Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome. It's time for Constitution Radio. IM Douglas v.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Gibbs.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Great to have you here. I am mister Constitution. This
is Constitution Radio on k E T fourteen ninety Am.
I I'm having a little bit of fun here. I'm
working towards getting my office better. Right now. My office
is in the living room. Still building the office on
the other side of the house. But we got new blinds.
(00:31):
We're controlling the light a little more. Got a new bookshelf,
got books behind me. I'm having fun. Welcome to the program.
Glad you're here. You know, I had a pseudo constitutionalist
who thinks he's a constitutionalist hit me on my website
with an interesting comment. I think it was yesterday, the
(00:51):
day before I did post it, challenging my war powers. No,
the president has to, you know, get the permission to Congress.
So we'll talk about that a little bit later in
the program. But what I want to start with, and
this is I wrote an article about this, and this,
to me is probably one of the biggest things to
come down. The title of the show is Judicial Sanity
(01:15):
Today and the United States Supreme Court. And there's my
opinions about the Court, which will slowly bubble to the
surface during this program. But they've been they've been on
target for the most part. The Supreme Court is and
(01:35):
the one that I want to open the show with
is that they've finally gotten the point where the activist
judges in the inferior Court, the Supreme Court has finally
kind of gotten their hands around the next and said, yep,
don't you can't play this game anymore. The Supreme Court
ruled this week that the federal judges cannot issue universal injunctions.
(01:57):
In other words, no more coast to coast, one fitzal
inferior court judge blocks the president. Nonsense. A universal injunction
is basically what we're talking about, the ending of universal
in junctions. This is when a single lower court judge
blocks a federal law and executive order policy for the
entire country and you know, not just for the parties
(02:21):
involved in the case, but for everyone. Now, how is
it we've gotten to the point we are allowing members
of the weakest branch of government according to the founding fathers,
giving them the ability to use judicial opinion to override law,
and the presence of the United States execution of that law.
(02:43):
We've gone from a court system filled with judges who
are supposed to supply, i'm sorry, apply the law to
the cases they hear. To a judicial dictatorship that rejects
the idea that Lady Justice is blindfolded. You've seen that, right,
Lady Justice. You know, she's got the scale of one hand,
the sword and the other and there's a blindfold. That
means that that justice is blind to everything other than
(03:08):
the law. Everything else, ideological opinion, race, position, wealth, all
of that blind to it. It's all about what the
law says. And what we have is instead we have
judges that are allowing their opinions to play part in
their rulings. And you know, and as Senator I was
(03:30):
right after this, this Supreme Court move against universal injunctions
came across the wire, Senator John Kennedy, and I love
this guy from Louisiana and he was being I was
watching Harris Faulkner in the morning on Fox News and
she's talking to him and he says, well, these federal
(03:50):
judges just made up these universal injunctions out of thin
air because they don't like President Donald J. Trump. And
they're in Tanton doing everything they can, hey and to
block his agenda, and I thought, you know what, he
nailed it. They couldn't stop him during the election. They
couldn't stop him before the first election, much less this one.
(04:12):
He's made them look like idiots fools every time they
try to go after him. So what they've done is
the same thing that the Federalist Party, the Big Government
Hamiltonians did when John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson the
election of eighteen hundred. They've retreated to the stronghold of
(04:32):
the court so that they can try to shackle him
with an all powerful courtroom. That's not justice at sabotage,
and thats judicial tyranny. Founders never intended for judges to
be able to veto the executive branch, much less micromanage
the president's policies. James Madison, Federalist Paper, seventy eight. James Madison,
(04:52):
remember father of the Constitution, right, and he explained that
the judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of
the three. They don't have the power of the sword
like the executive or the power of the purse like
the legislature. Their job is to apply the law, not interpret,
not imply, not review law, and executive actions with what
(05:15):
they claim to be legally binding opinions. They don't have.
Their opinions are not legally binding. They hold no power
of law. They are not They are not appointed to
invent law or invent power or willed authority never granted
to them by the United States Constitution. Judges have always
(05:36):
tried to make themselves supreme over all of the branches.
They try to make themselves the final arborist of the law.
Over the last decade or so, largely due to political
ideological hate against Donald Trump, the inferior of federal courts
have been trying to make themselves supremo even over the
United States Supreme Court, much less superior to the president
(06:01):
and untouchable by Congress. They are not gods. They are
not members of some hierarchy where the monarch is you know,
allowed them to give him his rubber stamp. They do
it all under a false version and tyrannical definition of
checks and balances and an unconstitutional idea called judicial review.
(06:23):
And the leftists and Democrat Party have been gunning for
President Trump since the very beginning, and he is appointed
who we believe to be constitutionalists to a bench. Lately,
they've been doing okay, these are supposed to be the judges.
All the judges supposed to believe in the Original Constitution
and apply the law, not their opinion based on their
(06:44):
Marxist education, activist, leftist leanings. Now, with this ruling, the
Supreme Court is reigning in the judicial branch, the inferior court. Specifically,
they're restoring constitutional order, or at least partially for the
time being. No more power hungry judges will be acting
like emperors in judicial black robes. And during the Constitucial Convention,
(07:07):
there were even delegates who argued that establishing a federal
judiciary may not be in our best interest. But the
argument came up, what about maritime law? What about disputes
between the states, what about disputes in which the United
States is a party? So they decided, all right, fine,
we will create it, but we're gonna make it so
(07:29):
weak that they can only apply. We're gonna do whatever
we can to make sure that judicial tyranny does not
haunt the United States. And in fact, and just looking
back and reading comments and the letters and looking at
the actions back then, you know you can tell you
can read the Constitution. The judicial branch has always been
(07:51):
the weakest. When offered to return to the position of
Chief Justice of the United States in eighteen oh one,
John Jay, who had been the first Chief Justice and
then he left the court so that he could serve
as Governor of New York and Chief Justice of the
United States number two and number three in history, had
served and been gone by the time he was done
(08:13):
with his governorship, and John Adams gets told him says, hey,
I would love for you to step back into that role.
But John Jay rejected the offer by President John Adams
because he considered the position in its present for him
to be too weak of a position. He was seeking
power that the Constitution never provided. But don't worry, John
(08:38):
Marshall was willing to step in and increase that power unconstitutionally.
And now Americans don't even have to live under the
threat that the whim of one judge thousands of miles
away might tyrannically influence their lives because the Supreme Court
reigned it in. It means that local judges now may
only influence locally and not dictate how the executive executes
(08:59):
the legis legislates. This universal injunction stuff is done at
least for now Supreme Court has sent a message to
all of those judicial activists. You know who I'm talking about,
those guys who are sitting there in their robes believing
that there's somehow, some type of God stiffing their soy
(09:21):
lattes in their chambers as a ruminant ruminsce over how
they can rule the world through their judicial activism. Your
reign is over. The voice of the consent of the
government or the government is back in charge. The Constitution
is back in the driver's seat. Somewhere down in the
(09:43):
fiery depths of a special place where left wing judges descend,
to Chief Justice of the Midnight Judges, John Marshall is
frowning from ear to ear, screaming what about judicial review?
Activists left hold him up as one of the most
significant figures in American legal history, and they worship everything
(10:07):
he unconstitutionally pushed upon us. It is his version of
judicial power they are chasing and trying to use to
control the fate of this country. Marshall may have laid
out the road work to lead the judiciary to believe
it was supreme over the two other branches of government,
but in the end, it is still all unconstitutional. Thank god.
(10:31):
The current United States Supreme Court agrees that the Founders
never intended for judges in San Francisco or Seattle or
other parts of the country. Washington, d c. That they
should that there was never Founders never intended for judges
like that to override a president of the United States
(10:52):
or the Congress of the United States just because they
don't like the policy. Those kind of judicial actions are
unconstitutional and such and such actions are examples of judicial arrogance,
a judicial tyranny, and they are not among the successful
foundational principles of our constitutional republic. All right, Alan, I'm
(11:16):
gonna go with you first. I know you read the
article that I'm referring to. I of course add libed
an awful lot. Uh but uh and and I'm sure
you have an opinion. I know you like sometimes on
some of the stuff. For me to run over to
Dennis first, and what the flames you know, you know
be you know, you know, uh, you know, heightened and
(11:36):
you know, and he he brings in the vultures and
he starts banging the drum and stuff. I know you
prefer that first, I do, but I'm because we kind
of talked about this a little bit earlier. I've I've
got to hear what you gotta say first, and then
we'll let and then we'll let Jennis triumphantly bring in
the final.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Swat so voice Jackson.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Yeahs voice, jack So. Alan Myers mister fed ed himself.
What about the Supreme Court and these universal injunctions being
halted at least.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
For now, Let's do a little history.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Okay, history is good.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I like, not that you care about history, but let's
steal a little history. And you see, you made the
problems happen. You mentioned John Marshall, so this is on you.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
John Marshall became Chief Justice and according to one article,
his most famous case of all. And this guy had
the audacity to live really long. Okay, Okay, it's bad
enough that he's bad, but he hung around till like
(12:52):
thirty four years on the bench.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Thirty five.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
But yeah, well he started in eighteen oh one and
in in eighteen thirty five. I'm going to say threety
for but what do I.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Know the first year he was there? The first year too.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Anyway, his most famous case is considered Marbury versus Madison.
Marbury was somebody who was appointed to a judgeship or
some legal place.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
William Marbury was appointed to be Justice of the Peace
of Washington, DC, and he had been confirmed by the Senate. Yes,
but he didn't get his commission.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
That's what I was getting to. Okay, the he did
not get his papers, and hey, no papers, you don't
get a job.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
But who was supposed to give him?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Wait, hold on, hold on, we'll get that.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
We'll get there. We'll get there. Don't worry. Alan Allen
always brings that up because it drives him nuts too fast.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Anyway, So Marbury's ticked off. He didn't get his papers. Jefferson, Uh,
through his Secretary of State James Madison. What did Madison do?
Oh yeah, constitutions.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Commissions?
Speaker 3 (14:07):
Huh yeah, what do we do this? Adams administration didn't
get it to Marbury. Marbury's pissed off. Jefferson won't acknowledge it.
It winds up in the Supreme Court, and we're looking
at John Marshall, chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed
by John Adams, who, by the end of his tenure
(14:28):
as president, had gone, in my opinion, completely rogue. He
left his patriotic background and I don't know, socialist whatever anyway,
the ruling was the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marbury. Now,
the one thing that Madison, excuse me, the one thing
(14:50):
that Marshall got right is that the Supreme Court had
no authority to enforce That's nice. Now, Jefferson's secretary of
State was James Madison. John Adams secretary of State, was
required to get the papers out to Marbury and all
(15:12):
the others. The secretary of State of John Adams failed
to do it.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
And so William Marbury sued the new secretary of State.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
And guess who is who was the secretary of State
for John Adams at the end of his time as president.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Oh, that was you, John Dennis Jackson, go ahead, didn't
say it, say it?
Speaker 4 (15:33):
No, no, no, I'm going to steal it.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
That was John Marshall. So John Marshall, who did not
get his job done as Secretary of State, is now
ruling as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on a
case that never would have happened if he had done
his job. He had absolute, total, utterly, undeniable conflict of
(15:59):
interest and he did not excuse himself. And this case
where he completely violated not being independent and having a
conflict of interest. This is viewed as his most famous case. Okay,
that that's a real hallmark. You shouldn't have been there,
(16:20):
and this is and you did it wrong, and you
you know, this is your most famous case. The thing
is in this case apparently, now, I don't think the
Constitution was quite dry at that moment in time. So
we're talking about eighteen zero three and according to the article,
(16:41):
Marborie versus Madison established the principle of judicial review.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Well, yeah, because the courts can just give themselves authorities.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Right, giving the Supreme Court the power to to declare
laws unconstitutional. Now, I'm knowing attorney, I'm not saying that
I am. I am not a constitutional scholar like Doug
Gibbs Douglas v. Gibbs. Excuse me, got to get that right.
But it seems strange to me that the three branches
(17:14):
of the federal government, congressional, executive, and legislative can only
do what the Constitution said they can do, and they
can't do what the Constitution says they can't do. So
it begs the question in Article three, which is the
(17:38):
third article of the Constitution, because they were written in
order of importance. Article one Congressional, Article two, executive, and
Article three. Oh yeah, judicial.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
My first three established three branches. Correct.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
Where in the an Article three that created the judicial
branch of the federal government. Where does it say that
the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional? Doug?
Where is it?
Speaker 1 (18:10):
It's not there?
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Ooh. So that's like saying, you know, a teenager saying, oh,
I get to I get to write checks on your
check book because I found it.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
And I give my authority to sign them.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Yeah, because you left it on the counter, which means
I get to sign them. Perfect. This is just another
example of how rogue the federal government is currently. That's one. Two.
The other thing I get is that how early this started.
I mean, the inks barely dry, and they're already doing this.
(18:50):
The founders, the writers of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence,
they're still there. They're still there.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
And.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
They're doing the maneuvers we I mean, I would if
I had a wayback machine, I'd go get several of them,
including Madison, Mason and Jefferson. I'd bring him forward and
say now that you, once you get over the shock
of what a TV is and electric lights, I want
(19:24):
you to take a look at what's going on in
the world. And I want the response because I think
they're going to say, this is not what we envision,
this is not what was designed, and this is not
what was created in the Constitution. It's a complete violation
and these people are rogue. So to me, one term
(19:48):
is original intent. I like original definitions because whatever they said,
then whatever it meant, then the original deaf th nition
of a word or a term is what it means
today unless it's been amended through an amendment process. And
(20:08):
you can't amend the Constitution by passing the law. So
they you know, and if you if you have any
doubt on what this stuff means, and you've done all
the heavy lifting, Doug, you go to the notes, you
go to the letters, you go to the fedlist papers.
(20:29):
This is where it's really described. And to get an
idea of how absolutely given the guy was governor, did
you say John Jay of New York, Okay, which probably
at that moment in time is a pretty heavy position.
And it sounds like John Jay likes having that kind
(20:51):
of power. Yeah, And you say, hey, would you like
to be the Supreme Court? The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Why do I want to go back to
moping floors when I'm the CEO. And so when he
says no, that tells you what structural power influence that
(21:17):
position had compared to being a governor of a state.
He said no. So if the Supreme Court is doing things,
if the and I do like the term inferior, If
the inferior courts are doing things that's Article three. If
(21:38):
they're doing things that they have no power, it is
an absolute shame not only on the judges but the
law schools they came from. This is what you produced.
This is it's a shame. And that's why what you've
done for so long is so important, and that people
(22:01):
need to get a handle on the fact that we
really need to understand individually. We need to understand the
constitution in order to understand what the federal government's doing
and is it okay? And if it's not, we got
to stop them legally, of course, fire them, don't let
(22:22):
them go back into office. Those are my thoughts.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Is that all right? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Dennis, The United says Supreme Court said that universal injunctions
as a no. No, the inferior court judges cannot dictate
policy to the entire country. They cannot. They cannot micro
manage the executive branch or the legislative branch. And they can't.
And if they're going to make a ruling, has to
be regarding a case that's in their locality and affecting
(22:53):
their region.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
What's your thoughts, Well, I tell you I have spent
a lot of my time in life playing ball, been
in a lot of games, you know.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Different sports.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
I've coached it, I refereed it, and I know the
Supreme Court are they are justices, not referees.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
They do?
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Do we lose them?
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Dennis, we can't hear you.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Almost sounds like he had a bad signore so mean
just suddenly gone, Well, well he was saying that basically
the judges, so we'll wait till he gets back or
not referees. So he understood. So he understands because here's
the thing about refereeing, and he may have been head
in this direction. A referee on a court, they are God,
(23:59):
they're ruling. That's the way it is. Now. You can appeal,
but ultimately the appeal will go now maybe to you know,
instant replay something like that. But you know they that
they make their decisions but the thing is there to
be respected. But when it comes to judges, while they
(24:21):
are there, well, let me get back. The referees are
not there though, to put their opinion in. I think
this is where he was going is that the referees
opinion doesn't matter. They are bound by the rules of
the game. They are bound by the written rules. If
(24:42):
the rule says that, you know you and he said,
he played a lot of ball, and you know, we
got basketball and volleyballs what I know of, And if
the rule says that if the ball doesn't get over
the net, it's not fair it hit the ground on
(25:03):
your side. And then and then this one, this particular
one says, well, you know, I like the team that's
the penally go again, so you're allowed one bounce. If
you're such a such school, No, I can't do that.
Their opinion, their their ability to alter the game is nonexistent.
(25:26):
So I think that's what he was trying to say,
is that they have to follow the rules. The rule
the rules say.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, I don't. I don't know why.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
I mean, usually when I do the radio show with
this program we're using, it just stays on. But sometimes
my screen right in the middle of it goes blank
and I have to re enter.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
So I got kicked off.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Here, but maybe it's a screen saver thing got turned
off or something. Anyway, go ahead, so.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
The uh he cleared his throat again, and he's gone,
hey dog, until then this comes back.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
I got a thought, is that?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
All right, go ahead and verbalize your thought.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Okay, based on what you were saying and where you're going,
which is okay. A referee is there to apply the rules, period,
not make them, not interpret them, do them.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
So the rule says, and they're there to apply the
rule of the game. And that's that.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
So whether it's the foot or a ball, it touches
the line, if it touches the line out m h okay,
it's it's not. Well it barely touched the line. I
can ignore it. Or only one big toe touched the
line the rest of the foot. No, you touch the line,
you're out done. That is applying the rules of the game,
(27:00):
not broadly interpreting them, not favoring one one over another.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
All right, back, I'm gonna say this real quick, okay.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
In Trump's first term, he had over sixty injunctions foot
against him. Yes, okay, four to five times more than
the other guys doing their four year term. So far
on this term he's had over forty okay, forty and.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
It's not done with the first six months.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, I said it's forty and five months.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Come and off he went again. And for whatever reason
he's having issues. Dare I tell you what, Let's see
if we can fix this. So let's go to break
and while we're on break, hopefully Dennis can can get
this fixed and we'll continue on. So go anywhere.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
You got a dent in your door, scratch in your fender,
or a cratch in your door and a dent in
your fender. If you need auto detailing, if you need
buyer shooting decals on the side of your car, if
you need a rally stripe right down the middle of
your hardtop, I don't care what it is. The Patriots
at All Star Collision are the place you want to go.
They're the only place to go. Buy twenty two Railroad
Street in Corona. Web address all Star ci dot com
(28:36):
to see all that they do and what they're all about.
Phone number nine two six one, All Star Collision. The
Kings of Reck and Roll.
Speaker 6 (28:47):
Still loyal to your utility company. It's time to declare
your independence, break up with the utility and go with
someone hotter like the sun. And as Guard Energy, we've
been powering southern California since two thousand and eight. We're
a certified C ten electrical contractor specializing in solar and
battery systems. But we're so much more than just a
(29:08):
solar company. EV chargers, custom home wiring ADU, wiring panel upgrades,
you name it, and right now we're offering seventeen hundred
and seventy six dollars off a solar and battery system
YEP seventeen hundred and seventy six dollars. Because freedom from
high bills never goes out of style. Call as Guard
Energy today. Let's power your pursuit of happiness. Call eight
(29:30):
five five seven six zero energy. That's eight five five
seven six zero three six three seven or visit us
at Asgardenergy dot com. As Guard Energy Providing Energy Freedom.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Reveal Democracy by Douglas P. Gipps is finally available. Doug
Lady's book examines the importance of being a republic, How
we can restore republic, Why democracy is so dangerous? Of
all tyrannies A torney, sincerely, exercise for the good of
its victims may be the most oppressive C. S. Lewis,
and that is the very first page that you'll see
(30:08):
right before chapter one. Can Repeal Democracy. Repell Democracy by
Douglas V.
Speaker 7 (30:13):
Gibbs on sale now, help me fight the good fight.
This radio program is funded by advertising dollars. So if
you are a business, add Constitution Radio with Douglas V.
Gibbs to your business portfolio. If you are a listener,
become a patron of the businesses advertising on this program.
Without advertising, your weekend dose of truth ends with more advertising.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Constitution Radio with Douglas V.
Speaker 7 (30:38):
Gibbs grows, and we will be on the way to
win the battle to restore the Republic.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
To learn more, email us.
Speaker 7 (30:44):
At Constitution Speaker at yahoo dot com, or visit Douglas V.
Gibbs dot com.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Of the Socialists, your individual literis personal freedoms and mental
individuality will be added to our own.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Resistance is utile.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Welcome back Constution Radio. I am Douglas for Gibbs. Douglas
Gibbs dot com, Douglasigibs dot com. Been writing pretty regularly,
getting ready to start doing some other stuff. Uh, and
uh working on some new books. Life is dandy, and
life is dandy judicially too, because the courts are kind
of what what's that? Uh, I'm trying to remember what
(31:48):
what that is. It's a disease where someone's head winds
up in a certain cranial or the cranial area winds
up in a subterranean kind of part of your body area.
But anyway, they've gotten their heads out of their butts,
in other words, and there's a little sanity. And so Dennis,
having his few issues, hopefully it's resolved, was trying to
(32:11):
wrap up his thoughtful went to Brasiles. Let him wrap
up for his thought and we'll go to the next topic. Dennis,
the show is yours.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
I just was thinking that this thing I read earlier,
where you know, Trump was hit sixty times for his
first term and now forty in five months with these
road justices, that this was long past overdue. I'm glad
the court finally did it. I'm glad it was six
to three not five to.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Four, you know.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
And I thought that Amy Comi Barrett's remarks to Kataji
Brown concerning her almost saying, what law school did you go?
To and you know, how did you ever get on
the court. Well, they know how she got on the court, you.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Know, but.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
Hopefully they apparently yeah, yeah, well you know, they've gotten
a couple right right in a row, and hopefully this makes.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Them more bolder and more firm as they go forward.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Right, you know, and as they get more support and
the people get more heard and weak, and the mainstream
media gets more total which they just got wiped out
tremendously by the last forty eight hours. That hopefully that
they'll say that, hey, Americans are picking their heads up,
they're noticing, and you know, I guess it is cool
(33:33):
to actually be an actual American sovereignty constitutional first type guy.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
So hopefully it'll keep growing.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Okay, very good. All right, So we have been talking
about the universal injunctions. How about this one and this
is just a recent one the United States Supreme Court.
All kinds of decisions will be more. We're coming in October.
Mister Allen wanted to talk to about birthlay citizenship. We're
(34:07):
waiting for that case to work its way through the
Supreme Court, probably get that ruling in October. What we
just talked about does kind of freeze that for the
time being, because the lower courts can't just suddenly, you know,
you don't use their opinion to go after birthlay citizenships.
That kind of unleashes that again. But here's a big
(34:27):
one and or at least I think so and it
and there's a constitutional angle here. Supreme Court rejected Planned
Parenthood's bid to prevent its exclusion from South Carolina's Medicaid program. So,
in other words, the state has said, hey, public moneies,
we were we don't believe public moneies should be used
(34:49):
for Planned Parenthood. And and also when it comes to Medicaid,
when it comes to abortions, that that that funding that
they can't take Medicaid and and they got sued in
South Carolina's uh and and uh whoever sued them took
(35:09):
when all the way up the Spring Court Spring Courts
says up, no, no, no, of course, Katanji Brown Jackson
had the descent the DESCENTI voice, along with Soda bay
Oor Kegan the three. This is another six three by
the way, claiming almost intangibly harmed people because they can't
kill their baby with the help of public monies at
(35:30):
a minimum. Uh Jackson wrote, it will deprive Medicaid recipients
in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing
it right that Congress has expressly granted to them. Congress
grants right. Wow, what law school did she go to? Uh?
(35:52):
But what what is what is happening here? And UH
is that parenthoods not gonna get funding money. You're not
gonna be able to use public money for your abortions.
That's ultimately what it comes down to you. Now here's
the reason why it's important why I wanted to bring
this up, Because where in the Constitution does the federal
(36:16):
government have the authority to fund anything that has anything
to do with medical procedures, medicine and so on. So well, Doug,
it's a right. And wait in a second, they claim
it's under our Amendment nine. It's one of those rights
(36:36):
that isn't listed. So let let's let's talk about rights
just for a second. One of the concepts of rights
is that, first of all, great Congress doesn't grant them,
is that a right cannot, in order to be a right,
cannot interfere with something else. I'll give you an example,
(36:58):
and I use this in my classes, when all the
time I have a right to swing my arms, But
I don't have a right to swing my arms into
the face of Alan because he has a right not
to be slugged in the face. So my right only
extends to the tip of his nose. In other words,
the edge of my rights extended the edge of his rights.
A right stops being a right when it interferes with
(37:20):
somebody else's right. And that's why we're supposed to be
responsible with our rights. So now, well, do we not
have the right to live, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
And I would argue that abortion is no different than murder.
I don't have a right to murder my neighbor because
(37:41):
he ticks me off. Why because he has a right
to live, and by me being having a right to
be angry at him, if it extends to the point
where I kill him, suddenly I have violated one of
his rights. My right stopped. But then the argument is, yeah,
but a baby is not human. A baby is not
(38:02):
a person. Fourteenth Amendment and an article five I'm sorry.
Fifth Amendment indicates that that that that our rights extend
to all persons. Are they a person? That's the question?
And I would argue yes, And and science has shown
(38:24):
us that in our DNA, which is in our system
the moment we're conceived, our personality are traits. Everything that
makes us a human being is in place. It's just
that the development hasn't gone forth yet. Well, because they're
on developed and they're not a person. Okay, a toddler's
not developed to be an adult yet. A teenager has
(38:48):
not developed the point of being an adult. So when
in the thirties has not developed enough to be in
their forties or fifties, that whatever happens at that age
and so on and so forth, are in continuous development
as human beings. All right, So, Dennis, medicaid funding for
(39:10):
abortion is unconstitutional. Federal funding for abortion has been targeted
by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court got it right.
What's your thoughts, sir?
Speaker 4 (39:20):
Yeah, Like I say, I'm very pleased. They have got
a couple in a row, correct, And hopefully now as
they've come out of the closet a little on these issues,
they'll stay out of the closet and.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Do what they.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Were appointed and confirmed to. Actually do you know, I
know you and I have talked about you know, the
Chief Justice. We've talked about Amy We've talked about one
or two of the other newer guys on some issues
over the last couple of years. But you know, this
(39:55):
past week, you know they've they've got it right. They deferred,
you know, the uh refused to hear, knowing that that
meant that the state opinion would would stand.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
So in a way, they made a ruler, you know.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
And it's like being up the plate, you know, if
I decided to take the pitch, you know, then that
was my decision. You know, it's not my fault. There
was a ball or a strike. I decided it. So
they decided not to take the case, which means they
decided to let the case stand, so that in a
way it's a it's a ruling. So like I said,
(40:38):
I I this week to me has been overall a
pretty good week between the separations of powers and trying
to get it right.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
And it was interesting.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
And I didn't bring this up earlier, but uh uh
did you catch I think it was Pam bondy Alan.
Did you catch the fact that she brought up that
famous case Marvarry versus Madison.
Speaker 2 (41:05):
Yeah, in the offense. Did you hear her say that?
Speaker 3 (41:09):
Briefly? I don't have it all.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
Yeah, well, yeah, but she brought it up and she
got it right, you know, so.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
We're all on a good page.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
You said they came out of the closet. That's fascinating
you would use that language. It's the next topic is
about the Supreme Court siding with parents to nuke LGBT indoctrination.
But yeah, I guess there's a different closet on the
other side of the room.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
Do I get a comment? Do I get a comment
on this?
Speaker 1 (41:43):
Yeah? Go ahead, Alan. What's your thoughts about the medicaid
funding for abortion unconstitutional according to the United States Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (41:50):
Well, I know exactly where the authority in the Constitution
for that is. Go ahead, it's right after the triple asterisk. Okay,
Now that there's what is really wearing on me, is there?
(42:12):
And this is from many, many different sides on topics
like this and others. Can do it, should do it,
must do it? Need you know, back and forth, back
and forth, all this stuff. I'm waiting for someone to
join the conversation and say what we're saying and what
you would say. Okay, this might be the greatest idea.
(42:35):
Okay since TV dinners, This might be it. But there's
no authority in the Constitution, you know, the document you
swore to protect and defend.
Speaker 1 (42:47):
So let's propose an amendment.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
Then that's exactly it. So none of these people are
dealing with the issue, any issue from is this constitutional
or is it not. If it is constitutional, let's have
the discussion. If it's not this constitutional, let's end the discussion.
This is not something to be debated at this moment
(43:14):
in time because it's not constitutional. And somehow, you know,
they have misused, most likely deliberately, terms.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
It is.
Speaker 3 (43:27):
You know, this is reproductive health. You're terminating a pregnancy
because somebody wants to end it. That's reproductive health. That's
reproduction termination right. And this idea that, oh well, I
have a right to this, okay, you have a right
(43:47):
to kill something that's going to become a human being.
And of course we're all about equities, so that means
I also have a right to a ferrari a mansion.
And not only do I have a right for abortion,
I have a right to have it federally funded because
I don't need to pay for what I want because
I have a right for it. Thank you, Margaret Sanger.
(44:12):
And where did she put the beginning of planned parenthood.
What neighborhoods did she put them in.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
On the edge of well black neighborhoods mostly and and
and was she she called them weeds human weeds?
Speaker 3 (44:33):
Did she did she back Hitler?
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Hitler's A lot of Hitler's ideas came from when it
came to their experimentation, came from Margaret Singer.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
And did.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
She give presentations to the KKK.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (44:54):
So you know, if if one is needed, then it's
needed because the mother's health is in jeopardy. I totally
get that.
Speaker 1 (45:03):
But yeah, but that's not an abortion. That's a medical procedure.
I mean, if you've got to because if the mother's
health is at risk, that means both of theirs is, yeah,
they're both gonna die, and so then you take the
action to save one of the lives. Uh, and if
they're both doomed, I mean it's like, uh, you know
the I'm trying to remember the term now, but where
(45:23):
you know, like an a you know, plants and a
Filippian tube. If it's carried a term, they're both dead.
So you term it pregnancy to save the mother. That's
that's not an abortion. That's a medical procedure to save
a life. There's a difference.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
The other thing is that, Okay, if and if woman
doesn't want to get pregnant, I totally understand that. Uh,
it's that's not bad, that's not wrong, it's fine. How
many different ways are there for a woman not to
get pregnant?
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Well, when I was when I was a navy, we
just said wearing the glasses at the issue to you
was enough that we call them birth control glasses. Nobody
would want to have anything to do with you.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
Well.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
The thing is is that if we, if we as
a people, as humans truly valued life m h, we
would put life over the inconvenience of preventing a pregnancy.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Well, and the thing is, when you have this type
of activity, it becomes a pushing, know of the envelope.
It always gets worse, It always goes a little bit further.
With each cycle. They went from rare and safe to
up to full term and now there's even some that
(46:43):
are calling for post earth abortion. The envelope always gets
pushed and the only way it gets stopped is if
a force occurs to stop it. And this and this
is that force. Uh, well, turn.
Speaker 3 (46:57):
Around, my last thought on this, and I think I've
heard about it where the baby is delivered, the baby
is has exited the womb, and this is not a
human being and it can be terminated. So you've now
turned the word murder clearly murder into a portion, right,
(47:22):
So I'll leave it at that. Very heavy topic.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Yeah, very heavy topic. So the next one I want
to get heavy. Let's let's stay heavy here. Montgomery County
Public Schools, Maryland's largest school district, approved over twenty works
of LGBT propaganda for inclusion as instructional materials in its
curriculum in late twenty twenty two. The woke district was
initially willing to let parents op their kids out of
(47:48):
lessons incorporating the non straight propaganda and provide and provided
notice when the radical work celebrating sex changes, pride, parades,
and reality defined pro nouns such as Pride, Puppy, Born Ready,
The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, and My
Rainbow were red. However, the district determined that the opt
(48:09):
outs required by state law for sex education units of
health classes did no longer need apply. The LGBT propaganda
was introduced as part of the curriculum regardless, unwilling to
surrender their children the cultural imperialists and confident that the
district's policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise
(48:31):
their religion. Christian and Muslim parents, represented by the Beckett
Fund for Religious Liberty, took the MCPS to court, not
seeking to ban the books, but to reclaim the right
to control their kids exposure to them, and the court
has reversed the Lesser Court's judgments, saying that the noting
that the parents are likely are likely to succeed on
(48:54):
their claim that the board's policies unconstitutionality, unconstitutionally burden their
religious section size stop. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing.
That's not what's at stake here. The court is saying,
because of freedom religion the first Amendment, it should be
the parents choosing the curriculum. No, it should be the
parents of choosing the curriculum because the school system, the
(49:18):
education system is screwed up and the government has no
authority to fund it or have any say in it,
and the government state constitutions really don't give the state
as much say as they are claiming. And originally the
idea was that the curriculum would be guided by those
(49:40):
that influenced the most, you know, the community and the
parents of the children in the schools. That so they
in other words, they ruled correctly, but for the wrong reason.
That's my opinion. All right to Alan, what's your thoughts,
and please take note. We got about six minutes left,
(50:00):
actually about five and a half minutes.
Speaker 3 (50:03):
Now less than five and a half. Okay, it comes
down for me, it comes down to whose child. Are
we talking about the stage child or my child? That's it,
That's where I start. We're talking about my child. You
(50:24):
an institution, a government, a whatever. You do not get
to dictate what I will not want my child exposed to.
And I'm using that word specifically. Okay, you don't get
to do that. You don't get to override me as
(50:46):
a parent. And I'm not saying they don't get to
learn you know, ABC one, two three, any of that.
You're talking about something that is incredibly controversial, that is
above the age range of being able to even process
and understand it. There's you know, and it goes against
(51:10):
my wishes, my understanding. No, you don't get to do this,
and you don't get and this gets back to state
or federal constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say
the federal government when it comes to the education of
a minor can tell the parent or parents what to do.
(51:34):
Where is that in the constitution?
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Or someone like grandy Winegarden will argue, the kids belong
to us when they're at school and the parents don't
know what they're doing anyway, they don't have licenses, they're
not credentialed, but don't worry, We'll take care of their children.
And because we're experts, trust the experts.
Speaker 3 (51:54):
I still want to know where in the Constitution was
that power granted.
Speaker 1 (51:58):
Or the education is not mentioned? Buns your thoughts about
this ruling.
Speaker 4 (52:03):
Well, I think they've got it right. I just find
it interesting that thirty years ago, California used to have
trade practices. You know, they had autoshop, they had home
ck classes, you know, women ladies primarily, who could learn
to cook whether they're not they're going to be professional
or not. But they got away from that. So they
(52:25):
say the California education system shouldn't be teaching you how
to get a job.
Speaker 2 (52:32):
They shouldn't be teaching.
Speaker 4 (52:33):
You how to repair a car or do welding or
any of that, but we took those out of the
junior high school grades because you're not going to try
and teach the six year old how to do a
vowel job. But now we're back to the six year old,
we are going to tell them about their sexuality. So
you know, they're way, way, way far a field, and
(52:57):
I'm glad that the state took that action, and and
I would hope that it would be more common throughout
the country.
Speaker 2 (53:04):
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (53:05):
So we're not going to teach a child how to
do a valve job. We're gonna teach him how to
do a different type of job. But somehow you're not
predators for doing that. Schools all right, Final item. I
doubt you guys have much time to talk about it.
We've talked about on the show before, but but it
definitely bears discussing. So Tim Kaine, Virginia Senator and if
(53:28):
remember Hillary's running mate, decided, well, the president can't do
what he did with war. You know you can't. So
he tried to put forth a bill that would put
a check on Donald Trump's powers as president and give
the Senate the war authority to shut down. You know,
you've got to get permission. You know, we're supposed to
(53:49):
be the ones declaring war, and his War Powers resolution,
which would have required Congress to debate and vote on
whether the president could declare war. Could you imagine if
Trump did that. By the time they got it through,
there'd be an ICBM with a nuclear warhead on its
way to the United States and we'd be dealing with
millions of bodies. But nonetheless, it was shot down. It
(54:12):
did not succeed. The Virginia Democrat vowed to move ahead
with the resolution despite fragilecy, despite a fragile ceasefire that
had been broke her and then they went to a
vote and the vote didn't go the way he had hoped,
and it has been shot down. The nineteen seventy three
(54:32):
War Powers Resolution, by the way, it was unconstitutional. What
it does is it dictates the president's war powers. You
can't change the authorities given by the Constitution with a law.
But that's what they tried to do with that. All right,
into the show, we got less than a minute Alan
Plug Yourself, Real.
Speaker 3 (54:51):
Quick fed ed FDED dot US or Basic Monetary System
Education and on Sundays five to seventy in West Coast time,
Patriots Soapbox, check Out for the Republic and d.
Speaker 1 (55:06):
Alan Meyers, thank you for joining me. Dennis Jackson as
always appreciate you being here as well. And of course
I'm the third person on the in the third closet
in that room. Apparently I have Douglas ve Gibbs. Douglasveigibbs
dot com. Unite with Dan for bine. We kicked button.
God bless America, friends, God bless you. Thank you for
spending the time, Thank you for taking time out of
(55:27):
your busy day. We are only at an hour. I
want to go back to two hours. You can help.
Go to Douglas Higibbs dot com and donate or become
a monthly nine dollars supporter by clicking the join link
in the link bar. This has been Constitution Radio KMET
fourteen ninety am and we'll see you next time. Bye
(55:48):
bye now
Welcome. It's time for Constitution Radio. IM Douglas v.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Gibbs.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Great to have you here. I am mister Constitution. This
is Constitution Radio on k E T fourteen ninety Am.
I I'm having a little bit of fun here. I'm
working towards getting my office better. Right now. My office
is in the living room. Still building the office on
the other side of the house. But we got new blinds.
(00:31):
We're controlling the light a little more. Got a new bookshelf,
got books behind me. I'm having fun. Welcome to the program.
Glad you're here. You know, I had a pseudo constitutionalist
who thinks he's a constitutionalist hit me on my website
with an interesting comment. I think it was yesterday, the
(00:51):
day before I did post it, challenging my war powers. No,
the president has to, you know, get the permission to Congress.
So we'll talk about that a little bit later in
the program. But what I want to start with, and
this is I wrote an article about this, and this,
to me is probably one of the biggest things to
come down. The title of the show is Judicial Sanity
(01:15):
Today and the United States Supreme Court. And there's my
opinions about the Court, which will slowly bubble to the
surface during this program. But they've been they've been on
target for the most part. The Supreme Court is and
(01:35):
the one that I want to open the show with
is that they've finally gotten the point where the activist
judges in the inferior Court, the Supreme Court has finally
kind of gotten their hands around the next and said, yep,
don't you can't play this game anymore. The Supreme Court
ruled this week that the federal judges cannot issue universal injunctions.
(01:57):
In other words, no more coast to coast, one fitzal
inferior court judge blocks the president. Nonsense. A universal injunction
is basically what we're talking about, the ending of universal
in junctions. This is when a single lower court judge
blocks a federal law and executive order policy for the
entire country and you know, not just for the parties
(02:21):
involved in the case, but for everyone. Now, how is
it we've gotten to the point we are allowing members
of the weakest branch of government according to the founding fathers,
giving them the ability to use judicial opinion to override law,
and the presence of the United States execution of that law.
(02:43):
We've gone from a court system filled with judges who
are supposed to supply, i'm sorry, apply the law to
the cases they hear. To a judicial dictatorship that rejects
the idea that Lady Justice is blindfolded. You've seen that, right,
Lady Justice. You know, she's got the scale of one hand,
the sword and the other and there's a blindfold. That
means that that justice is blind to everything other than
(03:08):
the law. Everything else, ideological opinion, race, position, wealth, all
of that blind to it. It's all about what the
law says. And what we have is instead we have
judges that are allowing their opinions to play part in
their rulings. And you know, and as Senator I was
(03:30):
right after this, this Supreme Court move against universal injunctions
came across the wire, Senator John Kennedy, and I love
this guy from Louisiana and he was being I was
watching Harris Faulkner in the morning on Fox News and
she's talking to him and he says, well, these federal
(03:50):
judges just made up these universal injunctions out of thin
air because they don't like President Donald J. Trump. And
they're in Tanton doing everything they can, hey and to
block his agenda, and I thought, you know what, he
nailed it. They couldn't stop him during the election. They
couldn't stop him before the first election, much less this one.
(04:12):
He's made them look like idiots fools every time they
try to go after him. So what they've done is
the same thing that the Federalist Party, the Big Government
Hamiltonians did when John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson the
election of eighteen hundred. They've retreated to the stronghold of
(04:32):
the court so that they can try to shackle him
with an all powerful courtroom. That's not justice at sabotage,
and thats judicial tyranny. Founders never intended for judges to
be able to veto the executive branch, much less micromanage
the president's policies. James Madison, Federalist Paper, seventy eight. James Madison,
(04:52):
remember father of the Constitution, right, and he explained that
the judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of
the three. They don't have the power of the sword
like the executive or the power of the purse like
the legislature. Their job is to apply the law, not interpret,
not imply, not review law, and executive actions with what
(05:15):
they claim to be legally binding opinions. They don't have.
Their opinions are not legally binding. They hold no power
of law. They are not They are not appointed to
invent law or invent power or willed authority never granted
to them by the United States Constitution. Judges have always
(05:36):
tried to make themselves supreme over all of the branches.
They try to make themselves the final arborist of the law.
Over the last decade or so, largely due to political
ideological hate against Donald Trump, the inferior of federal courts
have been trying to make themselves supremo even over the
United States Supreme Court, much less superior to the president
(06:01):
and untouchable by Congress. They are not gods. They are
not members of some hierarchy where the monarch is you know,
allowed them to give him his rubber stamp. They do
it all under a false version and tyrannical definition of
checks and balances and an unconstitutional idea called judicial review.
(06:23):
And the leftists and Democrat Party have been gunning for
President Trump since the very beginning, and he is appointed
who we believe to be constitutionalists to a bench. Lately,
they've been doing okay, these are supposed to be the judges.
All the judges supposed to believe in the Original Constitution
and apply the law, not their opinion based on their
(06:44):
Marxist education, activist, leftist leanings. Now, with this ruling, the
Supreme Court is reigning in the judicial branch, the inferior court. Specifically,
they're restoring constitutional order, or at least partially for the
time being. No more power hungry judges will be acting
like emperors in judicial black robes. And during the Constitucial Convention,
(07:07):
there were even delegates who argued that establishing a federal
judiciary may not be in our best interest. But the
argument came up, what about maritime law? What about disputes
between the states, what about disputes in which the United
States is a party? So they decided, all right, fine,
we will create it, but we're gonna make it so
(07:29):
weak that they can only apply. We're gonna do whatever
we can to make sure that judicial tyranny does not
haunt the United States. And in fact, and just looking
back and reading comments and the letters and looking at
the actions back then, you know you can tell you
can read the Constitution. The judicial branch has always been
(07:51):
the weakest. When offered to return to the position of
Chief Justice of the United States in eighteen oh one,
John Jay, who had been the first Chief Justice and
then he left the court so that he could serve
as Governor of New York and Chief Justice of the
United States number two and number three in history, had
served and been gone by the time he was done
(08:13):
with his governorship, and John Adams gets told him says, hey,
I would love for you to step back into that role.
But John Jay rejected the offer by President John Adams
because he considered the position in its present for him
to be too weak of a position. He was seeking
power that the Constitution never provided. But don't worry, John
(08:38):
Marshall was willing to step in and increase that power unconstitutionally.
And now Americans don't even have to live under the
threat that the whim of one judge thousands of miles
away might tyrannically influence their lives because the Supreme Court
reigned it in. It means that local judges now may
only influence locally and not dictate how the executive executes
(08:59):
the legis legislates. This universal injunction stuff is done at
least for now Supreme Court has sent a message to
all of those judicial activists. You know who I'm talking about,
those guys who are sitting there in their robes believing
that there's somehow, some type of God stiffing their soy
(09:21):
lattes in their chambers as a ruminant ruminsce over how
they can rule the world through their judicial activism. Your
reign is over. The voice of the consent of the
government or the government is back in charge. The Constitution
is back in the driver's seat. Somewhere down in the
(09:43):
fiery depths of a special place where left wing judges descend,
to Chief Justice of the Midnight Judges, John Marshall is
frowning from ear to ear, screaming what about judicial review?
Activists left hold him up as one of the most
significant figures in American legal history, and they worship everything
(10:07):
he unconstitutionally pushed upon us. It is his version of
judicial power they are chasing and trying to use to
control the fate of this country. Marshall may have laid
out the road work to lead the judiciary to believe
it was supreme over the two other branches of government,
but in the end, it is still all unconstitutional. Thank god.
(10:31):
The current United States Supreme Court agrees that the Founders
never intended for judges in San Francisco or Seattle or
other parts of the country. Washington, d c. That they
should that there was never Founders never intended for judges
like that to override a president of the United States
(10:52):
or the Congress of the United States just because they
don't like the policy. Those kind of judicial actions are
unconstitutional and such and such actions are examples of judicial arrogance,
a judicial tyranny, and they are not among the successful
foundational principles of our constitutional republic. All right, Alan, I'm
(11:16):
gonna go with you first. I know you read the
article that I'm referring to. I of course add libed
an awful lot. Uh but uh and and I'm sure
you have an opinion. I know you like sometimes on
some of the stuff. For me to run over to
Dennis first, and what the flames you know, you know
be you know, you know, uh, you know, heightened and
(11:36):
you know, and he he brings in the vultures and
he starts banging the drum and stuff. I know you
prefer that first, I do, but I'm because we kind
of talked about this a little bit earlier. I've I've
got to hear what you gotta say first, and then
we'll let and then we'll let Jennis triumphantly bring in
the final.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Swat so voice Jackson.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Yeahs voice, jack So. Alan Myers mister fed ed himself.
What about the Supreme Court and these universal injunctions being
halted at least.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
For now, Let's do a little history.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Okay, history is good.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I like, not that you care about history, but let's
steal a little history. And you see, you made the
problems happen. You mentioned John Marshall, so this is on you.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
John Marshall became Chief Justice and according to one article,
his most famous case of all. And this guy had
the audacity to live really long. Okay, Okay, it's bad
enough that he's bad, but he hung around till like
(12:52):
thirty four years on the bench.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Thirty five.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
But yeah, well he started in eighteen oh one and
in in eighteen thirty five. I'm going to say threety
for but what do I.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Know the first year he was there? The first year too.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
Anyway, his most famous case is considered Marbury versus Madison.
Marbury was somebody who was appointed to a judgeship or
some legal place.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
William Marbury was appointed to be Justice of the Peace
of Washington, DC, and he had been confirmed by the Senate. Yes,
but he didn't get his commission.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
That's what I was getting to. Okay, the he did
not get his papers, and hey, no papers, you don't
get a job.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
But who was supposed to give him?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
Wait, hold on, hold on, we'll get that.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
We'll get there. We'll get there. Don't worry. Alan Allen
always brings that up because it drives him nuts too fast.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Anyway, So Marbury's ticked off. He didn't get his papers. Jefferson, Uh,
through his Secretary of State James Madison. What did Madison do?
Oh yeah, constitutions.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Commissions?
Speaker 3 (14:07):
Huh yeah, what do we do this? Adams administration didn't
get it to Marbury. Marbury's pissed off. Jefferson won't acknowledge it.
It winds up in the Supreme Court, and we're looking
at John Marshall, chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed
by John Adams, who, by the end of his tenure
(14:28):
as president, had gone, in my opinion, completely rogue. He
left his patriotic background and I don't know, socialist whatever anyway,
the ruling was the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marbury. Now,
the one thing that Madison, excuse me, the one thing
(14:50):
that Marshall got right is that the Supreme Court had
no authority to enforce That's nice. Now, Jefferson's secretary of
State was James Madison. John Adams secretary of State, was
required to get the papers out to Marbury and all
(15:12):
the others. The secretary of State of John Adams failed
to do it.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
And so William Marbury sued the new secretary of State.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
And guess who is who was the secretary of State
for John Adams at the end of his time as president.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Oh, that was you, John Dennis Jackson, go ahead, didn't
say it, say it?
Speaker 4 (15:33):
No, no, no, I'm going to steal it.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
That was John Marshall. So John Marshall, who did not
get his job done as Secretary of State, is now
ruling as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on a
case that never would have happened if he had done
his job. He had absolute, total, utterly, undeniable conflict of
(15:59):
interest and he did not excuse himself. And this case
where he completely violated not being independent and having a
conflict of interest. This is viewed as his most famous case. Okay,
that that's a real hallmark. You shouldn't have been there,
(16:20):
and this is and you did it wrong, and you
you know, this is your most famous case. The thing
is in this case apparently, now, I don't think the
Constitution was quite dry at that moment in time. So
we're talking about eighteen zero three and according to the article,
(16:41):
Marborie versus Madison established the principle of judicial review.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
Well, yeah, because the courts can just give themselves authorities.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Right, giving the Supreme Court the power to to declare
laws unconstitutional. Now, I'm knowing attorney, I'm not saying that
I am. I am not a constitutional scholar like Doug
Gibbs Douglas v. Gibbs. Excuse me, got to get that right.
But it seems strange to me that the three branches
(17:14):
of the federal government, congressional, executive, and legislative can only
do what the Constitution said they can do, and they
can't do what the Constitution says they can't do. So
it begs the question in Article three, which is the
(17:38):
third article of the Constitution, because they were written in
order of importance. Article one Congressional, Article two, executive, and
Article three. Oh yeah, judicial.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
My first three established three branches. Correct.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
Where in the an Article three that created the judicial
branch of the federal government. Where does it say that
the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional? Doug?
Where is it?
Speaker 1 (18:10):
It's not there?
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Ooh. So that's like saying, you know, a teenager saying, oh,
I get to I get to write checks on your
check book because I found it.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
And I give my authority to sign them.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Yeah, because you left it on the counter, which means
I get to sign them. Perfect. This is just another
example of how rogue the federal government is currently. That's one. Two.
The other thing I get is that how early this started.
I mean, the inks barely dry, and they're already doing this.
(18:50):
The founders, the writers of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence,
they're still there. They're still there.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
And.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
They're doing the maneuvers we I mean, I would if
I had a wayback machine, I'd go get several of them,
including Madison, Mason and Jefferson. I'd bring him forward and
say now that you, once you get over the shock
of what a TV is and electric lights, I want
(19:24):
you to take a look at what's going on in
the world. And I want the response because I think
they're going to say, this is not what we envision,
this is not what was designed, and this is not
what was created in the Constitution. It's a complete violation
and these people are rogue. So to me, one term
(19:48):
is original intent. I like original definitions because whatever they said,
then whatever it meant, then the original deaf th nition
of a word or a term is what it means
today unless it's been amended through an amendment process. And
(20:08):
you can't amend the Constitution by passing the law. So
they you know, and if you if you have any
doubt on what this stuff means, and you've done all
the heavy lifting, Doug, you go to the notes, you
go to the letters, you go to the fedlist papers.
(20:29):
This is where it's really described. And to get an
idea of how absolutely given the guy was governor, did
you say John Jay of New York, Okay, which probably
at that moment in time is a pretty heavy position.
And it sounds like John Jay likes having that kind
(20:51):
of power. Yeah, And you say, hey, would you like
to be the Supreme Court? The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Why do I want to go back to
moping floors when I'm the CEO. And so when he
says no, that tells you what structural power influence that
(21:17):
position had compared to being a governor of a state.
He said no. So if the Supreme Court is doing things,
if the and I do like the term inferior, If
the inferior courts are doing things that's Article three. If
(21:38):
they're doing things that they have no power, it is
an absolute shame not only on the judges but the
law schools they came from. This is what you produced.
This is it's a shame. And that's why what you've
done for so long is so important, and that people
(22:01):
need to get a handle on the fact that we
really need to understand individually. We need to understand the
constitution in order to understand what the federal government's doing
and is it okay? And if it's not, we got
to stop them legally, of course, fire them, don't let
(22:22):
them go back into office. Those are my thoughts.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Is that all right? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Dennis, The United says Supreme Court said that universal injunctions
as a no. No, the inferior court judges cannot dictate
policy to the entire country. They cannot. They cannot micro
manage the executive branch or the legislative branch. And they can't.
And if they're going to make a ruling, has to
be regarding a case that's in their locality and affecting
(22:53):
their region.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
What's your thoughts, Well, I tell you I have spent
a lot of my time in life playing ball, been
in a lot of games, you know.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Different sports.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
I've coached it, I refereed it, and I know the
Supreme Court are they are justices, not referees.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
They do?
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Do we lose them?
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Dennis, we can't hear you.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Almost sounds like he had a bad signore so mean
just suddenly gone, Well, well he was saying that basically
the judges, so we'll wait till he gets back or
not referees. So he understood. So he understands because here's
the thing about refereeing, and he may have been head
in this direction. A referee on a court, they are God,
(23:59):
they're ruling. That's the way it is. Now. You can appeal,
but ultimately the appeal will go now maybe to you know,
instant replay something like that. But you know they that
they make their decisions but the thing is there to
be respected. But when it comes to judges, while they
(24:21):
are there, well, let me get back. The referees are
not there though, to put their opinion in. I think
this is where he was going is that the referees
opinion doesn't matter. They are bound by the rules of
the game. They are bound by the written rules. If
(24:42):
the rule says that, you know you and he said,
he played a lot of ball, and you know, we
got basketball and volleyballs what I know of, And if
the rule says that if the ball doesn't get over
the net, it's not fair it hit the ground on
(25:03):
your side. And then and then this one, this particular
one says, well, you know, I like the team that's
the penally go again, so you're allowed one bounce. If
you're such a such school, No, I can't do that.
Their opinion, their their ability to alter the game is nonexistent.
(25:26):
So I think that's what he was trying to say,
is that they have to follow the rules. The rule
the rules say.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, I don't. I don't know why.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
I mean, usually when I do the radio show with
this program we're using, it just stays on. But sometimes
my screen right in the middle of it goes blank
and I have to re enter.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
So I got kicked off.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Here, but maybe it's a screen saver thing got turned
off or something. Anyway, go ahead, so.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
The uh he cleared his throat again, and he's gone,
hey dog, until then this comes back.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
I got a thought, is that?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
All right, go ahead and verbalize your thought.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Okay, based on what you were saying and where you're going,
which is okay. A referee is there to apply the rules, period,
not make them, not interpret them, do them.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
So the rule says, and they're there to apply the
rule of the game. And that's that.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
So whether it's the foot or a ball, it touches
the line, if it touches the line out m h okay,
it's it's not. Well it barely touched the line. I
can ignore it. Or only one big toe touched the
line the rest of the foot. No, you touch the line,
you're out done. That is applying the rules of the game,
(27:00):
not broadly interpreting them, not favoring one one over another.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
All right, back, I'm gonna say this real quick, okay.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
In Trump's first term, he had over sixty injunctions foot
against him. Yes, okay, four to five times more than
the other guys doing their four year term. So far
on this term he's had over forty okay, forty and.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
It's not done with the first six months.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, I said it's forty and five months.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Come and off he went again. And for whatever reason
he's having issues. Dare I tell you what, Let's see
if we can fix this. So let's go to break
and while we're on break, hopefully Dennis can can get
this fixed and we'll continue on. So go anywhere.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
You got a dent in your door, scratch in your fender,
or a cratch in your door and a dent in
your fender. If you need auto detailing, if you need
buyer shooting decals on the side of your car, if
you need a rally stripe right down the middle of
your hardtop, I don't care what it is. The Patriots
at All Star Collision are the place you want to go.
They're the only place to go. Buy twenty two Railroad
Street in Corona. Web address all Star ci dot com
(28:36):
to see all that they do and what they're all about.
Phone number nine two six one, All Star Collision. The
Kings of Reck and Roll.
Speaker 6 (28:47):
Still loyal to your utility company. It's time to declare
your independence, break up with the utility and go with
someone hotter like the sun. And as Guard Energy, we've
been powering southern California since two thousand and eight. We're
a certified C ten electrical contractor specializing in solar and
battery systems. But we're so much more than just a
(29:08):
solar company. EV chargers, custom home wiring ADU, wiring panel upgrades,
you name it, and right now we're offering seventeen hundred
and seventy six dollars off a solar and battery system
YEP seventeen hundred and seventy six dollars. Because freedom from
high bills never goes out of style. Call as Guard
Energy today. Let's power your pursuit of happiness. Call eight
(29:30):
five five seven six zero energy. That's eight five five
seven six zero three six three seven or visit us
at Asgardenergy dot com. As Guard Energy Providing Energy Freedom.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Reveal Democracy by Douglas P. Gipps is finally available. Doug
Lady's book examines the importance of being a republic, How
we can restore republic, Why democracy is so dangerous? Of
all tyrannies A torney, sincerely, exercise for the good of
its victims may be the most oppressive C. S. Lewis,
and that is the very first page that you'll see
(30:08):
right before chapter one. Can Repeal Democracy. Repell Democracy by
Douglas V.
Speaker 7 (30:13):
Gibbs on sale now, help me fight the good fight.
This radio program is funded by advertising dollars. So if
you are a business, add Constitution Radio with Douglas V.
Gibbs to your business portfolio. If you are a listener,
become a patron of the businesses advertising on this program.
Without advertising, your weekend dose of truth ends with more advertising.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Constitution Radio with Douglas V.
Speaker 7 (30:38):
Gibbs grows, and we will be on the way to
win the battle to restore the Republic.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
To learn more, email us.
Speaker 7 (30:44):
At Constitution Speaker at yahoo dot com, or visit Douglas V.
Gibbs dot com.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Of the Socialists, your individual literis personal freedoms and mental
individuality will be added to our own.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Resistance is utile.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Welcome back Constution Radio. I am Douglas for Gibbs. Douglas
Gibbs dot com, Douglasigibs dot com. Been writing pretty regularly,
getting ready to start doing some other stuff. Uh, and
uh working on some new books. Life is dandy, and
life is dandy judicially too, because the courts are kind
of what what's that? Uh, I'm trying to remember what
(31:48):
what that is. It's a disease where someone's head winds
up in a certain cranial or the cranial area winds
up in a subterranean kind of part of your body area.
But anyway, they've gotten their heads out of their butts,
in other words, and there's a little sanity. And so Dennis,
having his few issues, hopefully it's resolved, was trying to
(32:11):
wrap up his thoughtful went to Brasiles. Let him wrap
up for his thought and we'll go to the next topic. Dennis,
the show is yours.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
I just was thinking that this thing I read earlier,
where you know, Trump was hit sixty times for his
first term and now forty in five months with these
road justices, that this was long past overdue. I'm glad
the court finally did it. I'm glad it was six
to three not five to.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Four, you know.
Speaker 4 (32:42):
And I thought that Amy Comi Barrett's remarks to Kataji
Brown concerning her almost saying, what law school did you go?
To and you know, how did you ever get on
the court. Well, they know how she got on the court, you.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Know, but.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
Hopefully they apparently yeah, yeah, well you know, they've gotten
a couple right right in a row, and hopefully this makes.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Them more bolder and more firm as they go forward.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
Right, you know, and as they get more support and
the people get more heard and weak, and the mainstream
media gets more total which they just got wiped out
tremendously by the last forty eight hours. That hopefully that
they'll say that, hey, Americans are picking their heads up,
they're noticing, and you know, I guess it is cool
(33:33):
to actually be an actual American sovereignty constitutional first type guy.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
So hopefully it'll keep growing.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Okay, very good. All right, So we have been talking
about the universal injunctions. How about this one and this
is just a recent one the United States Supreme Court.
All kinds of decisions will be more. We're coming in October.
Mister Allen wanted to talk to about birthlay citizenship. We're
(34:07):
waiting for that case to work its way through the
Supreme Court, probably get that ruling in October. What we
just talked about does kind of freeze that for the
time being, because the lower courts can't just suddenly, you know,
you don't use their opinion to go after birthlay citizenships.
That kind of unleashes that again. But here's a big
(34:27):
one and or at least I think so and it
and there's a constitutional angle here. Supreme Court rejected Planned
Parenthood's bid to prevent its exclusion from South Carolina's Medicaid program. So,
in other words, the state has said, hey, public moneies,
we were we don't believe public moneies should be used
(34:49):
for Planned Parenthood. And and also when it comes to Medicaid,
when it comes to abortions, that that that funding that
they can't take Medicaid and and they got sued in
South Carolina's uh and and uh whoever sued them took
(35:09):
when all the way up the Spring Court Spring Courts
says up, no, no, no, of course, Katanji Brown Jackson
had the descent the DESCENTI voice, along with Soda bay
Oor Kegan the three. This is another six three by
the way, claiming almost intangibly harmed people because they can't
kill their baby with the help of public monies at
(35:30):
a minimum. Uh Jackson wrote, it will deprive Medicaid recipients
in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing
it right that Congress has expressly granted to them. Congress
grants right. Wow, what law school did she go to? Uh?
(35:52):
But what what is what is happening here? And UH
is that parenthoods not gonna get funding money. You're not
gonna be able to use public money for your abortions.
That's ultimately what it comes down to you. Now here's
the reason why it's important why I wanted to bring
this up, Because where in the Constitution does the federal
(36:16):
government have the authority to fund anything that has anything
to do with medical procedures, medicine and so on. So well, Doug,
it's a right. And wait in a second, they claim
it's under our Amendment nine. It's one of those rights
(36:36):
that isn't listed. So let let's let's talk about rights
just for a second. One of the concepts of rights
is that, first of all, great Congress doesn't grant them,
is that a right cannot, in order to be a right,
cannot interfere with something else. I'll give you an example,
(36:58):
and I use this in my classes, when all the
time I have a right to swing my arms, But
I don't have a right to swing my arms into
the face of Alan because he has a right not
to be slugged in the face. So my right only
extends to the tip of his nose. In other words,
the edge of my rights extended the edge of his rights.
A right stops being a right when it interferes with
(37:20):
somebody else's right. And that's why we're supposed to be
responsible with our rights. So now, well, do we not
have the right to live, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
And I would argue that abortion is no different than murder.
I don't have a right to murder my neighbor because
(37:41):
he ticks me off. Why because he has a right
to live, and by me being having a right to
be angry at him, if it extends to the point
where I kill him, suddenly I have violated one of
his rights. My right stopped. But then the argument is, yeah,
but a baby is not human. A baby is not
(38:02):
a person. Fourteenth Amendment and an article five I'm sorry.
Fifth Amendment indicates that that that that our rights extend
to all persons. Are they a person? That's the question?
And I would argue yes, And and science has shown
(38:24):
us that in our DNA, which is in our system
the moment we're conceived, our personality are traits. Everything that
makes us a human being is in place. It's just
that the development hasn't gone forth yet. Well, because they're
on developed and they're not a person. Okay, a toddler's
not developed to be an adult yet. A teenager has
(38:48):
not developed the point of being an adult. So when
in the thirties has not developed enough to be in
their forties or fifties, that whatever happens at that age
and so on and so forth, are in continuous development
as human beings. All right, So, Dennis, medicaid funding for
(39:10):
abortion is unconstitutional. Federal funding for abortion has been targeted
by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court got it right.
What's your thoughts, sir?
Speaker 4 (39:20):
Yeah, Like I say, I'm very pleased. They have got
a couple in a row, correct, And hopefully now as
they've come out of the closet a little on these issues,
they'll stay out of the closet and.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Do what they.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Were appointed and confirmed to. Actually do you know, I
know you and I have talked about you know, the
Chief Justice. We've talked about Amy We've talked about one
or two of the other newer guys on some issues
over the last couple of years. But you know, this
(39:55):
past week, you know they've they've got it right. They deferred,
you know, the uh refused to hear, knowing that that
meant that the state opinion would would stand.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
So in a way, they made a ruler, you know.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
And it's like being up the plate, you know, if
I decided to take the pitch, you know, then that
was my decision. You know, it's not my fault. There
was a ball or a strike. I decided it. So
they decided not to take the case, which means they
decided to let the case stand, so that in a
way it's a it's a ruling. So like I said,
(40:38):
I I this week to me has been overall a
pretty good week between the separations of powers and trying
to get it right.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
And it was interesting.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
And I didn't bring this up earlier, but uh uh
did you catch I think it was Pam bondy Alan.
Did you catch the fact that she brought up that
famous case Marvarry versus Madison.
Speaker 2 (41:05):
Yeah, in the offense. Did you hear her say that?
Speaker 3 (41:09):
Briefly? I don't have it all.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
Yeah, well, yeah, but she brought it up and she
got it right, you know, so.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
We're all on a good page.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
You said they came out of the closet. That's fascinating
you would use that language. It's the next topic is
about the Supreme Court siding with parents to nuke LGBT indoctrination.
But yeah, I guess there's a different closet on the
other side of the room.
Speaker 3 (41:40):
Do I get a comment? Do I get a comment
on this?
Speaker 1 (41:43):
Yeah? Go ahead, Alan. What's your thoughts about the medicaid
funding for abortion unconstitutional according to the United States Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (41:50):
Well, I know exactly where the authority in the Constitution
for that is. Go ahead, it's right after the triple asterisk. Okay,
Now that there's what is really wearing on me, is there?
(42:12):
And this is from many, many different sides on topics
like this and others. Can do it, should do it,
must do it? Need you know, back and forth, back
and forth, all this stuff. I'm waiting for someone to
join the conversation and say what we're saying and what
you would say. Okay, this might be the greatest idea.
(42:35):
Okay since TV dinners, This might be it. But there's
no authority in the Constitution, you know, the document you
swore to protect and defend.
Speaker 1 (42:47):
So let's propose an amendment.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
Then that's exactly it. So none of these people are
dealing with the issue, any issue from is this constitutional
or is it not. If it is constitutional, let's have
the discussion. If it's not this constitutional, let's end the discussion.
This is not something to be debated at this moment
(43:14):
in time because it's not constitutional. And somehow, you know,
they have misused, most likely deliberately, terms.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
It is.
Speaker 3 (43:27):
You know, this is reproductive health. You're terminating a pregnancy
because somebody wants to end it. That's reproductive health. That's
reproduction termination right. And this idea that, oh well, I
have a right to this, okay, you have a right
(43:47):
to kill something that's going to become a human being.
And of course we're all about equities, so that means
I also have a right to a ferrari a mansion.
And not only do I have a right for abortion,
I have a right to have it federally funded because
I don't need to pay for what I want because
I have a right for it. Thank you, Margaret Sanger.
(44:12):
And where did she put the beginning of planned parenthood.
What neighborhoods did she put them in.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
On the edge of well black neighborhoods mostly and and
and was she she called them weeds human weeds?
Speaker 3 (44:33):
Did she did she back Hitler?
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Hitler's A lot of Hitler's ideas came from when it
came to their experimentation, came from Margaret Singer.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
And did.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
She give presentations to the KKK.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (44:54):
So you know, if if one is needed, then it's
needed because the mother's health is in jeopardy. I totally
get that.
Speaker 1 (45:03):
But yeah, but that's not an abortion. That's a medical procedure.
I mean, if you've got to because if the mother's
health is at risk, that means both of theirs is, yeah,
they're both gonna die, and so then you take the
action to save one of the lives. Uh, and if
they're both doomed, I mean it's like, uh, you know
the I'm trying to remember the term now, but where
(45:23):
you know, like an a you know, plants and a
Filippian tube. If it's carried a term, they're both dead.
So you term it pregnancy to save the mother. That's
that's not an abortion. That's a medical procedure to save
a life. There's a difference.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
The other thing is that, Okay, if and if woman
doesn't want to get pregnant, I totally understand that. Uh,
it's that's not bad, that's not wrong, it's fine. How
many different ways are there for a woman not to
get pregnant?
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Well, when I was when I was a navy, we
just said wearing the glasses at the issue to you
was enough that we call them birth control glasses. Nobody
would want to have anything to do with you.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
Well.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
The thing is is that if we, if we as
a people, as humans truly valued life m h, we
would put life over the inconvenience of preventing a pregnancy.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Well, and the thing is, when you have this type
of activity, it becomes a pushing, know of the envelope.
It always gets worse, It always goes a little bit further.
With each cycle. They went from rare and safe to
up to full term and now there's even some that
(46:43):
are calling for post earth abortion. The envelope always gets
pushed and the only way it gets stopped is if
a force occurs to stop it. And this and this
is that force. Uh, well, turn.
Speaker 3 (46:57):
Around, my last thought on this, and I think I've
heard about it where the baby is delivered, the baby
is has exited the womb, and this is not a
human being and it can be terminated. So you've now
turned the word murder clearly murder into a portion, right,
(47:22):
So I'll leave it at that. Very heavy topic.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Yeah, very heavy topic. So the next one I want
to get heavy. Let's let's stay heavy here. Montgomery County
Public Schools, Maryland's largest school district, approved over twenty works
of LGBT propaganda for inclusion as instructional materials in its
curriculum in late twenty twenty two. The woke district was
initially willing to let parents op their kids out of
(47:48):
lessons incorporating the non straight propaganda and provide and provided
notice when the radical work celebrating sex changes, pride, parades,
and reality defined pro nouns such as Pride, Puppy, Born Ready,
The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, and My
Rainbow were red. However, the district determined that the opt
(48:09):
outs required by state law for sex education units of
health classes did no longer need apply. The LGBT propaganda
was introduced as part of the curriculum regardless, unwilling to
surrender their children the cultural imperialists and confident that the
district's policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise
(48:31):
their religion. Christian and Muslim parents, represented by the Beckett
Fund for Religious Liberty, took the MCPS to court, not
seeking to ban the books, but to reclaim the right
to control their kids exposure to them, and the court
has reversed the Lesser Court's judgments, saying that the noting
that the parents are likely are likely to succeed on
(48:54):
their claim that the board's policies unconstitutionality, unconstitutionally burden their
religious section size stop. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing.
That's not what's at stake here. The court is saying,
because of freedom religion the first Amendment, it should be
the parents choosing the curriculum. No, it should be the
parents of choosing the curriculum because the school system, the
(49:18):
education system is screwed up and the government has no
authority to fund it or have any say in it,
and the government state constitutions really don't give the state
as much say as they are claiming. And originally the
idea was that the curriculum would be guided by those
(49:40):
that influenced the most, you know, the community and the
parents of the children in the schools. That so they
in other words, they ruled correctly, but for the wrong reason.
That's my opinion. All right to Alan, what's your thoughts,
and please take note. We got about six minutes left,
(50:00):
actually about five and a half minutes.
Speaker 3 (50:03):
Now less than five and a half. Okay, it comes
down for me, it comes down to whose child. Are
we talking about the stage child or my child? That's it,
That's where I start. We're talking about my child. You
(50:24):
an institution, a government, a whatever. You do not get
to dictate what I will not want my child exposed to.
And I'm using that word specifically. Okay, you don't get
to do that. You don't get to override me as
(50:46):
a parent. And I'm not saying they don't get to
learn you know, ABC one, two three, any of that.
You're talking about something that is incredibly controversial, that is
above the age range of being able to even process
and understand it. There's you know, and it goes against
(51:10):
my wishes, my understanding. No, you don't get to do this,
and you don't get and this gets back to state
or federal constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say
the federal government when it comes to the education of
a minor can tell the parent or parents what to do.
(51:34):
Where is that in the constitution?
Speaker 1 (51:39):
Or someone like grandy Winegarden will argue, the kids belong
to us when they're at school and the parents don't
know what they're doing anyway, they don't have licenses, they're
not credentialed, but don't worry, We'll take care of their children.
And because we're experts, trust the experts.
Speaker 3 (51:54):
I still want to know where in the Constitution was
that power granted.
Speaker 1 (51:58):
Or the education is not mentioned? Buns your thoughts about
this ruling.
Speaker 4 (52:03):
Well, I think they've got it right. I just find
it interesting that thirty years ago, California used to have
trade practices. You know, they had autoshop, they had home
ck classes, you know, women ladies primarily, who could learn
to cook whether they're not they're going to be professional
or not. But they got away from that. So they
(52:25):
say the California education system shouldn't be teaching you how
to get a job.
Speaker 2 (52:32):
They shouldn't be teaching.
Speaker 4 (52:33):
You how to repair a car or do welding or
any of that, but we took those out of the
junior high school grades because you're not going to try
and teach the six year old how to do a
vowel job. But now we're back to the six year old,
we are going to tell them about their sexuality. So
you know, they're way, way, way far a field, and
(52:57):
I'm glad that the state took that action, and and
I would hope that it would be more common throughout
the country.
Speaker 2 (53:04):
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (53:05):
So we're not going to teach a child how to
do a valve job. We're gonna teach him how to
do a different type of job. But somehow you're not
predators for doing that. Schools all right, Final item. I
doubt you guys have much time to talk about it.
We've talked about on the show before, but but it
definitely bears discussing. So Tim Kaine, Virginia Senator and if
(53:28):
remember Hillary's running mate, decided, well, the president can't do
what he did with war. You know you can't. So
he tried to put forth a bill that would put
a check on Donald Trump's powers as president and give
the Senate the war authority to shut down. You know,
you've got to get permission. You know, we're supposed to
(53:49):
be the ones declaring war, and his War Powers resolution,
which would have required Congress to debate and vote on
whether the president could declare war. Could you imagine if
Trump did that. By the time they got it through,
there'd be an ICBM with a nuclear warhead on its
way to the United States and we'd be dealing with
millions of bodies. But nonetheless, it was shot down. It
(54:12):
did not succeed. The Virginia Democrat vowed to move ahead
with the resolution despite fragilecy, despite a fragile ceasefire that
had been broke her and then they went to a
vote and the vote didn't go the way he had hoped,
and it has been shot down. The nineteen seventy three
(54:32):
War Powers Resolution, by the way, it was unconstitutional. What
it does is it dictates the president's war powers. You
can't change the authorities given by the Constitution with a law.
But that's what they tried to do with that. All right,
into the show, we got less than a minute Alan
Plug Yourself, Real.
Speaker 3 (54:51):
Quick fed ed FDED dot US or Basic Monetary System
Education and on Sundays five to seventy in West Coast time,
Patriots Soapbox, check Out for the Republic and d.
Speaker 1 (55:06):
Alan Meyers, thank you for joining me. Dennis Jackson as
always appreciate you being here as well. And of course
I'm the third person on the in the third closet
in that room. Apparently I have Douglas ve Gibbs. Douglasveigibbs
dot com. Unite with Dan for bine. We kicked button.
God bless America, friends, God bless you. Thank you for
spending the time, Thank you for taking time out of
(55:27):
your busy day. We are only at an hour. I
want to go back to two hours. You can help.
Go to Douglas Higibbs dot com and donate or become
a monthly nine dollars supporter by clicking the join link
in the link bar. This has been Constitution Radio KMET
fourteen ninety am and we'll see you next time. Bye
(55:48):
bye now
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.