
pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that so
every time a president does something, it's got to work
its way all the way through the courts up to
the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the Supreme
Court before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine to nothing,
(20:16):
you can't do that.
Speaker 5 (20:19):
And during that whole period of time, the government is
still doing the illegal thing.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Right right, wow, So clearly it's two to one for
a judicial takeover of the government.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
But I will stand up for liberty. Uh, Is there
no middle ground?
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Has got to be three judge panel and not a
single yaho in rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5 (20:37):
Yeah, I think. I think having a single unit yaeho
in rural Tennessee is perfectly fine because that's what the
appellate process is sort of. That's why you appeal cases.
And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing
yahoos to the federal bench. You might mention that too.
The argument, the argument against nationwide injunctions always seems to
boil down to, well, this is a democracy, and the
(20:58):
majority it should all always get what it wants, and
the answer to that is no. What happened to all
of my friends who used to say, this is a republic,
not a democracy. The whole point of our system is
that the majority has to act lawfully, and if it
acts unlawfully, I can go in front of a judge
and get that given order from that judge prohibiting the
government from violating my rights. And the idea that we
(21:20):
should do this piece meal, that only a judge down here,
that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the government can
do illegal things to everybody else in the country until
the case reaches the US Supreme Court makes no sense
at all.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
The underlying theme here being folks that what we really
need to fear is the power of the government in
this country. That's kind of the idea of forming it.
So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively
or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years.
Then there are a handful of them, and the number
of them is now skyrots every day.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
It seems like on my phone, I see a judge
jumped in somewhere.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Actually, right, I actually don't think that that's true. I
think that what happened was we just started calling them
by a different name. You know, there were been injunction
injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was a constitution.
One of the points that was brought up during the
arguments was that British judges used to do this before
the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate. It's
(22:18):
just that nowadays we call them nation right injunctions, or
we have some judges who write sloppily and don't explain
what they're actually saying or something. And okay, that's a problem,
I suppose. But the idea that you should limit the
injunction power of federal courts is what that is is
that's open door to the majority violating individual rights on
a scale that I mean, they already do it, but
(22:40):
you can imagine what it would be if we took
away one of the most important protections for individual rights
in this country, which is getting an injunction from our
federal court to protect their freedom.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
And that's insane.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
So I didn't want to get to this part too
fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be
fixed with the law. It seems to me that we've
got a cultural problem in that presidents are way more
likely than they used to be to want to challenge
the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they don't think
the law is correct, or they don't care if they're wrong.
(23:13):
They just want to get the political credit for trying.
And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there,
there's a lot more of them who are willing to
let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and
jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Speaker 5 (23:29):
Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing
about the President and Congress being willing to do things
that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the
judges are going to strike it down and they can
blame the judges and say all those evil activist judges,
or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So
it's win win if you want to do something unconstitutional.
And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously
(23:52):
Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that
I always six in my memory is George W. Bush
when he signed the the McCain Fine Gold campaign finance
Law and said when he signed it that he thought
it was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to
the courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if
you're the president, you take an oath to support and
(24:13):
defend the Constitution of the United States. And if you
ignore that oath and sign something that you know is
unconstitutional just because you think the courts will clean up
your mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Yeah. Well, a lot of the pieces I've read that
have been following the growth of this use that as
kind of like the patient zero because he said it
out loud, and then other presidents thought, hey, I can
do that, I just won't say it out loud, and
Obama did it, and Biden did it, and Trump did
it in whichever order, and then Trump again and and
so how do we fix this?
Speaker 5 (24:43):
Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The
short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is
that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in
this country. I think it's the long term damage that's
been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution
is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a
(25:05):
law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years
ago published an article in The Washington Post saying the
Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well,
you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud.
And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it.
It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise,
and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not
worth the paper it's written on.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail.
In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater
Institute Little Constitutional humor for exactly design for punish one man.
That's a good idea, so you know, blah blah blah.
Disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of
the oral arguments, blah blah blah. Did it strike you
(25:48):
that the justices, the sane ones that we like, we're
leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges,
et cetera that we've been discussing.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Some of the judges have made clear for a long
time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions.
Justice Thomas in particular, some of the others are a
little harder to read. Justice Barrett, for example, and Justice Roberts,
who have become really the swing judges on this issue.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
I thought the.
Speaker 5 (26:15):
Most interesting judge if if anybody wants to go and
listen to the argument online, I thought Justice Jackson was
the one who is the most interesting. She clearly understands
how this area of the law works, and she rightly
says there's no there there that nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate.
They always have been and there's no problem. So she'd
be the one that I find most interesting. But how
(26:35):
to predict I think you're going to get. I think
Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are going to a side
with the liberals and say, we don't have a problem
per se with nationwide injunctions, but maybe some of them
aren't very good, but as a as a blanket matter,
they're okay. And then they're going to want to hear
the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which obviously is a
huge deal.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Right to me, is it even worth getting in to
what happened on that topic yesterday or do you think it's.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Well, they really just talked about whether or not they
have a legitimate case in the first place, and they
haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's
important because in order to get an injunction, you kind
of have to first show that you have even an
arguable point to make, and that was what they were
arguing about. And I will say, I know this is
talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we
clearly have the right answer and everything. I think the
(27:25):
birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. I don't
think it's an easy question on either side.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Let's talk about that when we come back from the break.
I want to hear the arguments on both sides of that.
That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown. Who
speaks the most words? The chicks talk too much? Is
that given?
Speaker 5 (27:44):
Well, Jessic sodomoy Are does love cutting off lawyers and
not letting them answer her question.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yeah, the chicks talk too so much. I think that's
been and the new gal talks more than anybody.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
That shouldn't happen in any organization.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Trottie Strong and Show Jack Armstrong
and Joe Getty The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with
Tim Sanderfur, vice president for legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion.
It really was much more a discussion of individual federal
judges and nationwide in junctions and that sort of thing.
But to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you
(28:38):
said before the break that it's not an easy call.
I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
What should we know about the fourteenth Amendment even come
to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Speaker 5 (28:49):
Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says, all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are US citizens in all of
this case. All of these arguments turn on that phrase,
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean.
It's really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of
those words that can mean all sorts of different things.
(29:12):
It basically means power, but there's all sorts of different
kinds of power, and so that's what the argument turns on.
Some people think that it means you have to follow
the law. If you're born here and you have to
follow the law, then you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
and then that means you're a citizen. But that doesn't
really make a lot of sense because even foreign tourists
who come here for a vacation have to follow the law.
(29:33):
I mean, they have to stop at the red lights
and they can't steal things, So that can't be what
that means, right. Instead, the other side argues, jurisdiction thereof
means some kind of loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction,
as opposed to follow the law jurisdiction, and that difference.
You can see that difference for example, in this if
(29:55):
you're a foreign spy and you sneak into the country
and you spy for some foreign country and you get
it rested, you can be prosecuted for espionage, but you
cannot be prosecuted for treason. Why because you're not a
US citizen and you don't owe loyalty to the US,
so you cannot commit treason against the US. And so
there's two different kinds of jurisdiction, is the argument. And
(30:17):
so those who are against birth right citizenships say, subject
of the jurisdiction thereof means that your parents owed loyalty
to the United States as opposed to some foreign country.
And that would mean that illegal aliens, if they have
a child here, that child is not a citizen in
the United States. Now, that's also there's a problem with that.
There's a couple problems that. One of the problems with
that argument is that nobody has ever said that that's
(30:39):
what it means. In the one hundred and fifty years
since this has been in the Constitution, everybody has active
like if you're born here, you're a citizen all of
that time. And so suddenly discovering that we're at it
turns out that we've been misreading the Constitution for one
hundred and fifty years would be a huge, enormously radical
transformation and how are system works That would cause tremendous
(31:02):
disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem. But
all of this, the real problem here in answering this
question is that when the amendment was adopted, there were
no such things as the illegal aliens because there were
no laws against immigration. And that means if you're an
originalist and you think the competition should be understood the
way it was originally intended. The Framers didn't ever think
(31:23):
about this because it wasn't against the law back then,
So we don't know what.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
They would have thought about this question right right Well,
at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive president is overturned,
that's when you tag me and Tim and I come
in and explain to the good folks that, look, the
nature of global transportation, the movement of people or peoples
from one place to another has changed so vastly.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
God, Joe's a living constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
Out of what No, don't you dare no, that the
very nature of comings and goings from countries has been
so radically transformed. A Chinese national with not the slightest
notion of making life in the United States can can
depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China,
(32:15):
all in the span of seventy two hours. I'm inducing
labor in this case probably or getting very lucky, and
that child had citizenship. That's an eventuality unimaginable back in
the day, is the case.
Speaker 5 (32:27):
I think so, And that's sort of true. But on
the other hand, the Chinese question came up back then
because there were so many Chinese in California in the
eighteen sixties. And Senator's rast, well, isn't this going to
make the children of the Chinese immigrants who back then
did not intend to stay in the United States? They
intended to go back to China. The senator's rest, does
this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And the
(32:48):
Senator from California said yes, and then he was immediately
thrown out of office. So what does that mean?
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Nobody knows what that means a single case from eighteen
ninety eight, or is there more precedent?
Speaker 5 (33:00):
Really, there really isn't. There's really just a handful of presidents,
and no Supreme Court case has ever said that birthright
citizenship is the is in the Constitution. There have been
some that have kind of mentioned it or kind of
assumed it, but none has said so outright.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
I am surprised the polling shows that only about a
third of Americans want to do away with the way
we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do
want to get to this. This is a journalistic question,
but I think it has an effect on people's respect
for the law. It has come up recently, it has
become a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge,
they mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's
(33:36):
a good idea or not? They didn't just barely got
a minute.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
I think it's fine. I think people should know where
these For instance, I think it would help a lot
of judges. You know, a lot of Republican appointed judges
have been ruling against the Trump administration, and I think
it would be helpful for people to know that these
questions are not things where it's all partisan. The law
is not just partisan politics. It's something much more profound
and much more important than.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Yeah, well I agree, But it implies that judge I
don't know. True.
Speaker 5 (34:04):
I used to think.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
I didn't used to think about it ever. If a
judge ruled, I just thought, well, that's interesting. Now it's
all who appointed him. Oh of course he said that.
Speaker 5 (34:13):
That is true. That is a risk, But I think
we should air on the side of informing people as
opposed to keeping people in the dark.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
So that's that was true.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute on the line, Tim
final question, I've called for a monarchy.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
You in favor of it? Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (34:30):
No? I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Joe.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
One more question as a published poet, I was thinking
about this. Yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan
good poet or not lousy poet?
Speaker 5 (34:40):
Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
How about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden creative Tam. It's always
great and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time. Let's talk
again soon. Thanks guys.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to
Dylan lyrics. Why do they in everybody's head so much?
Why do people keep going back to them? If it's
just gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim, it
can't be. It wouldn't lodge, it wouldn't It wouldn't make
the market made, would it? All right?
Speaker 3 (35:14):
He was famously moody about his career and his music
in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff
is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledygook.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Humhm. Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not.
We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope
you can stick around if you missus segment. I thought
that tim thing was really really good and you want
to listen to it again and get the podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Armstrong to arms Strong in Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and
tedious and depressing.
Speaker 3 (35:46):
It makes you angry. You don't want to live your
life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
He's Joe Getty. We're Armstrong in Getty.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
We try to bring you the truth and help you
figure out this crazy modern world.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
About something about a comedic tone. We have a one
ore Yes. Listen to Armstrong. You get it on demand
on the iHeartRadio app
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe, Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Arm Strong and Jettie and he Armstrong and Getty Strong.
And so I got a couple of stories. One of
them I told before, and I got to be vague
(00:38):
about them because they're They're real life stories people have
told me, and I don't want them to get in
trouble for you know, passing along more or less confidential information.
But I told the story a while back about somebody
who was talking to a group of working class assault
of the Earth gentlemen, the last kind of dudes that
(00:59):
you'd ever think that this would be a thing for.
I'm not talking about like some Berkeley androgynous poetry majors.
I'm talking about like work in class, work with their
hands guys, blue collar guys, talking about how much they
enjoyed the companionship of the female chatbots when they came
(01:23):
home from you know, a long day in the field
at night, and how you know they listen to them
and understand them and they look forward to it all
day long, and that sort of thing. And I thought, wow,
I mean, if that crowd can fall under the sway
of this in its current form, mankind is doomed. No,
I've never tried it, but I almost don't want to
(01:47):
because I have some concern but with like a lot
of other things that I've dismissed and joked about, and
find it more appealing than I'd like it to be.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
You know, I would hope that your oogie factor would
overcome that temptation, but your illustration of the sort of
fellows who r like it is troubling.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Although I'm luckily I'm not. I don't feel trapped in
a lonely world like a lot of people do. And
if you feel like it's you know, you're lonely and
it's really difficult out there to meet people and everything
like that, then this answer comes along. It must feel
(02:32):
good to you. So a slightly different version of this,
and also a real life story a mom was telling
me the other day, and it's a troubling story from
the beginning, as the daughter involved as twelve, but let's
go with thirteen because it's they're close enough to thirteen
but still are actually twelve had ended up in a
(02:52):
situation by being in a friend's house or whatever. This
seventeen year old boy was hitting on this young girl
in a way that they wouldn't if they weren't a creep,
but they were, and apparently they are a very handsome,
smooth talking dude, so really got the attention of this
quite young girl.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Anyway, mom gets contacted by the school saying, hey, we
are taking a look at your kid's search history and
computer use because maybe you know this, maybe you don't.
I mean, I've had kids in the public school. They
(03:32):
allow you to use the Chrome book or you buy
your own Chromebook, but you have to be on the
school system and they have the right to check and
see what stuff you're doing on that computer, which I'm
fine with, but they have a variety of protection programs
that you know, if you're eighth grade boys looking at
(03:55):
porn on the Chromebook, the school will contact you and say, hey,
your kid's using a Chromebook for porn, and then you know,
you talk to them or step in or do whatever,
and then if you continue doing it, there's penalties down
the road.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
But he's in many schools. If you say I'm I
want to be transgender, then they won't tell your parents.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Excellent point. Wow, that is really good. Caught your thirteen
year old looking at naked women. Oh no, what a shock.
Your thirteen year old wants to become a woman. Keep
it on the down low, not a mom and dad's business. Wow,
good point. But so anyway, this mom got contacted by
the school. Hey, you, your twelve year old daughter's computer
(04:35):
was showing them on this site talking to an advice
chat bot, sex chat bot. I guess it's particularly in
the area of sex advice. That twelve year old and mom.
I don't remember from reading the back and forth or
asking the kid now, but either way found out the
(04:58):
kid was regularly going on this sex chat bot to
get advice on how to please a seventeen year old boy,
and really like got addicted and it'd be too much,
but like really kind of obsessed with, you know, as
soon as you get home from school, checking in with
the chat bot and see what the latest advice is
(05:20):
on how to please a seventeen year old boy. And
it just became a like hard to break cycle.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Wow, Now if there had been, I can't imagine it
when I was like thirteen, fourteen years old. You know,
when you're a young man starting to understand things, your
body is capable of doing or certain urges that can
be enjoyed in a certain way. And there had been
(05:50):
some sort of chatbot I could talk to that would
tell me sexy stories or do whatever. Oh my god,
I would have never been I don't know how you
got me out of my room, but you know, so
you can have the sex talk with your kids. They're
having the sex talk with some chatbot.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
What's really interesting is that, so far, as far as
I can observe, the premature sexualization of children, which the
left is so enthusiastic about, has mostly resulted in people
not pairing off, not actually having sex, not having relationships.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
An interesting coexistence of those two things.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Although it makes intuitive sense that there would be some,
maybe most, who having their normal development blocked in this way,
if you can picture that as a metaphor, A lot
of people go to the left toward this is all
sick and weird and I can't handle it, never mind,
(06:54):
and some people will go to the right being hyper sexualized,
addicted to pornography. Whatever. The point is the step by
step natural progression of the way you become aware of
the world in adulthood, everything from sex to taxes and
responsibility and paying bills and real deep emotional relationships with
(07:16):
another adult. That's an inch by inch process for the
entire history of mankind, except now now, and I can't
resist another shot at the left.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Forgive me. Now.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
You go to your woke school where you're immediately sexualized
and you're surrounded by poor or whatever, and that step
by step is like vaulting a mile at a time
in a way that their pre young mind, skin and
hearts can't handle. It's incredibly troubling to me.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I know, I can't imagine learning all the things that
I learned, like you said, little by little, inch by
inch over a period of years and just got dumped
on me, you know, like a bucket on my head,
a lot of it, really bad ideas and bad advice
and all kinds of things. Yeah, I mean, so you're
(08:02):
gonna have the sex talk with your teenage daughter to
make sure she's said, well, she's fine, she's got you know,
you're not the only role model for them. They've got
another role model. It's the AI bot that they get
to talk to. And apparently it's a thing like they
this person became aware of it from friends because that's
what the friends are doing. Too, and god knows what
sort of you know, the whole garbage in, garbage out.
(08:23):
Why is why are AI systems woke? Well because the
people programming them are and blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
You got that issue as well. You know, I keep
every time we talk about this sort of thing, I
have the same urge toward you know, some sort of
fundamentalist subcultural civilization or community or or you know, build
your own compound or something. And you know, people I'd say, yeah,
we're fundamentalists, and they say, like religious fundamentalists. No, Islamic fundamentalists. No, no, no, no,
(08:55):
we're just fun to We just concentrate on the fundamentals
of life in worship whatever. And no I'm not a
cult leader, and no I'm not sexing up the young women,
which tends to be an inevitable thing in these little
off hue communities. But yeah, we just there's a lot
of the modern world that sucks. Oh do you like
not do medicines and stuff? Oh no, no, no, we
(09:16):
do medicines and vaccinations, you know, and all this. Yeah,
we you know, we're not lunatics. We've just we've learned
to separate the wheat from the chaff of the modern
world because and this is this is so obvious and
so fundamental it almost seems stupid to say. But we all,
as human beings, tend to be swept up. And we
(09:37):
talked about this a couple of days ago in fascinating fashion.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
We all tend to be.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Swept up by the culture and assume everything that is
offered to us is something we ought to take in.
And that's not true. There is some wheat, but there's
some not only chaff, but poison, like thumb tacks in
the wheat of the modern world.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
This is a great idea. Man, if I had billions
fight elons billions, I would start towns like this, or
communities or I don't know how. You don't have it
them unfold, but you'd be like the Amish, except for No,
we're not gonna write buggies down the road to work.
It's ridiculous. But we're not gonna have the damned Internet.
We're not gonna have smartphones. We're not gonna have all
(10:18):
this stupid stuff. We're gonna go back to like way
back to two thousand and six. Okay, maybe I don't
know on the internet. I have to think about that.
But definitely not smartphones, Definitely not Ai, Definitely none of
that stuff. And I think a lot of people gravitate
toward that.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
We're gonna have backyard barbecues and the kids are gonna
all go off to the side, and they're gonna talk
and giggle and laugh, and we'll wonder what they'll say
and if they're saying, and then they'll invent if in
a game with a ball and a stick, and you know, yeah,
And is there any way to program morality into any
of this chatbot stuff? I mean, you couldn't force it,
but I mean, is there any way to have a
(10:55):
chatbot says, Wait a second, how old are you?
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I'm twelve. Well you shouldn't be having said and certainly
not being in a relationship with a seventeen year old.
There's either something wrong with them or they're just wanting
to use you for sex. But this is a bad idea.
Is there any way a chatbot whatever say that?
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Well, the issue is since groups, since we don't really
have shared a shared sense of morality anymore, because we've
become a much more diverse country, the it's impossible to
quote unquote infuse morality into it because nobody can agree
on what morality is or should be. Therefore, all things
(11:36):
digital are utterly a moral They are without morals. Does
that trouble anybody sending your child into a completely a
moral environment? In this particular story, so chromebook got taken
away mom late at night. At one point realizes computers missing.
(12:00):
Oh goes in the daughter's bedroom. Couldn't stay away from
the sex advice chatbot to please a seventeen year old
now has to sleep with the computer, all computer devices
in the bedroom to make sure they I mean, oh
my god, this is not something our parents had to
deal with. No, I realized that I had to deal
(12:22):
with and my kids are now mid twenties to early thirties.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, I realized the hubris that comes with saying this
is a harder time to be a parent. This is
a harder time to be a parent that it was
for previous generations. It's horrible.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Yes, as somebody raised the just one more generation earlier,
You're right, you're one hundred percent. God, it's so crazy.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Anyway, if you know anything about this or had any
experiences our text line four one five two nine to
five KFTC.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Jack Armstrong and Joey, The Armstrong and Getty Show, The
Armstrong and take Out.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Now I haven't heard this. Gavin Newsom and Bill Maher
discussing some California policies.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
We'll discuss I see today the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
They talked about the fact that California had a rule
that schools cannot be required to notify parents if their
kids in school have changed their gender, their pronouns. That's
the kind of thing, even though it doesn't affect a
lot of people, that makes a lot of people go, well,
you know what, that's the party without common sense. Now,
(13:37):
if that's your state, how are you are you?
Speaker 2 (13:41):
I just disagree with that. I mean, the law was
you would be fired.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
A teacher would be fired if a teacher did not
report or snitch on a kid talking about their gender identity.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
I just think that was wrong.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
I think teachers should teach. I don't think they should be.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Required to turn in kids. And by the way, turning
that we're talking about their parents.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
How can I snitch? The idea of a niche.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
And a parent to me doesn't combine.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
I just I don't. But what is what is the
job of a teacher.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
It's to teach if Johnny's talking about some identity issue
or some issue about liking someone of.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
The same sex, is that the teacher's job.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Oh well, the one thing that's clear from that he
is not confidently coming out and saying it's ridiculous that
teachers would not be allowed to tell parents about it,
And he didn't say that. He had the opportunity right
off the bat to say that, and he didn't. So
there's no chance he's gonna be president the United States.
You cannot be president in the United States unless you're
(14:33):
willing to take a position on this. It's been proven
over and over the candidates who try to like fudge
these things and be into thinking they're gonna have it
both ways. Never works. Never works. Didn't work for Kamala,
ain't gonna work for Gavin. I can't believe he doesn't
have the balls to come out and say, even in California,
what just has gotta be an eighty twenty issue, maybe
to ninety ten.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I can't believe he didn't have the balls to say
that out loud and to claim that Johnny, who now
wants to be called Jenny, that that would be snitching
on the kid and akin to maybe the kid hints
that maybe he likes boys. That's just that is so
with false. I mean, it's so funny. And also the
job of a teacher is to teach, to teach Hi
(15:15):
about the genderbread person in radical gender theory, Gavin, you
require them to teach that stuff.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Now, with all the crap in California that they have
him teach that's not reading, writing and arithmetic, that ain't
gonna fly. And he's trying to conflate what DeSantis is
doing in Florida, where they have the law that you'll
be fired if you don't tell the parents, and he's
trying to act like that's what he's fighting against. No, no, no, no, no,
you went completely the other direction where the teacher is
not allowed to tell the parent. That's nuts. Yeah, and
(15:47):
every most people think it's nuts. As Bill Maher points out,
most people think that's nuts. I thought Gavin was smarter
than that. Here's the deal.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
What's really wrecking him and people like him, thank God,
is more and more people are understanding the relationship between
the neo Marxists, the radical you know, gender theory crowd,
or the queer theory crowd, all these lunatics, the neo
Marxists and their connection to frans stance, the teachers Union,
which is down with all this stuff. Gavin doesn't dare
(16:19):
defy the teachers Union, which is down with all this stuff.
So he went as far as he's gonna go with
his Yeah, there's a injustice there. We need to strike
a balance with the girls.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And so it's not the vice versa. So it's not
the voters that he has in the back of his
mind when he's answering those questions. It's the teachers union.
Speaker 3 (16:37):
We have the teachers unions and the radical activist class,
of which he I think is to the extent that
he has any beliefs whatsoever, they seem to be quite progressed.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
I think he believes he wants to be president.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Yeah, I'd like to hear more of that exchange.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yeah, no kidding, because.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Mar cannot be I got to be able to say this.
He cannot be bull asked. I'll just say that, why
do you so oily?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Why do you take so much joy and cursing?
Speaker 3 (17:10):
I don't know, No, it's just it's it's a wonderful thing.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
It's a wonderful thing.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well, you know, I consider bull as to be a
perfect work universally understood and its meaning. It is brief,
it has a ring tw it, it has a rhythm
to it. It's perfect work.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Yeah, And unfortunately the substitutes do not carry the same
weight arm Strong, the Armstrong and Getty shot.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Seven track.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
The President decides to do something with an executive order
or whatever, often that they promised on the campaign trail,
their voters get all excited, Yay, they did it day
one like they promised. And then then I get an
alert on my phone. Some judge somewhere I've never heard
of it said no, you can't do that. And then
it stops, and everybody's like groans, like, oh, they can
(18:25):
do that, and it keeps happening over and over again.
And do we want that system to continue that way
or not? As part of what the Supreme Court was
arguing about yesterday, and as one of the justices said,
there are six hundred some federal judges and while I
do not question their motives, sometimes they are wrong. So
do we want them to be able to hold up
the whole country?
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments
yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president
for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles,
author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's Fories, How
Isabel Patterson, Rosewilder and Ein Rand Found Liberty and Age
(19:04):
of Darkness. I've recommended it many times. It's terrific, Tim,
How are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Just great?
Speaker 5 (19:09):
Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Guys published poet got to throw that in there, true, Yes,
a polymath, as they say.
Speaker 3 (19:16):
Anyway, Tim, So, ostensibly everyone's talking about that we're going
to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court,
and that did come up. But would you agree that
the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual
federal judges.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (19:33):
Yes, absolutely. That was the focus of the argument, and
it was a very interesting argument. But I don't think
that it's a hard question. I think the answer is obviously,
nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of
doing business in the courts, and people who complain about
them either don't understand the system or are trying to
get away with something illegal.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I don't always like that it happened, but I can't
see what the alternative would be as somebody pointed out.
So you're gonna let I guess it was you that
pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that so
every time a president does something, it's got to work
its way all the way through the courts up to
the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the Supreme
Court before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine to nothing,
(20:16):
you can't do that.
Speaker 5 (20:19):
And during that whole period of time, the government is
still doing the illegal thing.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
Right right, wow, So clearly it's two to one for
a judicial takeover of the government.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
But I will stand up for liberty. Uh, Is there
no middle ground?
Speaker 3 (20:32):
Has got to be three judge panel and not a
single yaho in rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5 (20:37):
Yeah, I think. I think having a single unit yaeho
in rural Tennessee is perfectly fine because that's what the
appellate process is sort of. That's why you appeal cases.
And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing
yahoos to the federal bench. You might mention that too.
The argument, the argument against nationwide injunctions always seems to
boil down to, well, this is a democracy, and the
(20:58):
majority it should all always get what it wants, and
the answer to that is no. What happened to all
of my friends who used to say, this is a republic,
not a democracy. The whole point of our system is
that the majority has to act lawfully, and if it
acts unlawfully, I can go in front of a judge
and get that given order from that judge prohibiting the
government from violating my rights. And the idea that we
(21:20):
should do this piece meal, that only a judge down here,
that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the government can
do illegal things to everybody else in the country until
the case reaches the US Supreme Court makes no sense
at all.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
The underlying theme here being folks that what we really
need to fear is the power of the government in
this country. That's kind of the idea of forming it.
So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively
or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years.
Then there are a handful of them, and the number
of them is now skyrots every day.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
It seems like on my phone, I see a judge
jumped in somewhere.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
Actually, right, I actually don't think that that's true. I
think that what happened was we just started calling them
by a different name. You know, there were been injunction
injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was a constitution.
One of the points that was brought up during the
arguments was that British judges used to do this before
the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate. It's
(22:18):
just that nowadays we call them nation right injunctions, or
we have some judges who write sloppily and don't explain
what they're actually saying or something. And okay, that's a problem,
I suppose. But the idea that you should limit the
injunction power of federal courts is what that is is
that's open door to the majority violating individual rights on
a scale that I mean, they already do it, but
(22:40):
you can imagine what it would be if we took
away one of the most important protections for individual rights
in this country, which is getting an injunction from our
federal court to protect their freedom.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
And that's insane.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
So I didn't want to get to this part too
fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be
fixed with the law. It seems to me that we've
got a cultural problem in that presidents are way more
likely than they used to be to want to challenge
the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they don't think
the law is correct, or they don't care if they're wrong.
(23:13):
They just want to get the political credit for trying.
And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there,
there's a lot more of them who are willing to
let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and
jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Speaker 5 (23:29):
Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing
about the President and Congress being willing to do things
that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the
judges are going to strike it down and they can
blame the judges and say all those evil activist judges,
or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So
it's win win if you want to do something unconstitutional.
And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously
(23:52):
Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that
I always six in my memory is George W. Bush
when he signed the the McCain Fine Gold campaign finance
Law and said when he signed it that he thought
it was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to
the courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if
you're the president, you take an oath to support and
(24:13):
defend the Constitution of the United States. And if you
ignore that oath and sign something that you know is
unconstitutional just because you think the courts will clean up
your mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Yeah. Well, a lot of the pieces I've read that
have been following the growth of this use that as
kind of like the patient zero because he said it
out loud, and then other presidents thought, hey, I can
do that, I just won't say it out loud, and
Obama did it, and Biden did it, and Trump did
it in whichever order, and then Trump again and and
so how do we fix this?
Speaker 5 (24:43):
Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The
short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is
that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in
this country. I think it's the long term damage that's
been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution
is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a
(25:05):
law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years
ago published an article in The Washington Post saying the
Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well,
you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud.
And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it.
It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise,
and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not
worth the paper it's written on.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail.
In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater
Institute Little Constitutional humor for exactly design for punish one man.
That's a good idea, so you know, blah blah blah.
Disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of
the oral arguments, blah blah blah. Did it strike you
(25:48):
that the justices, the sane ones that we like, we're
leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges,
et cetera that we've been discussing.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Some of the judges have made clear for a long
time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions.
Justice Thomas in particular, some of the others are a
little harder to read. Justice Barrett, for example, and Justice Roberts,
who have become really the swing judges on this issue.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
I thought the.
Speaker 5 (26:15):
Most interesting judge if if anybody wants to go and
listen to the argument online, I thought Justice Jackson was
the one who is the most interesting. She clearly understands
how this area of the law works, and she rightly
says there's no there there that nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate.
They always have been and there's no problem. So she'd
be the one that I find most interesting. But how
(26:35):
to predict I think you're going to get. I think
Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are going to a side
with the liberals and say, we don't have a problem
per se with nationwide injunctions, but maybe some of them
aren't very good, but as a as a blanket matter,
they're okay. And then they're going to want to hear
the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which obviously is a
huge deal.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Right to me, is it even worth getting in to
what happened on that topic yesterday or do you think it's.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Well, they really just talked about whether or not they
have a legitimate case in the first place, and they
haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's
important because in order to get an injunction, you kind
of have to first show that you have even an
arguable point to make, and that was what they were
arguing about. And I will say, I know this is
talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we
clearly have the right answer and everything. I think the
(27:25):
birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. I don't
think it's an easy question on either side.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Let's talk about that when we come back from the break.
I want to hear the arguments on both sides of that.
That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown. Who
speaks the most words? The chicks talk too much? Is
that given?
Speaker 5 (27:44):
Well, Jessic sodomoy Are does love cutting off lawyers and
not letting them answer her question.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yeah, the chicks talk too so much. I think that's
been and the new gal talks more than anybody.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
That shouldn't happen in any organization.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Trottie Strong and Show Jack Armstrong
and Joe Getty The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with
Tim Sanderfur, vice president for legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion.
It really was much more a discussion of individual federal
judges and nationwide in junctions and that sort of thing.
But to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you
(28:38):
said before the break that it's not an easy call.
I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
What should we know about the fourteenth Amendment even come
to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Speaker 5 (28:49):
Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says, all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are US citizens in all of
this case. All of these arguments turn on that phrase,
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean.
It's really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of
those words that can mean all sorts of different things.
(29:12):
It basically means power, but there's all sorts of different
kinds of power, and so that's what the argument turns on.
Some people think that it means you have to follow
the law. If you're born here and you have to
follow the law, then you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
and then that means you're a citizen. But that doesn't
really make a lot of sense because even foreign tourists
who come here for a vacation have to follow the law.
(29:33):
I mean, they have to stop at the red lights
and they can't steal things, So that can't be what
that means, right. Instead, the other side argues, jurisdiction thereof
means some kind of loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction,
as opposed to follow the law jurisdiction, and that difference.
You can see that difference for example, in this if
(29:55):
you're a foreign spy and you sneak into the country
and you spy for some foreign country and you get
it rested, you can be prosecuted for espionage, but you
cannot be prosecuted for treason. Why because you're not a
US citizen and you don't owe loyalty to the US,
so you cannot commit treason against the US. And so
there's two different kinds of jurisdiction, is the argument. And
(30:17):
so those who are against birth right citizenships say, subject
of the jurisdiction thereof means that your parents owed loyalty
to the United States as opposed to some foreign country.
And that would mean that illegal aliens, if they have
a child here, that child is not a citizen in
the United States. Now, that's also there's a problem with that.
There's a couple problems that. One of the problems with
that argument is that nobody has ever said that that's
(30:39):
what it means. In the one hundred and fifty years
since this has been in the Constitution, everybody has active
like if you're born here, you're a citizen all of
that time. And so suddenly discovering that we're at it
turns out that we've been misreading the Constitution for one
hundred and fifty years would be a huge, enormously radical
transformation and how are system works That would cause tremendous
(31:02):
disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem. But
all of this, the real problem here in answering this
question is that when the amendment was adopted, there were
no such things as the illegal aliens because there were
no laws against immigration. And that means if you're an
originalist and you think the competition should be understood the
way it was originally intended. The Framers didn't ever think
(31:23):
about this because it wasn't against the law back then,
So we don't know what.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
They would have thought about this question right right Well,
at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive president is overturned,
that's when you tag me and Tim and I come
in and explain to the good folks that, look, the
nature of global transportation, the movement of people or peoples
from one place to another has changed so vastly.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
God, Joe's a living constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
Out of what No, don't you dare no, that the
very nature of comings and goings from countries has been
so radically transformed. A Chinese national with not the slightest
notion of making life in the United States can can
depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China,
(32:15):
all in the span of seventy two hours. I'm inducing
labor in this case probably or getting very lucky, and
that child had citizenship. That's an eventuality unimaginable back in
the day, is the case.
Speaker 5 (32:27):
I think so, And that's sort of true. But on
the other hand, the Chinese question came up back then
because there were so many Chinese in California in the
eighteen sixties. And Senator's rast, well, isn't this going to
make the children of the Chinese immigrants who back then
did not intend to stay in the United States? They
intended to go back to China. The senator's rest, does
this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And the
(32:48):
Senator from California said yes, and then he was immediately
thrown out of office. So what does that mean?
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Nobody knows what that means a single case from eighteen
ninety eight, or is there more precedent?
Speaker 5 (33:00):
Really, there really isn't. There's really just a handful of presidents,
and no Supreme Court case has ever said that birthright
citizenship is the is in the Constitution. There have been
some that have kind of mentioned it or kind of
assumed it, but none has said so outright.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
I am surprised the polling shows that only about a
third of Americans want to do away with the way
we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do
want to get to this. This is a journalistic question,
but I think it has an effect on people's respect
for the law. It has come up recently, it has
become a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge,
they mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's
(33:36):
a good idea or not? They didn't just barely got
a minute.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
I think it's fine. I think people should know where
these For instance, I think it would help a lot
of judges. You know, a lot of Republican appointed judges
have been ruling against the Trump administration, and I think
it would be helpful for people to know that these
questions are not things where it's all partisan. The law
is not just partisan politics. It's something much more profound
and much more important than.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Yeah, well I agree, But it implies that judge I
don't know. True.
Speaker 5 (34:04):
I used to think.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
I didn't used to think about it ever. If a
judge ruled, I just thought, well, that's interesting. Now it's
all who appointed him. Oh of course he said that.
Speaker 5 (34:13):
That is true. That is a risk, But I think
we should air on the side of informing people as
opposed to keeping people in the dark.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
So that's that was true.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute on the line, Tim
final question, I've called for a monarchy.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
You in favor of it? Yes or no?
Speaker 5 (34:30):
No? I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Joe.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
One more question as a published poet, I was thinking
about this. Yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan
good poet or not lousy poet?
Speaker 5 (34:40):
Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
How about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden creative Tam. It's always
great and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time. Let's talk
again soon. Thanks guys.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to
Dylan lyrics. Why do they in everybody's head so much?
Why do people keep going back to them? If it's
just gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim, it
can't be. It wouldn't lodge, it wouldn't It wouldn't make
the market made, would it? All right?
Speaker 3 (35:14):
He was famously moody about his career and his music
in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff
is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledygook.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Humhm. Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not.
We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope
you can stick around if you missus segment. I thought
that tim thing was really really good and you want
to listen to it again and get the podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
Armstrong to arms Strong in Getty on demand.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and
tedious and depressing.
Speaker 3 (35:46):
It makes you angry. You don't want to live your
life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
He's Joe Getty. We're Armstrong in Getty.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
We try to bring you the truth and help you
figure out this crazy modern world.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
About something about a comedic tone. We have a one
ore Yes. Listen to Armstrong. You get it on demand
on the iHeartRadio app
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.