June 7, 2025 • 31 mins
Constitutional boundaries and presidential power collide in this thought-provoking examination of Trump's tariff policies with constitutional lawyer Joe Wolverton. Going beyond partisan politics, this conversation delves into fundamental questions about executive authority and the sacred boundaries established by our founding document.
Wolverton brings extraordinary clarity to a complex issue, explaining why even economically beneficial and politically popular policies must remain within constitutional parameters. "The president of the United States does not possess the constitutional authority to impose tariffs," he explains, highlighting how this power is explicitly granted to Congress alone in our Constitution.
The discussion reveals how the Trump administration has leveraged the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977—legislation intended for narrowly defined national security threats—to implement broad economic policies. This raises profound questions about precedent: if one president can declare economic emergencies to bypass Congress, what stops future presidents from declaring climate emergencies to shut down energy production or gun violence emergencies to restrict firearm access?
Most powerfully, Wolverton challenges listeners to examine their own constitutional priorities: "We cannot allow someone to claim to be making America great again by making the Constitution of America irrelevant." The conversation forces us to confront whether we value specific policies or politicians more than the constitutional framework that has preserved American liberty for generations.
Even as the US Court of International Trade has ruled against many of these tariffs, media silence and congressional inaction reveal the political calculations preventing meaningful constitutional accountability. This episode serves as a wake-up call about the dangers of constitutional ignorance and the vital importance of upholding our founding principles regardless of partisan advantage.
Join Dr. Jackson and Joe Wolverton for this essential conversation about the true meaning of constitutional fidelity in an age of executive expansion. Subscribe now to continue receiving these vital conversations about the intersection of constitutional principles and contemporary challenges.
https://www.jacksonfamilyministry.com
https://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to More Than Medicine, where Jesus is more
than enough for the ills thatplague our culture and our
country.
Hosted by author and physician,dr Robert Jackson, and his wife
Carlotta and daughter HannahMiller.
So listen up, because thedoctor is in.
Dr.Robert Jackson (00:22):
Welcome to More Than Medicine.
I'm your host, dr RobertJackson, bringing to you
biblical insights and storiesfrom the doctor's rusty, dusty
scrapbook.
Well, today I have a veryspecial guest online.
His name is Joe Wolverton, andJoe is a constitutional lawyer.
And, Joe, if you don't mind,I'm going to ask you to identify
(00:44):
yourself and just tell mylisteners a little bit about
yourself.
I know you've been on theprogram with me before, but I
want you to re-identify yourselffor my folks that may not have
tuned into more than medicinepreviously.
Joe Wolverton (00:59):
Sure, yeah, joe Wolverton, I was a
constitutional lawyer for manyyears.
I am from Memphis, tennessee,where I say a constitutional
lawyer.
I specialized in FourthAmendment work, that is to say,
(01:30):
defending citizens against theillegal search and seizure by
government.
I started writing for the NewAmerican in 2004,.
Just by, pretty much byaccident, I knew somebody who
knew somebody asked me to writefor them and before you know it,
I was writing for them all thetime and kept doing that for
(01:51):
about 20 years.
And then, about a year and ahalf ago, I was asked to join
the staff of the John BirchSociety full time and they
created a position for me, theinaugural constitutional law
scholar for the John BirchSociety, and so anything that
the society puts out regardingthe Constitution, it goes
(02:14):
through me first, so I can makesure that we say the right thing
, and say it in the right wayand make it to where people can
understand, and so I was veryhonored by that.
And make it to where people canunderstand, and so I was very
honored by that.
And so today my time is spentwriting books.
I've had three of thempublished in the last year or so
the last two years, I guess, Ishould say, and then writing
(02:41):
articles for the New American onthe topic of constitution, at
least the constitutionality ofthings that are happening in the
news and in history.
You know the way we can.
I guess my specialty is lookingat history and applying it to
the present and see how, if weread what the founders read, we
might have the knowledge and thecourage to do what the founders
(03:02):
did and throw off the chains oftyranny and protect our liberty
.
I hear you, and so that's whatI do now, full time, and I am so
grateful to our God forallowing me to do that as a job.
Dr.Robert Jackson (03:15):
I hear you.
I hear you Well.
I'm fascinated by the thingsthat you do and I'm fascinated
by the things that are writtenin the New American.
I think I told you thispreviously, but I've been
reading the New American and itsforebearer, the review of the
news, for since 1981 and it'sbeen part of my instruction and
(03:38):
what makes me who I am as aconservative Christian political
activist.
Joe Wolverton (03:43):
It's certainly a good resource for anyone and we
we try to make those resourcesavailable, if not free as as
inexpensively.
That's one of the things theybrought me on as the head of
publishing as well, and my firstjob was, you know.
My argument was uh, weaponsdon't do any good if they're
just sitting around the arsenalcollecting dust.
(04:05):
We've got to get them into thehands of the of the soldiers on
the front line.
And so I went through the, thejbs bookstore, and slashed
prices down to the bare bones sothat people could afford the,
the wonderful resources that we,that we have available instead
of, you know, logging on andseeing a book was 30.
I said, let's said let's makethat book $10.
(04:27):
And so we did that and we'vehad a lot of good reports back
that people are pleased thatthey're able to afford all of
the resources of economics andhistory and the Constitution
that we offer at Shop JBS.
So I'm happy about that.
Dr.Robert Jackson (04:47):
All right, well, look, I invited you to be
on today because of an articlethat you wrote for the New
American about President Trump'stariffs, and you know everybody
knows about the tariff thatthey've got their head out of
the sand at all.
They know that President Trumpapplied tariffs to just about
every nation in the worldbecause of the unfair trade
(05:13):
arrangement between the UnitedStates and just about every
nation in the world, declaringthat other nations have been
taking advantage of the UnitedStates for decades and that he
wanted to level the playingfield economically.
So he levied various tariffsagainst both friend and foe
(05:34):
across the globe and declaredthat he was going to bring in
revenue to the United States andthat he was going to make the
trade between the United Statesand other nations more equitable
.
And if people have been payingattention, it's brought the
(05:54):
heads of nations all around theworld to the negotiating table
and many of them, almostimmediately, were willing to
make trade deals with PresidentTrump, which he has trumpeted,
and it's made him look like thevictor.
And so he has looked like he iscoming out on top with a cherry
(06:18):
on top because of these tariffsand in fact, it looks like
China, who has said they wouldnot negotiate at all their
economy.
You know what little informationyou can get out of China.
It sounds like they havefactories that are standing
still, and there's some word ofrioting by workers in China, and
(06:42):
some factories have even beenburned to the ground.
So it's an amazing turn ofevents in China, and even the
leader in China has made noisethat he's willing to talk to
President Trump about some kindof trade deal.
But here's the thing Is all ofthis proper?
(07:05):
Is all of this the thing thatshould be going on in view of
our Constitution?
And that's what I invited youin, because you're a
constitutional expert, and Iwant to hear from you, and I
want my listeners to hear fromyou, and let us have a dialogue
about the constitutionality oftariffs.
(07:25):
And is this the purview of thepresident?
So, joe, I'm going to turn itover to you.
Joe Wolverton (07:32):
Thank you, and you know everything you just
said is true and good, and youknow that's what I want to make
clear right from the beginningis this is not anti-Trump or
anti-MAGA or pro-democratic oranything like that.
It's not about party at all.
It's about principle.
And the principle here is thatthe president of the United
(07:55):
States does not possess theconstitutional authority to
impose tariffs.
That power is granted in theConstitution exclusively to the
Congress.
And that's the first bigproblem.
The first big problem is thepresident is doing this.
He claims that he has theauthority, but he does not have
(08:17):
the authority.
Congress has the authority.
So the president is perfectlywithin his purview and within
his prerogative to say hey.
However, when he says that theConstitution anticipates that,
(08:46):
those will merely be suggestionsand those suggestions will be
made to Congress, and thenCongress, who are the
representatives of the people,is the body that will decide yes
or no on imposing these tariffs.
And the problem is that youknow the president.
(09:07):
In doing this, we put ourselvesin a position that you know.
The power that the presidentinvokes to do this was this
International Emergency EconomicPowers Act from 1977,
(09:33):
international Emergency EconomicPowers Act from 1977, which was
never intended to become ablank check for the president to
use as economic warfare.
It was designed to give thepresident narrowly defined
authority to respond to specific, very demonstrable, clear and
present threats to nationalsecurity.
It was not a permission slipfor the president to impose
tariffs on anything and anyone.
(09:55):
We cannot, as a country, allowour president no matter how
popular, no matter how properhis ideas, no matter how wise
his economic ideas we cannotallow him to take those and, by
the stroke of a pen, turn thatinto law.
(10:16):
That is what we call a king andwe do not have a king.
Constitutionally, the presidentcannot do this.
And, doctor, here's where weget into trouble.
The trouble is many of us andeven one of the judges on the
court, the US Court ofInternational Trade, that ruled
(10:36):
against most of the president'stariff.
One of the judges says you know, these are actually, as did she
say, dandy ideas.
These are dandy ideas.
And then she said but it is adandy plan, but it has to meet
the statute.
And that's where the she's, aRepublican nominated by
President Reagan, arguing thathis tariffs were pro-American or
(11:07):
that he's protecting Americanindustry.
And that very well might betrue in sentiment, but we are
not a nation of sentiment orintention.
We are a nation of laws.
That's the definition of arepublic.
We cannot allow.
We all know what the road tohell is paved with.
(11:28):
So good intentions, good ideas,patriotic sentiment, all of that
means nothing when it comes todeciding if a person holding an
office under the Constitutionexercises unconstitutional
authority, because we have to.
Even good and this is the thingthat I try to tell people Even
(11:52):
good, honest, patrioticintentions must be bound by
constitutional constraints,otherwise we might as well not
have a constitution at all.
That's right.
I agree with that.
That, and this is what it comesdown to.
The constitution, doctor, isnot a buffet.
You don't get to pick andchoose which parts of the
(12:12):
constitution you're going toapply and to whom you're going
to apply them.
We must apply them, as the goodbook says, without being a
respecter of persons.
We must apply those lawsequally, equitably and evenly to
all people of all parties.
Yes, because the Constitutionis our supreme law.
(12:37):
It's what represents consent ofthe governed.
And if you act outside theboundaries placed by the people
on your authority, as expressedin the constitution, then you
become, whether we like it ornot, you are making yourself
into a tyrant.
That's right, that's right andthat's the problem.
(12:59):
That's where we are.
He, president trump, and youknow this is that President
Trump, like many before him,many presidents before him, like
, I would argue, almost everypresident before him, found that
the Constitution was too slow,to obstructed, to cumbersome,
and so he decided to take thisemergency powers act and bypass
(13:22):
Congress and then use that end,run around Congress as a
pretended authority that theConstitution never granted to
the president, and we have aproblem.
The problem we have is numberone you have a president who's
very popular and so many peopleare willing to give him a pass
(13:45):
when it comes to, you know,making violating the
Constitution, particularly whenhe dresses up that violation,
when he wraps it in the flag andwhen he explains that it's good
for the economy, and we're just, you know, we're leveling the
playing field and all of that.
And then the second problem wehave is ignorance, on behalf of
(14:09):
the people, as to the authoritythat the president actually has.
You know, article two of theconstitution is a very short
article and in that article thepresident is given very few and
well-defined powers, and thereason that it's so short and
that is so well defined isbecause there in philadelphia in
(14:31):
17, those delegates, theythemselves had just come through
an eight-year war fightingagainst a king who exceeded his
own authority, and they knewthat it takes much bloodshed to
bring down a king who isexercising tyrannical authority.
(14:54):
And so, when it came time tocreate a president, the founding
fathers knew we are going tonarrowly define the powers of
the president so that heessentially, his unilateral
actions are almost non-existent.
For example, he's thecommander-in-chief of the
military, but only if Congressdeclares war.
(15:16):
He can appoint judges andambassadors, but only if the
Senate approves them.
That sort of thing they did notwant to give the president and
sort of independent authoritylike President Trump is using.
And to make up to take thisblank of well, if there's
(15:47):
emergencies, we have to do somethings differently, which, okay,
I don't think that whole law isconstitutional to begin with,
but it is in effect.
But it does not grant him theright to create emergencies so
that he can use that as ajustification for violating the
(16:09):
limits of his constitutionalauthority and, ultimately,
doctor.
What it comes down to beyond allthis is that you know some
people and most people I know,and I'm sure most people with
whom you associate as well.
They will say well, trump, as Isaid, trump has our best
interest at heart.
He's trying to restore domesticindustry.
(16:30):
He's trying to level theplaying field.
It's patriotic, it's good.
We're trying to get back inChina, we're trying to restore,
make America great again.
All of this and most people Iknow they think that's a good
thing and that's fine and we'rekind of going to just turn a
blind eye to it because of thegood intentions.
(16:52):
But here's the problem DonaldTrump is not going to be
president forever.
That's right.
And the problem is, if we allowa president to unilaterally
rewrite trade policy, what's tostop the next president from
declaring a climate emergencyand shutting down all oil and
coal production?
That's right.
That's right.
(17:12):
And shutting down all oil andcoal production?
That's right.
What's to stop the nextpresident from declaring a gun
violence emergency and banningthe purchase of firearms by
civilians?
Or what's to stop him fromdeclaring a disinformation
emergency and shutting down allsocial media communication that
doesn't agree with the regime,media communication that doesn't
(17:37):
agree with the regime?
This is the problem that ifPresident Trump can do it, even
for good intentions, somedaywe're going to have one of these
woke presidents who are goingto use that power that President
Trump used.
They're going to use that samepower to do things with which we
will disagree and which willtake our liberty, and the only
thing, the only thing that'sstopping that, is the
(17:58):
Constitution.
But, as James Madison said, theConstitution is simply a piece
of parchment that, without thepeople of the United States
honoring it and enforcing it, itis simply a parchment barrier
between the people and tyrants.
So we have to be aware of it and, even though it may hurt a
(18:21):
little, you know, to enforce itagainst presidents that we like
and policies that we like, evenpolicies that are ostensibly and
arguably good and soundpolicies.
We cannot let President Trumpexercise that authority because,
a it's unconstitutional and, Bhe's using this Emergency Powers
(18:42):
Act to do it for a purpose forwhich it was not intended.
And we stand at the precipiceof history where we don't know
who the next president will beand we know for a fact that we
could have someone in the WhiteHouse declare any sort of
emergency, just like PresidentTrump did, and then say under my
(19:02):
authority, as exercised byDonald Trump in the last
administration, I am herebyhalting all sales of firearms
and ammunition to all but lawenforcement and the military,
because we have an epidemic ofgun violence and it's an
emergency and we need so you cansee where I'm going.
So, yeah, we have to, we haveto be, we have to be the people
(19:27):
that stand there and we have toknow the constitution, honor the
and enforce the Constitution.
Or let's be honest with eachother and just do away with it
and see where that takes us.
Dr.Robert Jackson (19:41):
And you see, the people who value and honor
and love Donald Trump so muchhave to make a decision, and
that decision is do we loveDonald Trump more than we love
our Constitution?
Joe Wolverton (19:52):
That's exactly right.
Do we love his?
Dr.Robert Jackson (19:54):
tactics more than we love our Constitution.
That's exactly right.
Do we love his?
Speaker 1 (19:58):
tactics more than we love the.
Dr.Robert Jackson (19:59):
Constitution.
And that's when psychology,what we call an approach
approach conflict.
That's a conflict when you havewhere you have two equally
valuable and enjoyable choicesand you can't decide between two
choices that are equallyvaluable, equally attractive to
you and you know Donald Trump isvery attractive to the America.
(20:20):
First, make America greatcontingent in our country and
the whole notion of loving andvaluing the Constitution is also
very attractive and valuable tous.
And people are going to have tomake a decision, a hard
decision Do we love ourConstitution or do we love
Donald Trump and his policiesmore and go?
Joe Wolverton (20:42):
ahead.
I'm sorry, Go ahead.
I was just going to say that wejust can't place faith like
again, I sound like a preacherwhen I come on your show but we
cannot place our trust in thearm of flesh, even if that arm
of flesh is someone that we lookup to and admire and someone
with whom we agree with hispolicy.
(21:04):
We cannot do that, and weespecially cannot allow someone
to claim to be making Americagreat again by making the
Constitution of Americairrelevant.
That's exactly right.
We cannot do that.
We cannot allow ourselves to beput in that position, Even when
(21:25):
it hurts.
We must do the right thing, andthe right thing is honoring and
enforcing the supreme law ofthe land as handed down to us by
our wise and virtuous ancestors.
Dr.Robert Jackson (21:38):
Well, now tell me again, what court was it
that declared his tariffs to beunconstitutional?
Joe Wolverton (21:45):
It was the US Court of International Trade.
Dr.Robert Jackson (21:48):
Well now, how come we haven't heard any noise
about that?
I mean, I read about that inyour article, but I haven't
really heard anything about itin the media.
Joe Wolverton (21:57):
Well, yeah, now a lot of people have asked me
that same question and theanswer is a little tricky but
obvious.
It's kind of like I tell peopleit's like those Where's Waldo
puzzles.
You know, you look for hoursyou can't find Waldo.
Well, the minute someone pointshim out to you, you're like,
(22:18):
well, how did I miss that?
And that's what this?
The US International Trade.
The reason you've not heard muchabout this decision is from the
liberal media is becauseliberals are in favor of taxes
and tariffs are a form oftaxation right, and so if they
(22:40):
come out and they praise the USCourt of International Trade for
slapping down these unlawful,these unconstitutional tariffs,
they come out as admitting thattaxes damage the economy and
they don't want to do thatbecause they are pro-taxation.
(23:00):
They are the party of big taxesand big government.
So they're left in this bizarresituation that they don't find
themselves in often, but they'rein the position of, if they
praise someone slappingPresident Trump on the wrist,
they're exposing the weaknessesof their own philosophy about
(23:22):
taxation being the answer toevery problem, and so they can't
do that.
You can't have MSNBC doing abig if it was some other sort of
decision, like every time hewas falsely accused of
falsifying business records, whyyou'd have four hours of
(23:43):
coverage on every, yeah,constantly, guarantee you
haven't heard five minutes aboutit.
because the, the gatekeepers ofthe media, are letting the
people know.
Shut up about this, because ifyou mention this, it might cause
some people to realize thatbeing pro-taxation isn't being
(24:07):
anti-economy and anti-American,and we don't want this.
So, even though it forces themto not, you know, take advantage
of a seeming defeat by you know, by President Trump, they have
to be quiet about it so as notto reveal the weaknesses of
(24:27):
their own philosophy.
I got you Well now the Congressloves to tax.
Dr.Robert Jackson (24:32):
I mean they've taxed us to death?
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Do you think there's?
Dr.Robert Jackson (24:34):
any prayer that they would take up his
tariffs.
And they're the ones who,constitutionally, have the right
to levy tariffs.
Joe Wolverton (24:49):
Put his people to work trying to find some end
around.
Let's find some law that I canuse.
And so they found thatEmergency Economic Powers Act
from 1977 and pretended that allof that the deficit was a
national emergency and a clearand present danger to the safety
(25:14):
of the people of the UnitedStates.
Dr.Robert Jackson (25:16):
It's been wildly popular.
You'd think Congress would takethe hint and they would say
let's enact these tariffs.
Joe Wolverton (25:23):
Right.
Well, the problem is Congress,by doing that, would actually be
forced to go on record as beingfor or against something, and
(25:56):
they hate that, particularly inthe House of Representatives,
because every two years, theyhave to go to the people and
justify the votes that they'vemade.
Vote for Donald Trump?
You can imagine that.
Here's this law before them,raising taxes, and everything
within them wants to vote infavor of more taxes, but also
everything in them wants them tonever, ever, ever agree with
Donald Trump.
So what do they do?
If they end up voting yes infavor of the tariffs?
Why then?
They go home to campaign andtheir Republican opponents will
Look he voted with PresidentTrump or their Democratic
(26:20):
primary opponent says myopponent votes with Donald Trump
.
You don't want to send DonaldTrump's lackey back to the House
.
We're a Democratic district andwe thought we elected a
Democrat, but we just elected a.
Republican in Democratic clothes.
They need Republican andDemocratic clothes, and so they
(26:49):
can't afford to be on record inthis unique case, because it
puts the Democrats in the placethey don't want to be.
It puts Republicans.
They have to.
Most of them feel aresponsibility to support Trump.
They also realize the damageeconomically to Main Street
that's done by tariffs, so theydon't want to be held
accountable for that because ofthese tariffs, where they would
import certain items that theymake their stuff in the states,
but they import components fromother countries, but now these
(27:26):
tariffs make it impossible forthem to afford it.
So they go out of business andso their thing is hey, president
Trump doesn't even have theauthority to do this, so let's
challenge that authority incourt so that we don't go
bankrupt.
Dr.Robert Jackson (27:40):
You know, trying to to somehow survive the
economic impact of thesetariffs but the tariffs are
going to continue becausenobody's going to raise a stink
about it.
Even though the court says it'sunconstitutional, he's going to
continue on without any.
It is anybody saying a word?
Joe Wolverton (27:58):
it's the pro, it's the prototypical catch-22.
It's literally just like that.
But at the end of the day, thereal emergency isn't the trade
deficit, it's the deficit ofconstitutional understanding in
our people and in our politicalrepresentatives.
(28:18):
You're right, you understand.
You know, something that I tellpeople.
I, you know, give thesepresentations at churches a lot
and I say look, I hold theConstitution as a sacred
document.
I think that it is the supremelaw.
I think our Heavenly Fatherinspired it.
I think the men who drafted itwere inspired by him.
I think they all, to a man,recognized the hand of
(28:42):
providence in putting thistogether.
I said, but there's somethingeven beyond that.
So when a president or a courtor a congress acts outside their
constitutional authority, thatbothers me and that than
tyrannical and that's being ablasphemer to me as a Christian.
(29:05):
Because every one of these men,all 535 members of Congress,
all nine Supreme Court justicesand the president of the United
States, place their hand on aBible and swear to God to
preserve, protect and defend theConstitution.
Well, if you're reading theBible, swear not, it says right
(29:27):
by heaven, for it is God's home,nor by earth, for it is His
footstool.
And here you've got all thesepolitical representatives, in my
opinion, mocking God by puttingtheir hand on the Bible and
swearing to be faithful to adocument, and then, as soon as
they raise their hand off thatBible and swearing to be
faithful to a document, and then, as soon as they raise their
hand off that Bible, they go andcast a vote contrary to the
Constitution, thus makingthemselves not only tyrants but
(29:50):
blasphemers as well.
Dr.Robert Jackson (29:52):
I understand that, but then the rest of us in
this country are ignorant ofthe Constitution and you know,
the Bible tells us that thepeople perish because of a lack
of knowledge and when the wickedrule I mean when the wicked
rule the people shall mourn.
Joe Wolverton (30:09):
Yes, and we were living in those days,
unfortunately.
However, we always have thatopportunity to you know, study
the Constitution, to really makea concerted effort if we're
claiming to revere a document,to honor a document, to consider
a document inspired, to reallysay it's a small document, it's
(30:30):
really not that large To studyit and then to hold our
political representatives, ourpolitical servants hold them
accountable to that oath thatthey swear to God, hold them
accountable to it and that's ourjob, because if we don't do it,
we know they're not going to doit themselves.
Oh no, they won't.
Dr.Robert Jackson (30:50):
All right.
Well, joe, our time is out.
We've got to go.
I appreciate your willingnessto be on More Than Medicine with
me.
I appreciate your expertise andI'm just honored to have you as
my guest.
I hope you'll come back and beon More Than Medicine again
another time.
Joe Wolverton (31:07):
All you need to do is ask doctor, and I will be
there.
I appreciate you so much.
I appreciate your faith, Iappreciate your efforts on
behalf of patriotism and onbehalf of spreading the kingdom
of God, and I appreciate all youdo Well.
Dr.Robert Jackson (31:19):
Thank you kindly, and the Lord bless you
and your family.
You're listening to More ThanMedicine.
I'm your host, dr RobertJackson.
My guest today is Joe Wolverton, constitutional lawyer.
We'll be back again next week.
Until then, may the Lord blessyou real good.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Thank you for listening to this edition of
More Than Medicine.
For more information about theJackson Family Ministry, dr
Jackson's books, or to schedulea speaking engagement, go to
their Facebook page, instagramor their webpage at
jacksonfamilyministrycom.
This podcast is produced by BobSlone Audio Production at
bobslone.
com.
Welcome to More Than Medicine, where Jesus is more
than enough for the ills thatplague our culture and our
country.
Hosted by author and physician,dr Robert Jackson, and his wife
Carlotta and daughter HannahMiller.
So listen up, because thedoctor is in.
Dr.Robert Jackson (00:22):
Welcome to More Than Medicine.
I'm your host, dr RobertJackson, bringing to you
biblical insights and storiesfrom the doctor's rusty, dusty
scrapbook.
Well, today I have a veryspecial guest online.
His name is Joe Wolverton, andJoe is a constitutional lawyer.
And, Joe, if you don't mind,I'm going to ask you to identify
(00:44):
yourself and just tell mylisteners a little bit about
yourself.
I know you've been on theprogram with me before, but I
want you to re-identify yourselffor my folks that may not have
tuned into more than medicinepreviously.
Joe Wolverton (00:59):
Sure, yeah, joe Wolverton, I was a
constitutional lawyer for manyyears.
I am from Memphis, tennessee,where I say a constitutional
lawyer.
I specialized in FourthAmendment work, that is to say,
(01:30):
defending citizens against theillegal search and seizure by
government.
I started writing for the NewAmerican in 2004,.
Just by, pretty much byaccident, I knew somebody who
knew somebody asked me to writefor them and before you know it,
I was writing for them all thetime and kept doing that for
(01:51):
about 20 years.
And then, about a year and ahalf ago, I was asked to join
the staff of the John BirchSociety full time and they
created a position for me, theinaugural constitutional law
scholar for the John BirchSociety, and so anything that
the society puts out regardingthe Constitution, it goes
(02:14):
through me first, so I can makesure that we say the right thing
, and say it in the right wayand make it to where people can
understand, and so I was veryhonored by that.
And make it to where people canunderstand, and so I was very
honored by that.
And so today my time is spentwriting books.
I've had three of thempublished in the last year or so
the last two years, I guess, Ishould say, and then writing
(02:41):
articles for the New American onthe topic of constitution, at
least the constitutionality ofthings that are happening in the
news and in history.
You know the way we can.
I guess my specialty is lookingat history and applying it to
the present and see how, if weread what the founders read, we
might have the knowledge and thecourage to do what the founders
(03:02):
did and throw off the chains oftyranny and protect our liberty
.
I hear you, and so that's whatI do now, full time, and I am so
grateful to our God forallowing me to do that as a job.
Dr.Robert Jackson (03:15):
I hear you.
I hear you Well.
I'm fascinated by the thingsthat you do and I'm fascinated
by the things that are writtenin the New American.
I think I told you thispreviously, but I've been
reading the New American and itsforebearer, the review of the
news, for since 1981 and it'sbeen part of my instruction and
(03:38):
what makes me who I am as aconservative Christian political
activist.
Joe Wolverton (03:43):
It's certainly a good resource for anyone and we
we try to make those resourcesavailable, if not free as as
inexpensively.
That's one of the things theybrought me on as the head of
publishing as well, and my firstjob was, you know.
My argument was uh, weaponsdon't do any good if they're
just sitting around the arsenalcollecting dust.
(04:05):
We've got to get them into thehands of the of the soldiers on
the front line.
And so I went through the, thejbs bookstore, and slashed
prices down to the bare bones sothat people could afford the,
the wonderful resources that we,that we have available instead
of, you know, logging on andseeing a book was 30.
I said, let's said let's makethat book $10.
(04:27):
And so we did that and we'vehad a lot of good reports back
that people are pleased thatthey're able to afford all of
the resources of economics andhistory and the Constitution
that we offer at Shop JBS.
So I'm happy about that.
Dr.Robert Jackson (04:47):
All right, well, look, I invited you to be
on today because of an articlethat you wrote for the New
American about President Trump'stariffs, and you know everybody
knows about the tariff thatthey've got their head out of
the sand at all.
They know that President Trumpapplied tariffs to just about
every nation in the worldbecause of the unfair trade
(05:13):
arrangement between the UnitedStates and just about every
nation in the world, declaringthat other nations have been
taking advantage of the UnitedStates for decades and that he
wanted to level the playingfield economically.
So he levied various tariffsagainst both friend and foe
(05:34):
across the globe and declaredthat he was going to bring in
revenue to the United States andthat he was going to make the
trade between the United Statesand other nations more equitable
.
And if people have been payingattention, it's brought the
(05:54):
heads of nations all around theworld to the negotiating table
and many of them, almostimmediately, were willing to
make trade deals with PresidentTrump, which he has trumpeted,
and it's made him look like thevictor.
And so he has looked like he iscoming out on top with a cherry
(06:18):
on top because of these tariffsand in fact, it looks like
China, who has said they wouldnot negotiate at all their
economy.
You know what little informationyou can get out of China.
It sounds like they havefactories that are standing
still, and there's some word ofrioting by workers in China, and
(06:42):
some factories have even beenburned to the ground.
So it's an amazing turn ofevents in China, and even the
leader in China has made noisethat he's willing to talk to
President Trump about some kindof trade deal.
But here's the thing Is all ofthis proper?
(07:05):
Is all of this the thing thatshould be going on in view of
our Constitution?
And that's what I invited youin, because you're a
constitutional expert, and Iwant to hear from you, and I
want my listeners to hear fromyou, and let us have a dialogue
about the constitutionality oftariffs.
(07:25):
And is this the purview of thepresident?
So, joe, I'm going to turn itover to you.
Joe Wolverton (07:32):
Thank you, and you know everything you just
said is true and good, and youknow that's what I want to make
clear right from the beginningis this is not anti-Trump or
anti-MAGA or pro-democratic oranything like that.
It's not about party at all.
It's about principle.
And the principle here is thatthe president of the United
(07:55):
States does not possess theconstitutional authority to
impose tariffs.
That power is granted in theConstitution exclusively to the
Congress.
And that's the first bigproblem.
The first big problem is thepresident is doing this.
He claims that he has theauthority, but he does not have
(08:17):
the authority.
Congress has the authority.
So the president is perfectlywithin his purview and within
his prerogative to say hey.
However, when he says that theConstitution anticipates that,
(08:46):
those will merely be suggestionsand those suggestions will be
made to Congress, and thenCongress, who are the
representatives of the people,is the body that will decide yes
or no on imposing these tariffs.
And the problem is that youknow the president.
(09:07):
In doing this, we put ourselvesin a position that you know.
The power that the presidentinvokes to do this was this
International Emergency EconomicPowers Act from 1977,
(09:33):
international Emergency EconomicPowers Act from 1977, which was
never intended to become ablank check for the president to
use as economic warfare.
It was designed to give thepresident narrowly defined
authority to respond to specific, very demonstrable, clear and
present threats to nationalsecurity.
It was not a permission slipfor the president to impose
tariffs on anything and anyone.
(09:55):
We cannot, as a country, allowour president no matter how
popular, no matter how properhis ideas, no matter how wise
his economic ideas we cannotallow him to take those and, by
the stroke of a pen, turn thatinto law.
(10:16):
That is what we call a king andwe do not have a king.
Constitutionally, the presidentcannot do this.
And, doctor, here's where weget into trouble.
The trouble is many of us andeven one of the judges on the
court, the US Court ofInternational Trade, that ruled
(10:36):
against most of the president'stariff.
One of the judges says you know, these are actually, as did she
say, dandy ideas.
These are dandy ideas.
And then she said but it is adandy plan, but it has to meet
the statute.
And that's where the she's, aRepublican nominated by
President Reagan, arguing thathis tariffs were pro-American or
(11:07):
that he's protecting Americanindustry.
And that very well might betrue in sentiment, but we are
not a nation of sentiment orintention.
We are a nation of laws.
That's the definition of arepublic.
We cannot allow.
We all know what the road tohell is paved with.
(11:28):
So good intentions, good ideas,patriotic sentiment, all of that
means nothing when it comes todeciding if a person holding an
office under the Constitutionexercises unconstitutional
authority, because we have to.
Even good and this is the thingthat I try to tell people Even
(11:52):
good, honest, patrioticintentions must be bound by
constitutional constraints,otherwise we might as well not
have a constitution at all.
That's right.
I agree with that.
That, and this is what it comesdown to.
The constitution, doctor, isnot a buffet.
You don't get to pick andchoose which parts of the
(12:12):
constitution you're going toapply and to whom you're going
to apply them.
We must apply them, as the goodbook says, without being a
respecter of persons.
We must apply those lawsequally, equitably and evenly to
all people of all parties.
Yes, because the Constitutionis our supreme law.
(12:37):
It's what represents consent ofthe governed.
And if you act outside theboundaries placed by the people
on your authority, as expressedin the constitution, then you
become, whether we like it ornot, you are making yourself
into a tyrant.
That's right, that's right andthat's the problem.
(12:59):
That's where we are.
He, president trump, and youknow this is that President
Trump, like many before him,many presidents before him, like
, I would argue, almost everypresident before him, found that
the Constitution was too slow,to obstructed, to cumbersome,
and so he decided to take thisemergency powers act and bypass
(13:22):
Congress and then use that end,run around Congress as a
pretended authority that theConstitution never granted to
the president, and we have aproblem.
The problem we have is numberone you have a president who's
very popular and so many peopleare willing to give him a pass
(13:45):
when it comes to, you know,making violating the
Constitution, particularly whenhe dresses up that violation,
when he wraps it in the flag andwhen he explains that it's good
for the economy, and we're just, you know, we're leveling the
playing field and all of that.
And then the second problem wehave is ignorance, on behalf of
(14:09):
the people, as to the authoritythat the president actually has.
You know, article two of theconstitution is a very short
article and in that article thepresident is given very few and
well-defined powers, and thereason that it's so short and
that is so well defined isbecause there in philadelphia in
(14:31):
17, those delegates, theythemselves had just come through
an eight-year war fightingagainst a king who exceeded his
own authority, and they knewthat it takes much bloodshed to
bring down a king who isexercising tyrannical authority.
(14:54):
And so, when it came time tocreate a president, the founding
fathers knew we are going tonarrowly define the powers of
the president so that heessentially, his unilateral
actions are almost non-existent.
For example, he's thecommander-in-chief of the
military, but only if Congressdeclares war.
(15:16):
He can appoint judges andambassadors, but only if the
Senate approves them.
That sort of thing they did notwant to give the president and
sort of independent authoritylike President Trump is using.
And to make up to take thisblank of well, if there's
(15:47):
emergencies, we have to do somethings differently, which, okay,
I don't think that whole law isconstitutional to begin with,
but it is in effect.
But it does not grant him theright to create emergencies so
that he can use that as ajustification for violating the
(16:09):
limits of his constitutionalauthority and, ultimately,
doctor.
What it comes down to beyond allthis is that you know some
people and most people I know,and I'm sure most people with
whom you associate as well.
They will say well, trump, as Isaid, trump has our best
interest at heart.
He's trying to restore domesticindustry.
(16:30):
He's trying to level theplaying field.
It's patriotic, it's good.
We're trying to get back inChina, we're trying to restore,
make America great again.
All of this and most people Iknow they think that's a good
thing and that's fine and we'rekind of going to just turn a
blind eye to it because of thegood intentions.
(16:52):
But here's the problem DonaldTrump is not going to be
president forever.
That's right.
And the problem is, if we allowa president to unilaterally
rewrite trade policy, what's tostop the next president from
declaring a climate emergencyand shutting down all oil and
coal production?
That's right.
That's right.
(17:12):
And shutting down all oil andcoal production?
That's right.
What's to stop the nextpresident from declaring a gun
violence emergency and banningthe purchase of firearms by
civilians?
Or what's to stop him fromdeclaring a disinformation
emergency and shutting down allsocial media communication that
doesn't agree with the regime,media communication that doesn't
(17:37):
agree with the regime?
This is the problem that ifPresident Trump can do it, even
for good intentions, somedaywe're going to have one of these
woke presidents who are goingto use that power that President
Trump used.
They're going to use that samepower to do things with which we
will disagree and which willtake our liberty, and the only
thing, the only thing that'sstopping that, is the
(17:58):
Constitution.
But, as James Madison said, theConstitution is simply a piece
of parchment that, without thepeople of the United States
honoring it and enforcing it, itis simply a parchment barrier
between the people and tyrants.
So we have to be aware of it and, even though it may hurt a
(18:21):
little, you know, to enforce itagainst presidents that we like
and policies that we like, evenpolicies that are ostensibly and
arguably good and soundpolicies.
We cannot let President Trumpexercise that authority because,
a it's unconstitutional and, Bhe's using this Emergency Powers
(18:42):
Act to do it for a purpose forwhich it was not intended.
And we stand at the precipiceof history where we don't know
who the next president will beand we know for a fact that we
could have someone in the WhiteHouse declare any sort of
emergency, just like PresidentTrump did, and then say under my
(19:02):
authority, as exercised byDonald Trump in the last
administration, I am herebyhalting all sales of firearms
and ammunition to all but lawenforcement and the military,
because we have an epidemic ofgun violence and it's an
emergency and we need so you cansee where I'm going.
So, yeah, we have to, we haveto be, we have to be the people
(19:27):
that stand there and we have toknow the constitution, honor the
and enforce the Constitution.
Or let's be honest with eachother and just do away with it
and see where that takes us.
Dr.Robert Jackson (19:41):
And you see, the people who value and honor
and love Donald Trump so muchhave to make a decision, and
that decision is do we loveDonald Trump more than we love
our Constitution?
Joe Wolverton (19:52):
That's exactly right.
Do we love his?
Dr.Robert Jackson (19:54):
tactics more than we love our Constitution.
That's exactly right.
Do we love his?
Speaker 1 (19:58):
tactics more than we love the.
Dr.Robert Jackson (19:59):
Constitution.
And that's when psychology,what we call an approach
approach conflict.
That's a conflict when you havewhere you have two equally
valuable and enjoyable choicesand you can't decide between two
choices that are equallyvaluable, equally attractive to
you and you know Donald Trump isvery attractive to the America.
(20:20):
First, make America greatcontingent in our country and
the whole notion of loving andvaluing the Constitution is also
very attractive and valuable tous.
And people are going to have tomake a decision, a hard
decision Do we love ourConstitution or do we love
Donald Trump and his policiesmore and go?
Joe Wolverton (20:42):
ahead.
I'm sorry, Go ahead.
I was just going to say that wejust can't place faith like
again, I sound like a preacherwhen I come on your show but we
cannot place our trust in thearm of flesh, even if that arm
of flesh is someone that we lookup to and admire and someone
with whom we agree with hispolicy.
(21:04):
We cannot do that, and weespecially cannot allow someone
to claim to be making Americagreat again by making the
Constitution of Americairrelevant.
That's exactly right.
We cannot do that.
We cannot allow ourselves to beput in that position, Even when
(21:25):
it hurts.
We must do the right thing, andthe right thing is honoring and
enforcing the supreme law ofthe land as handed down to us by
our wise and virtuous ancestors.
Dr.Robert Jackson (21:38):
Well, now tell me again, what court was it
that declared his tariffs to beunconstitutional?
Joe Wolverton (21:45):
It was the US Court of International Trade.
Dr.Robert Jackson (21:48):
Well now, how come we haven't heard any noise
about that?
I mean, I read about that inyour article, but I haven't
really heard anything about itin the media.
Joe Wolverton (21:57):
Well, yeah, now a lot of people have asked me
that same question and theanswer is a little tricky but
obvious.
It's kind of like I tell peopleit's like those Where's Waldo
puzzles.
You know, you look for hoursyou can't find Waldo.
Well, the minute someone pointshim out to you, you're like,
(22:18):
well, how did I miss that?
And that's what this?
The US International Trade.
The reason you've not heard muchabout this decision is from the
liberal media is becauseliberals are in favor of taxes
and tariffs are a form oftaxation right, and so if they
(22:40):
come out and they praise the USCourt of International Trade for
slapping down these unlawful,these unconstitutional tariffs,
they come out as admitting thattaxes damage the economy and
they don't want to do thatbecause they are pro-taxation.
(23:00):
They are the party of big taxesand big government.
So they're left in this bizarresituation that they don't find
themselves in often, but they'rein the position of, if they
praise someone slappingPresident Trump on the wrist,
they're exposing the weaknessesof their own philosophy about
(23:22):
taxation being the answer toevery problem, and so they can't
do that.
You can't have MSNBC doing abig if it was some other sort of
decision, like every time hewas falsely accused of
falsifying business records, whyyou'd have four hours of
(23:43):
coverage on every, yeah,constantly, guarantee you
haven't heard five minutes aboutit.
because the, the gatekeepers ofthe media, are letting the
people know.
Shut up about this, because ifyou mention this, it might cause
some people to realize thatbeing pro-taxation isn't being
(24:07):
anti-economy and anti-American,and we don't want this.
So, even though it forces themto not, you know, take advantage
of a seeming defeat by you know, by President Trump, they have
to be quiet about it so as notto reveal the weaknesses of
(24:27):
their own philosophy.
I got you Well now the Congressloves to tax.
Dr.Robert Jackson (24:32):
I mean they've taxed us to death?
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Do you think there's?
Dr.Robert Jackson (24:34):
any prayer that they would take up his
tariffs.
And they're the ones who,constitutionally, have the right
to levy tariffs.
Joe Wolverton (24:49):
Put his people to work trying to find some end
around.
Let's find some law that I canuse.
And so they found thatEmergency Economic Powers Act
from 1977 and pretended that allof that the deficit was a
national emergency and a clearand present danger to the safety
(25:14):
of the people of the UnitedStates.
Dr.Robert Jackson (25:16):
It's been wildly popular.
You'd think Congress would takethe hint and they would say
let's enact these tariffs.
Joe Wolverton (25:23):
Right.
Well, the problem is Congress,by doing that, would actually be
forced to go on record as beingfor or against something, and
(25:56):
they hate that, particularly inthe House of Representatives,
because every two years, theyhave to go to the people and
justify the votes that they'vemade.
Vote for Donald Trump?
You can imagine that.
Here's this law before them,raising taxes, and everything
within them wants to vote infavor of more taxes, but also
everything in them wants them tonever, ever, ever agree with
Donald Trump.
So what do they do?
If they end up voting yes infavor of the tariffs?
Why then?
They go home to campaign andtheir Republican opponents will
Look he voted with PresidentTrump or their Democratic
(26:20):
primary opponent says myopponent votes with Donald Trump
.
You don't want to send DonaldTrump's lackey back to the House
.
We're a Democratic district andwe thought we elected a
Democrat, but we just elected a.
Republican in Democratic clothes.
They need Republican andDemocratic clothes, and so they
(26:49):
can't afford to be on record inthis unique case, because it
puts the Democrats in the placethey don't want to be.
It puts Republicans.
They have to.
Most of them feel aresponsibility to support Trump.
They also realize the damageeconomically to Main Street
that's done by tariffs, so theydon't want to be held
accountable for that because ofthese tariffs, where they would
import certain items that theymake their stuff in the states,
but they import components fromother countries, but now these
(27:26):
tariffs make it impossible forthem to afford it.
So they go out of business andso their thing is hey, president
Trump doesn't even have theauthority to do this, so let's
challenge that authority incourt so that we don't go
bankrupt.
Dr.Robert Jackson (27:40):
You know, trying to to somehow survive the
economic impact of thesetariffs but the tariffs are
going to continue becausenobody's going to raise a stink
about it.
Even though the court says it'sunconstitutional, he's going to
continue on without any.
It is anybody saying a word?
Joe Wolverton (27:58):
it's the pro, it's the prototypical catch-22.
It's literally just like that.
But at the end of the day, thereal emergency isn't the trade
deficit, it's the deficit ofconstitutional understanding in
our people and in our politicalrepresentatives.
(28:18):
You're right, you understand.
You know, something that I tellpeople.
I, you know, give thesepresentations at churches a lot
and I say look, I hold theConstitution as a sacred
document.
I think that it is the supremelaw.
I think our Heavenly Fatherinspired it.
I think the men who drafted itwere inspired by him.
I think they all, to a man,recognized the hand of
(28:42):
providence in putting thistogether.
I said, but there's somethingeven beyond that.
So when a president or a courtor a congress acts outside their
constitutional authority, thatbothers me and that than
tyrannical and that's being ablasphemer to me as a Christian.
(29:05):
Because every one of these men,all 535 members of Congress,
all nine Supreme Court justicesand the president of the United
States, place their hand on aBible and swear to God to
preserve, protect and defend theConstitution.
Well, if you're reading theBible, swear not, it says right
(29:27):
by heaven, for it is God's home,nor by earth, for it is His
footstool.
And here you've got all thesepolitical representatives, in my
opinion, mocking God by puttingtheir hand on the Bible and
swearing to be faithful to adocument, and then, as soon as
they raise their hand off thatBible and swearing to be
faithful to a document, and then, as soon as they raise their
hand off that Bible, they go andcast a vote contrary to the
Constitution, thus makingthemselves not only tyrants but
(29:50):
blasphemers as well.
Dr.Robert Jackson (29:52):
I understand that, but then the rest of us in
this country are ignorant ofthe Constitution and you know,
the Bible tells us that thepeople perish because of a lack
of knowledge and when the wickedrule I mean when the wicked
rule the people shall mourn.
Joe Wolverton (30:09):
Yes, and we were living in those days,
unfortunately.
However, we always have thatopportunity to you know, study
the Constitution, to really makea concerted effort if we're
claiming to revere a document,to honor a document, to consider
a document inspired, to reallysay it's a small document, it's
(30:30):
really not that large To studyit and then to hold our
political representatives, ourpolitical servants hold them
accountable to that oath thatthey swear to God, hold them
accountable to it and that's ourjob, because if we don't do it,
we know they're not going to doit themselves.
Oh no, they won't.
Dr.Robert Jackson (30:50):
All right.
Well, joe, our time is out.
We've got to go.
I appreciate your willingnessto be on More Than Medicine with
me.
I appreciate your expertise andI'm just honored to have you as
my guest.
I hope you'll come back and beon More Than Medicine again
another time.
Joe Wolverton (31:07):
All you need to do is ask doctor, and I will be
there.
I appreciate you so much.
I appreciate your faith, Iappreciate your efforts on
behalf of patriotism and onbehalf of spreading the kingdom
of God, and I appreciate all youdo Well.
Dr.Robert Jackson (31:19):
Thank you kindly, and the Lord bless you
and your family.
You're listening to More ThanMedicine.
I'm your host, dr RobertJackson.
My guest today is Joe Wolverton, constitutional lawyer.
We'll be back again next week.
Until then, may the Lord blessyou real good.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Thank you for listening to this edition of
More Than Medicine.
For more information about theJackson Family Ministry, dr
Jackson's books, or to schedulea speaking engagement, go to
their Facebook page, instagramor their webpage at
jacksonfamilyministrycom.
This podcast is produced by BobSlone Audio Production at
bobslone.
com.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.