Judge Napolitano - Ware and the Constitution

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Time now for the nine first one weather forecast. Uh,
pretty beautiful day today, party cloudie. I have seventy eight
down to forty four of a night with clear sky.
Sunny sky is to Mars sixty six overnight little forty
two clear again and then a mostly sunny day up
until a round five pm on Friday when we have
a chance of rain and thunderstorms entering the area. Highest
seventy eight Friday, it's fifty six now, Chuck Ingram, It's

(00:22):
time for traffic.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
From the UCUT Traffic Center. When it comes to stroke,
every second count. So that's why you see Comprehensive Stroke
Center is your clear choice for a WRAPID life saving treatment.
Learn more at U see how dot com cruise continue
to work with an accident and easpend two seventy five
and seventy one right side of a highway's block. Traffic
now backs up past seventy five, getting close to seven

(00:45):
forty seven. Bruis are also working with the recquest pound
two seventy five. That's just the before you got the
five mile traffic heavy from Ohio Pike and the Beach
Box Ramp. Cold Ring Avenue remains blocked. That's between round
Top and Common Circle due to an early morning accident.
Coming up next, the guest who has his peanuts, he

(01:05):
has his crackerjacks, and he's getting ready to root root
root for the home team. Has his Yankees get underway
this Friday. He hasn't done any kind of preparation for
the Giants and Steelers game Sunday. Chuck Ingram on fifty
five KRC the talk station.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
Kosy Talk Station Wednesday means for certain judge and an apolitan.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Did the Giants still have a football team?

Speaker 1 (01:36):
You would know better than me, That's funny.

Speaker 3 (01:40):
Yeah, good morning, Brian. How are you, my friend?

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Doing as well as could be expected? I think I
might have dodged a pretty significant s or RSV bullet.
And my wife is just overwhelmed with a cough and
my son had it, and uh, so far the cough
has not attacked me. So I'm counting my blessings on that,
because it's really going around the air. I would have
missed work, and I don't want to miss a day
of work between now and the election, your honor, so

(02:05):
I'm thanking God and my lucky stars. Now you know,
I was jokingly referring to your column last night as brilliant,
I said, I bet you get tired of hearing the
word brilliant in connection with your column. But that's the
way I felt about it. And I know I love
talking with you about the Constitution, most notably in connection
with declarations of war. But let me throw something at
you real quick. I know you don't mind a little
curveball here, and I think you'll be all over this one.

(02:27):
You have pointed out time and time again, and anybody
knows the Constitution and the Bill of Rights knows that
the first Amendment, the first thing, is the free exercise
of religion. We enjoy that here in the United States.
We are not a theocracy, and the government cannot interfere
with the free exercise of religion. Kamala Harris, when talking
with NBC News Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson, asked her, so

(02:52):
is a question of pragmatism, then what concessions would be
on the table religious exemptions, for ex Is that something
that you would consider if the Republicans control Congress. That
question in the context of abortions and roe v wade
Her response, I don't think we should be making concessions
when we're talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions

(03:14):
about your own body. In other words, the concept of
a woman's right to control her body, which is not
specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Trump's the specifically acknowledge free
exercise of religion. There are many people in the medical
profession who do not believe, based upon the religion, that
abortions are appropriate under any circumstances. Should the government be

(03:38):
in a position to force doctors to do something that
they find objectionable because of their religion, And my quick
answer would be, of course not, They can't.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
And yet my answer, my answer is the same as yours,
and soar as the Supreme Court jurisprudence. She was not
thinking clearly, and she's animated by almost a fanatal not almost.
It is a fanatical support for abortion at any time,

(04:06):
under any circumstances, and for any reason, even to the
point where the government would force a medical team to
perform a surgical procedure which they believe is homicide.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, you can't force a guy to bake a cake
for a transgender wedding. How could you force the doctor
to kill a base?

Speaker 3 (04:28):
Correct? Correct? And your point is profound. There's no constitutional
right to an abortion there never has been, even under
a Row versus Wade. The constitutional right, long recognized and
rarely disputed is the right to privacy. The fact that

(04:49):
the abortion occurred in the zone of privacy gave it
the aura under Roe versus Weed of being a constitutional right,
But strictly speaking, no Mame court case has ever held
there's a constitutional right to an abortion. So I don't
know if the Vice President referred to it as a
constitutional right, which it's never been, or a fundamental right,

(05:12):
which is even for which there's even less argument to
be made. A fundamental right is a natural right that
comes to our humanity. There's no natural right to kill
another human being. I would love to debate her. I
actually like her as a person, but I would love
to debate her on this not going to happen.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
Well, I want to give you an opportunity at least
back me up, because I was talking about this earlier
and a lot of my listeners are very very against
the whole idea of abortion. But the legal notion that
she's springing from I found smacked the First Amendment directly
in the face, so perfect. Moving on to war in

(05:51):
the Constitution, the Southery, the column comes out tonight at midnight.
I'm a lucky man for getting a copy of it early.
This is a subject that you and I have been
over before, and yet we're still living it. In fact,
it seems to be getting worse. That is that we
are engaged literally with boots on the ground operating weapons
of war into theater, maybe more theaters than just the
two we're talking about here, both Ukraine and Israel. They've

(06:14):
got sophisticated weapons systems that we've given them that require
US Service personnel to actually operate them for reasons of
security or technology. So we're actually pulling the trigger in
conflicts that we're not engaged in.

Speaker 3 (06:31):
This is what prompted me to write the piece. I
have written similar themes with respect to Ukraine. But when
the White House announced twice last week that it was
sending the FAD thaad an acronym for a very fancy,
very expensive defensive missile system that shoots down incoming missiles

(06:58):
in the sky, that was sending one of these to
Israel and a team of one hundred troops to guard it,
protected and operate it. Three days later they announced another FAD.
We only have seven, so two are there now three
days later they announced another fad going and another one
hundred troops. That's what prompted me to do this. The

(07:21):
president just can't send troops into harm's way on his own,
but they all do. They've been doing this since the
end of World War two. I mean, the last time
we declared war was December eighth, nineteen forty one. George W.
Bush did get authorizations from Congress, about three or four

(07:46):
of them, to invade Afghanistan and invade Iraq. Biden has
gotten no congressional authorizations. Now, Biden will say, well, look,
they're paying for it. They obviously don't object to it.
That's a legitimate argument, But it's a way around the
Constitution because only Congress can declare war. So Congress avoids

(08:07):
the Constitution by paying for a war without declaring it
without a great national debate. The president avoids the Constitution
by putting troops into harm's way without getting a congressional
declaration of war. They both avoid and evade the treaties
we've signed, which say we can't declare war, we can't

(08:29):
engage in offensive war unless the other country presents an imminent,
grave threat to the security of the United States. Does
Iran present a grave imminent threat to the security of
the United States? No? Does Russia pose a grave threat
to the security of the United States? Answer? No, are

(08:51):
we fighting wars against both? We are against Russia and
we're about to against Iran. Totally unconstitutional, Now what, Brian?
They all took a note to preserve, protective, defend the Constitution,
the same oath I took when I became a life
tenured judge.

Speaker 1 (09:07):
They don't give a damn well, they don't. And of course,
the same people who swear note to the Constitution and
in the next moment out of their mouth they'll talking
about ways of taking away our Second Amendment rights. We
all know that that oath is a bit of a joke,
and that's a sad, sad thing to behold. But as
many of our conversations have debt, they trod upon our
First Amendment rights, they trod upon our Fourth Amendment rights.
I mean, it's it's just an amazing thing that.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
There's only one person in the Congress that complains about this. Correct, correct,
I mean your listeners know, you know, I know. But
he's a voice in the wilderness. He's the conscience of
the House of representatives the conscience of the Constitution, but
they don't listen to him. They do whatever they think

(09:53):
will put money in the coffers of their campaigns, and
we'll get them re elected. That's what they are concerned with.
Who authorized the mass wars, Well, we're enriching the military
industrial complex. Who authorized the mass spying. Well, we got
to be kept safe from terrorists behind every refrigerator. I mean,

(10:17):
they gave us a society where the government is so overbearing.
I have a friend who asked another friend of Vietnam veterans,
our age, my age, Brian, what were you fighting for?
They can't answer. He asked the guys who came home
from Iraq and afghanists there, what are you fighting for?

(10:38):
They can't answer. There's no valid, legitimate, moral answer to
that to those questions.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
Well, and the other component of this, and you know,
the parallels with Vietnam cannot be understated. We start with advisors,
and then we start growing the number of advisors, and
next thing you know, we have a large military foothold
in there. And it sounds me like, you know, say, ooh,
it's just one hundred troops and we're only engaging in
defensive these thad right, they're only if something comes at Israel,

(11:07):
then we'll shoot it down. That's not offensive use of
military hardware, but that we are there and we have
a military presence there. If they start shooting rockets at
us and harm our military personnel, I can see that
as being used as a pretext to expand into a
much broader conflict. So it creates an opportunity to make
a great case where we got to go after him.

(11:28):
Those suns and so and so they murdered our troops
that were stationed in Ukraine and Israel.

Speaker 3 (11:34):
So the troops are a tripwire. It's reprehensible human beings
as a trip wire. This is what Prime Minister Netsigyaho wants,
and this is apparently what President Biden wants in order
to justify to the American public a massive US involvement
in a war against the country that just wants to

(11:55):
trade with us poses no threat to us whatsoever. By
the way, do we have a treaty with Israel that
requires us to do this? No? Do we have a
treaty with Ukraine that requires us to do this?

Speaker 1 (12:07):
No.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
All the more.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
Reason why there should have been and still should be.
And even though we're at the tail end of a
presidential campaign. They don't debate this stuff a great national
debate about whether or not the United States should be
involved in a war in Europe and a war in
the Middle East. That's at least what Madison wanted. By
putting the power to declare war in the Congress, not

(12:31):
in the presidents well.

Speaker 1 (12:33):
And whether or not you're in favor of it or not,
it is putting the American security at risk because, as
you pointed out, we only had seven of these THAD
missile batteries. Now we have lost a bunch of them
to foreign powers, and we can't even protect our own ourselves.
Our military hardware is running out. I know you're against
the military industrial complex, but you know there are threats

(12:53):
foreign and domestic. We need to be prepared for them.
And from what I understand, our hardware is running out.
Our military is short on tree groups in personnel for
a variety of reasons. And oh, there's that whole thing
going on in the South China Sea and around Taiwan
with the Chinese getting very itchy at the trigger finger.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
I agree with everything you've everything you've said, we have
depleted well, we have almost down to zero of one
hundred and five one hundred and fifty five millimeters artillery shells,
which is the meat and potatoes of artillery. But we
are seriously depleting our military hardware by everything we send

(13:38):
to Israel into Ukraine. The numbers are vastly different. I mean,
it's about twenty billion to Israel, it's two hundred and
sixty five billion with a B to Ukraine. It's just
an unbelievable number that has produced the deaths of six
hundred thousand young men, an entire generation dead for what

(14:05):
for what American purpose?

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Well, and it certainly hasn't worked out to the benefit
of Ukraine. They can't find any soldiers and they're losing
more and more land every single day to the advancing Russians.
Judge Napolitano always love talking with you. Controversial, maybe, but
maybe not when you look at it in the light
of the Constitution of the United States. What's going on
today with judging freedom.

Speaker 3 (14:27):
I have the great investigative journalists, Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate.
I have the former CIA agent who told George W.
Bush there were in Saddam Hussein did not have weapons
of mass destruction. Phil Giraldi and I am on a
show of the Great George Galloway, the anti war warrior

(14:51):
in the House of Commons representing Scotland. He's a fabulous
character and I'm looking forward to.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
It and we will look forward to enjoying it as well.
Judging Freedom Judge Otopolton until next Wednesday, my dear friend,
God bless you, sir, and back at you, Brian, all
the best, Thank you very much. A forty four fifty
five Caro City Talk station. Don't go away, be right back,
stay right here.