« The Glenn Beck Program

Ep 149 | Want a Tyrannical King? The Left's Court-Packing Plot Ensures It | Mike Lee | The Glenn Beck Podcast


For decades, those on the Left weren't interested in packing the Supreme Court. But that all changed in 2020 when things didn’t go their way for once. Now, with the possible repeal of Roe v. Wade on the horizon, they are getting desperate. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) knows a thing or two about the Supreme Court. As a boy, he used to watch the court in session, he clerked for Justice Samuel Alito (who wrote the leaked draft opinion), and his upcoming book, “Saving Nine: The Fight Against the Left’s Audacious Plan to Pack the Supreme Court and Destroy American Liberty,” has a warning for America: Court packing will end in tyrannical KINGS, not presidents. On this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn and Sen. Lee discuss the last time Democrats tried to pack the court as they search for a solution for the current chaos engulfing America.

This Week’s Sponsors:

If you’re looking to save money without sacrificing quality, then you need to check out Good Ranchers. Get your $30 discount on prime steaks and better than organic chicken today. Go to goodranchers.com/GLENN to save on the quality you’ve been looking for.

If you want a drug-free and natural way to get your life back, go to relieffactor.com. Relief Factor is the only pain relief supplement that combines four 100% drug free anti-inflammation supplements into one convenient packet. That is four ingredients, acting on four different metabolic pathways, for four times the pain relief! Order today for $19.95.

Pre-Born has a passion to save unborn babies from abortion and see women come to Christ. Over the past 15 years, Pre-Born centers have counseled over 450,000 women considering abortion … 188,000 babies have been saved. Will you help rescue babies’ lives? To donate, dial #250 and say keyword “BABY” or go to Preborn.com/GLENN.

This year, get dad the best socks he’s ever had! Go to grip6.com/beck and check out their Father’s Day special. From June 1-15, you can get 25% off sitewide and even more off on packs, including 40% off the dad pack.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Earlier. This month, someone leak justice, samuel leaders, draft opinion to overturn rovers wade, the two hundred and thirty three year here three of the supreme court. There have been a handful of leaks, not many. but some, including news about rovers weight and nineteen. Seventy three was leaked about an hour before this is the first time that a leak is include included the draft decision, in other words, this leak unprecedented. As a senator, today's guessed, his watch, the collapse from the inside before he was a sanitary served as a clerk for justice, samuel Alito, when justice Alito was still a judge on the third circuit court of appeals. in his latest book, saving nine, it is a must, read the fight against the left's audacious plan to pack supreme court and destroy american liberty. This is probably the most perfectly time book that I've ever seen it doc you.
The left's mission to pack the supreme court. There late attempt to politicize it and and destroy it, but the supreme court. Supposed to be political. it's it's something you feel when you walk up those stairs there should feel. As today his guest rights in saving nine when climbing those stairs you find yourself leaving the swamp of washington and often the petty police. nickel conflicts that abound behind an you enter a higher plane of existence. That's what you're supposed to feel once again, politicians activist on the left are making exceptions for themselves today fascinating conversation on the Glen back podcast senator Michael ii it's getting hot outside and really at least in texas, like about a thousand degrees once you fire up the grills, but with
more upon us. I am, I am willing to for a stay I am willing to fire up the grill and stand in the heat. If you are King for the perfect cuts of meat to cook this year, I know I buy the meat, sometimes in my family. I went out our couple of weeks ago, and I looked at the price of beef granby from like. Are you out of your mind? Good ranchers is the place to get american beef chickens, see food, they sell one hundred percent american meet ship it right to your door right now. Their given away to free eighteen ounce, prime centre cut rib eyes too. We person that uses my code Glenn Gillian, an that's two pounds, of primary by stakes. To your order with no cost with today, almost hear summer stretching out before us. Not to love about this. Oh, I know
The price of meat is so high and it's gonna keep going up before they run out a revised, may I suggest you, come and get those area buys end you sign up. You want to be the first when it comes to good ranchers, they deliver the best american farms farm from the best american farms and ranches right to your door and they lock in the price yeah yeah, good, ranchers dot com, slash glenn, Gillian n. Make sure you at a check out and get to free eighteen, its rabbis it's My good friend mike, how are you doing great, could be with you, Your book is.
I think you have taken it any. You can be at any level and read it not know much about the supreme court. not know much about even our history and why, what's happened in the last hundred plus years or and be somebody like you know a lot and still learn something. I think that's that's a lot cause the supreme court, is so important right now and I think most people have any idea what it's supposed to do or how're government even works, that's right and in important forced to understand what it is and what it isn't right in comprehended medical. Actually, because there are people on the streets, protesting, Juno and I think it's only going to get worse and we have I have to know what the facts are. That's right into: it's why dedicated entire chapter simply to explain what the court is in, what it isn't in chapter. One of saving. I talk about the fact
it has a limited role, it operates. In a rear view, mirror sort of way. Its job is to decide what the law says: Well what the words enacted in the lobby. At the time they became law. So let me let me ask you a couple things on that. It is is the weakest start, three equal branches right its weaker than the other two. It's just a check on the other to buy for the weakest of the three branch, just a check on the other two and and really even air or than a check it MR resolve disputes, the law says acts, and we disagree about why ex means and which way the law cut. You I can have that result in cork, ultimately, the supreme court in its federal okay. So this cream court is supposed to. You just said supposed to look back at work. these words meant when they were written. Yes, That is a original list point of view. Yes, then there is the context julius
is that right? You have some would call them purpose of us, but people who would say, let's look at what the purpose of the law is, others still, would, if they're looking at provisions of the constitution, talk about it The constitution wreck wondered to change what they mean by. That is the custom Can't change, ratify the constitution, provides the mechanism for doing that, but that seem to want to demand and court. That's an amendment as an admission that the is unusual as a nation that we we look to the meaning of what it originally meant. No so rest the world. Does that is well well! Look I I dont concern myself with how other courts operate. What I know is that our supreme court functions under our constitution and our costs, places defined. It's around judicial authority and so
within the united states. We we do and we always have sought to try to define what the statute means within our court system and what that means is you have to look at the original public meaning the understanding of the public of what those words meant at the time they were drafted, input the rule of law or in that the constitution. So, let's, let's use a real life example, because some people today are saying you know this. Isn't. This is a democracy and and can the minority rule the majority? Well, first of all there talking usually about the Senate you lost fifty one to forty nine some of majority, you know not a mean and we are not. majority rule kind of country. Are we
we're not in most of the time when people raise that argument about the seneca dissenters, anti democratic they're. Talking about the fundamental structure of the constitution that they don't like. What they're saying is theoretically possible to secure a majority of the votes in the senate. Without those states holding the majority in the Senate rep scenting a majority of the population of the united states yeah. That was the whole That was the whole point we going to have one chain member of the legislator branch that would be allocated a call. to population with gun foreign thirty five seats. Currently, those are allocated the population revised every ten years. The said it was all ways to be a place where each state would be represented equally, in fact, theirs. One kind of constitutional amendment that pre emptive unconstitutional, you can't change that feature. Constitution that entitles each state to equal representation
but they did change the senate the way it was elected, the weather chosen, yet because it was never meant to be a public election right where you are your state house selected- yes, please, to nineteen thirteen nineteen thirteen one was wealthy teeth, amendment was ratified and, prior to that time, The senators were chosen by state legislatures since nineteen thirteen with the ratification of the seventeenth amendment they've been elected popularly within each state. So was that a could change. Do you think look it is? It is water under the bridge? I do think we lost something. I think we We also importantly gain something. If you look at it from a progressive view We gained a national look instead of a local look that the idea was person
is selected by the state and is just doing what's right for his? her state right, an accountable subject to being fired by the state law makers within that stood erect. They were there to represent the states as such, and so since then we haven't had that coincidentally, we ve seen a drift away from descent looking out for the interests of the states as states, so everything began to change, really the progressive era and the one thing I think I love about you? Is you hate, woodrow, wilson, much as I do and and after are, though, love lost four after especially when it comes to the supreme court, so can you give us a brief cause? If you spend a lot of time on empty aren't, I to get into that cause. I think it relates to date a great deal, as you point out, can you
was who we were before the progressive era, like I think The supreme court at the beginning met in a closet in the basement of the cap and already mush yeah, and it was empty. Are that change that gave them this big grand building? We change people's perception of of the supreme court right, yes away through debate, here. The wheels were set in motion prior to after as presidency for them to have their own building, but but yeah I had give them a sense of who they weren't back. Perhaps a sense of jealousy not wanting to their parade reigned upon, but yep prior to the aggressive era. You had a country in which we recognised top to bottom, that the federal government was not a general purpose, national government, This was one of the most fundamental principles of the american revolution and that was built into the constitution we
and then guaranteed or to to guarantee with the bill of rights. Yes, culminating with the tenth amendment that made abundantly clear, made express lay clear what was implicit in the text of the original constitution, which is The federal government would have powers the James Madison described as few undefined and those risks. To the states were numerous an indefinite. Most government power was not to be exercised in washington because this that's why we fought the revolution. We work just tired of singing god save the king. At the time we weren't just tired of having a monarchy. Do it was much more than that. It was the fact that we are subject to a large, distant national government that new no boundaries around its authority and did respect, local autonomy. So again, let's go back to what to be the it may be the verdict on rovers swayed and I want to get into all the details on that. But if I am not mistaken, the walk away from me. Reading the decision is
this is highly controversial and four states and different populations have a very different look at it and it's not in the constitution, such be decided by the people not court of unelected men and women. Yes right than theirs, equally right, either a ten year old. When properly informed of your. I can answer that question. In fact, I know that, because, as a ten year old, This conversation, I remember having with my dad about rovers, is waiting. He seemed pleased when I said that's kind of strain is it seems to me that this is a legislative decision, not judicial one, and to be state not federal. It has happened that yeah, when I see, is on the right track and you'll never date, but these on the right track here. Ok, so if I'm right, am I reading it. Explain how I I I I miss turning this it's seems to me
they're saying this is not in the constitution, so it it tenth amendments gotta go back to the states right, but then first thing that people? congress and the Senate did was try to make a federal law on it, if it's not in the constitution, and it belongs with the tenth amendment congress on this or anything else pick up and make it a federal laws they shouldn't had they wouldn't be able to put forth. It did deviation away from the constitutional norm that we saw during the progressive era that we ve been stuck. with ever since. So, in view, or you could see congress adopting a very aggressive reading of the commerce clause one that I talk about at some length, young in chapters four and five of saving nine vic, in theory, address tat, they, also congress could adopt restrictions on abortion when it comes to federal funding plan. Parenthood
federal funding of over other programmes within the united states and overseas. The so called hide amendment in mexico city policy, like that are plainly within the federal government's jurisdiction, but you have. This was interesting because you have the supreme court saying This now needs to be sent back to the people. did lawmakers right. Typically, that's going to mean the states. May we ve got general power over u s military installations district in colombia and things like that, but for the most part this to be decided by state lawmakers, not federal. Once the Democrats, whooping right after this opinion leaks, and they say we're gonna make this federal by statute, we're going to reinstate ro by statute, and they too To do that, but they want ten steps further, Their version of this was not just row type protect It was any and free abortion up to the very moment of birth is now law,
and no restrictions, time place manner, proximity to hospital health and safety regulations. No those can apply. No bans on sex, selective abortions were abortions targeting down syndrome baby. I can't do any of it Fortunately, it failed but the Think this is somehow the imperative, of of the world to do this, and I find that stunning, by the way: substantially to the left of where the euro, can people or other way out of step, and I hate to say why to the left there just way out of step with the american people. It's like. Twelve percent of the nation is for that right and you know why, at twelve percent of the population to agree that we never went to the moon. That's right! That's right it because most people intuitively understand, regardless of their own religious beliefs, are about when,
life begins or their own other personal beliefs, most p, even those who believe in abortion as something that they want to protect will acknowledge it. There comes a point as you get closer and closer to full term right there, that this becomes indistinguishable from infanticide? Yes, some of us would draw the line a lot closer to the beginning than others, but almost all americans will sit. There does come a point where you ve gotta protect vet, unborn human life because it is a u It is a person, if you're one of the millions of americans who suffer from pain every day. I want you to listen up, there is hope, and it comes in the form of relief factor every day, testimonials come across my studio desk of people who have tried really factor for their pain and gotten their life back. I know true, because I'm many of them, and only a couple of years ago I was suffering from pain that was about to make retired or honestly, and then
are you taking relief factor, because my wife told me to her. She wouldn't listen to me wine anymore anymore, so I started making it not expecting it to work, but I got my life back. I couldn't do this just a few years ago, if getting through your day the challenge due to pain, please try relief factor, to relieve factor dot, com right now, relief factor, dot com and try their three week. Quick start doing now: let's go back on how the government and can we can? Neither can we start with the three my at tier and the four horsemen I dont think most people even know anything about that. Look. It's is very important, and I talk about this in chapter of the three four and five of having nine button acted at the time that, after your Franklin D. Roosevelt was present as he was beginning, his sex term in office here
suffered a series of setbacks. Seven, by the supreme court because it was under after that we started expanding if the hour said. Look, I'm not content with having the fellow it be a limited purpose government I wanted to have the power to solve all sorts of social problems but to regulate all kinds of markets: labour manufacturing, agriculture, mining. These are all things that have historically been regulated at state level. I don't wanna, do it that anymore? That way, any more because in a crisis, the great depression. So a crisis before we say crisis, He defined it with emergency powers right then, this all stuff started with just Him seizing the power away from congress under emergency power, yet there were some of them, but a lot of this
he did through statute, because the same framework wasn't in place, as is now giving empowered to just issue executive orders, willy nilly, so all started with statutes, Where he was trying to regulate this and that labour manufacturing agriculture mining all these things, that, while economic we're not him stay? Commerce, he gets down in case after case cases like quarter versus carter, coal, company, schecter poultry in cases where the supreme court said give overreached. You can't do this. He got tired of it. by the beginning of his second term, he had had it so back to your question, you had these loosely speaking three camps on the supreme court, he had his closest allies, who we call the three musketeers. We have here: arch enemies, who we call the four horsemen of the impact them ups, my favorite of whom was george sutherland, a utah, the only utah ever to serve on the supreme court and a graduate of brigham young university
who had previously been a senator from you top They were steadfast proponents of the constitution and they were not bout to let empty arduous, run over them, and then you had sort of unofficially aided on affiliates justices, those who were holding their cards close and those two words were charles evans, hughes and owen roberts. Sort of floating out there in the middle. Nobody knew which way they were gonna go. So there was this constant tension, a lot cases had been decided against after yours interest, because of the fact that two floaters or some combination of them joined with the the four horsemen and they toppled pieces of legislation that were in fact unconstitutional that what led us to have two years court packing plant that why he did it. He was tired of those people to it. So fully do he started up
de legitimized, the court, certain members of the in particular, especially the four horsemen. He tried to do great, the hawk the court as a whole as an institution, and it culminated of course in introduction and support for legislation that would give him the power to pack the court upon additional justices, its back in time- and you can read it in time magazine- you can read it in new york times of the era. We try to go back and we will He could say, oh after as a fascist or whatever at that time, ashes em and communism weren't didn't have the stigma that they have now, because they were knew they were modern and and killed every body yet ray So it wasn't a bad thing. I give the sum of the early progressives.
some benefit of the doubt, because it was new and it was scientific You know it to her pretty too early algorithms, you know and I answered Took this on? He really thought. I think that it as the new way to rules just through managerial managerial process before he gets in much damage has been done Did we have these big? yeah administrative arms. No, no, no do not The air was anathema to the structure of constitution, it didn't work, that's why you to do some real massive surgery and at an top therapy, look surgery, destructive surgery on the system. In order to even allow this. We did not
an administrative state? What we had was a system that said eve, eve free branches of government, I think their best described as, two pens pending a sword at the legislator branch that says what shall be what will be going for sets the ground rules at the executive branch that wields the sword and then you ve got the judicial I that we a different kind of pen, a backward looking pen decide what the law meant. As of the time it was put into law and on that basis, resolve disputes. So the pen is veto yet know the the I reiterate the sword. Yet is it he don't sword is the veto, but do so that there is one feature of the legislative power that the present has and that's the veto pen. But from his veto pen. He does also will that pen, the executive, is the sword, meaning that's where the action is carried out. It's the executive branch that has the power to enforce the law, and so my point
This all this administrative bureaucracy, it's all a creature, a bit lurks within the executive branch, but one congress passes along it. The sole lawmaking power article one section, one plus one and article one. Section seven make clear that you cannot pass a federal law. You cannot make a federal law accept its through congress in article one section, seven makes clear that the only way to do that is you have to pass the same proposed law, a bill in the house and in the senate the same text, that's gonna, be then submitted to the president for signature, veto or acquiescence. So unless you that there is no federal law paying on end my understanding that the veto is really is, is posts to be exercised by the president, if he feels its unconstitutional right. It s not like known, don't agree with any of this right right right, exactly the point,
its job- is supposed to be that guard and for the constitution. If the first guard right and it too, literally to last few decades, it was understood that the president should independently assess. solution outing george wash met an inquiry. I believe it was a nineteen seventeen, ninety three you wanted to find out prospectively whether some of the proposed actions within his administration or constitutional he reached out to the core seeking an answer. I talk about As you know, in chapter one, saving nine. They responded by pointing out that we can this that's an advisory opinion you're, asking to give an advisory opinion, we can't do that we can only decide ripe cases and controversies between individuals after government has in one way or another, but my point, There is simply to say that, because
that separation of powers, every officer within the federal government was required to take of honour. The constitution is expected to do this to me in modern times that we ve heard to think of the constitution as if it were a judicial document, its owned its defined in every instance by the nine lawyers wearing robes on the supreme court. I don't mean to denigrate them or their role, only to point out what the court is and what it isn't It's not there to decide what it says in every instance. It's just there to decide specific disputes. Are it so when the when the court, started to go awry. It was disputes over things like coal companies and can we regulate them. The car where's clause, was forever changed and I don't remember the case, but you talk about it with
a farmer right, yes, a wheat, versus filbert, yet thank you. well decision put a decision that highlights the problem This is why we have osha and everything else in our lives. Right. Yes, ok, that's what we ain't also explain that ok, so What is the commerce clause and then how did it change the commerce clause article, one section, eight clause three gives congress the power to regulate trade or come between the states with foreign nations and with the indian tribes, it was always understood. It was understood at the time is giving congress the power to make sure that interstate commercial transactions could take place on inhibited by state authority was there to protect against economic balkanization. We didn't want states erecting trade barriers.
that we couldn't function with a national one, as we were a we were really thirteen separate countries and at the time before the constitution there, the federal government. solve aids or or or disputes between the states right, that's right right for it! So after the revolution, we won the war we put in place. This document got the article confederation was a very loose, almost a treaty between thirteen russian and it didn't have it. For instance, states had power to print their own currency, which was then also a trade from that's why the constitution says The federal government can meant money right right and they were tat, in each other's goods, which made them like thirteen separate iceland and economies, we rode and survive that with its thin.
Principal reason why the founding fathers converge convened in philadelphia in the summer of seventeen. Eighty seven was to deal with that very problem, so they gave congress this power where the next hundred and fifty years or so, it is understood that gave congress the power to regulate interstate, commercial transactions and animals and instrumentality of interstate comer. So what does that mean at the time like to regulate interesting. transactions, mostly method they could get rid of. They could pre empt, State laws were erecting trade barriers against interested commerce. it also regulate things like interstate canals or road ways to make sure that commerce didn't get stuck states, ward interfering with it that way and for the most part it was just should that? That's what I've met in this is one of the things that kept the federal government within its laying. Is that none of the enumerated powers in article one section, eight was expand
this being limitless because the minute you have that than the tenth amendment means nothing. the minute you have that you're no longer of limited purpose, that you're, a general purpose, national government, so all of a sudden fda comes along. and he says things like labour manufacturing, agriculture, mining always subject to state regulation, not federal, except in rare instances where we're talking about what it activities inside of the district of columbia, for example, but he said I want to save america from the great depression. To do that. I need these sweeping new powers shorted pushing limits of commerce clause. The court push back and said no not what it means. That's when after said, I am going to pay The court I'm going to remake the court in my own image, I'm gonna give myself authority to appoint. Or justice, is not because there are understaffed, but because-
want to change the outcome from my own political airbus's. So that's where we get to this moment I pinpointed before the nineteen forty two case of what fee filter and on which dogma that more than men, the seeds, for that case war, were planted. Seven years earlier for five years earlier in a case called an alarming versus jones, unlawful steel company decided April twelfth in thirty, seven, incidentally, right in the middle of the debate regarding at the oars court, packing plan after your wanted to de legitimize denigrate and ultimately change the court to its benefit, and that's one, Justice of socio justice, Owen roberts flipped his vote here, previously been with the four horsemen and standing up for limits. federal power. which is vote at the last minute and- redefined the commerce clause to give congress the power to regulate anything everything,
that had a centre right at his last day was roberts. It it had happened earlier. These things are inherent in their native. Somehow are they related? Are those two I've never checked up on a look into the air will find out, but regardless of history, doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes, and so then, in the he's with the farmer years later. That's a push back yet the case, but the former they push so form this guy named roscoe sober Moscow phil burn. was a farmer in. What's today, a suburb of dayton, ohio He was find many thousands of dollars a lot of money in those days. His defence against the federal government and it was not a kidnapper, not a bank robber smuggler. No, he grew too much week. He grew more weight than the experts
in the? U s: department of agriculture using their authority under the agricultural adjustment, active nineteen, thirty nine thought was appropriate forum, former to grow too much weight, so find him thousands of dollars. He had a good lawyer and he decided to challenge this law, but he said: look week that I grew in excess of the federal brain production that. You gave me four entered interstate commerce impact it? Never commerce at all, it never lie my farm. I use that weak, the wheat. grew in excess of the limit. You gave me to feed my face my animals to use the remainder as seed for the next season, the supreme court in this act of law of franklin roosevelt induced push for packing. Consolidation of power mentality is supreme court, said ah, but by grow
that wheat and using it on your farm. You still affected interstate commerce. Because you would have otherwise had to buy that on the open market and just like butterflies flapping their wings in the amazon have an effect on wine currents in florida. So to your failure to buy that incremental, wheat on the open market is subject to congresses control. cause. It substantially affects interested comes what this shows is since nineteen thirty seven, certainly since nineteen forty two when that case was decided, but really since nineteen thirty seven. we can regulate basically anything as long as it can identify some impact on interstate commerce throughout the whole world. The leading cause of death is abortion, In the: u s, murder has become a wholesale business since rovers way we ve killed over sixty three million children merely twenty five percent are pregnant mothers. choose life
there is a ministry out. There called pre born and pre born and blaze. Media have partner up to rescue fifty thousand babies from abortion in twenty twenty two and it's really easy to do there, the direct competitor to play. in parenthood, the largest provider of free ultrasounds. In the? U s so they know when you let a woman, see her baby or hear the heartbeat she's. A percent more likely to choose life for her baby. Talk to some of these remarkable mothers and their children. It is this is best thing you can do really is when the mother chooses life, we all win, we all win by the way they also provide, maternity, baby, closed, diapers car seats, counselling, all free of charge, pre born as a passion. and I know you do too. I want she to donate now use the key word baby org,
the pre born dot com, slash, Glenn, pre, born dot com, slash, Glenn, let me go shirtless a strange jump, but I the supreme court a few days ago, sided with Biden, on the did, I write it down the the the social cost of carbon. Because of wild fires, see rise, hurricanes, floods, They say there is a there is a real, social costs to carbon, and so they it's going to allow them to regulate everything, everything so in court. It was stopped lower court and the supreme court just said: no, we agree with that. One
It means I haven't read this particular case. Yet I assume it involves the e p a and it's a authorities under the clean air, all of it. the natural outgrowth of the cases we just discussed because what happened in this was all a feature, not a bug to fdr This was about consolidating powered not just to washington, but also to him personally to the presidency directly because once congress had this actually unlimited power to legislate on any topic they want, and as long as they could connected interested commerce, he know as too to be the case that congress couldn't. And all the ins and outs of painstaking line drawn that has to be done with legislation, so congress would and ultimately did delegate these difficult. Decisions to executive branch agencies to the point where we now ass laws that to say in effect, we shall have good an area acts and we hereby delegate to department why, in the executive branch-
the power to make interpret and enforce federal law? that's what happened in that case, you are describing. I remember, reading obamacare page after page after page says this will be defined and enforced by the secretary of of and human service like that's insane. It is, and it is our call me up, and I think it was about a thousand times in the affordable, correct when they had delegated that right, it happens every day and that's why, in our gut many more and more. It seems you can't pin Anybody down! You can't blame anybody, because, you don't know who did that written? You need some faceless, bureaucrat rights and in that way in the case that you're describing and again I haven't, read this one. I assume it has something to do with the clean air
an epa enforcement of clean Eric, ineffective, light over simplification, but what commerce has done is to say we shall have cleaner something. We all want we here I declare as commerce we shall have to cleaner. We hereby delegate to the epa the power to make an interpreter and enforce rules, in effect laws What clean air is what pollution is? What amounts to a pollutant? What happens to polluters and at that everything is in their power. Everything is in their discretion and then when people are high, and by this, if all suddenly adapter radical view of what a pollutant is and they adopt some new definition. People come to me of congress. Complaint members of congress, including some who may have voted for the law in question, beat their chests and say. Yes, I was born burying of the do. You know what I'm gonna do, I'm at a write them a harshly worded letter as if that were our job, but still we continued to dell
gate, fundamentally legislative power. So that's why the experts, in the end, in saving nine, why this is so much better much more than port packing. What they did last time they tried the pact. The supreme court allowed f the ark to consolidate power in washington and more power within the executive branch. So when I say you know, I said de president, trump you will usually have for years. If you win you'll have for years You have to fire and down all of this in all these administrators. You know- and he said can't do it. I can't do it without The congress armenia Senate run by Mitchell mitch, mcconnell and congressmen like I had last time. He said People on this on the same track that will because they have the the power to liar and close things down, but you talk like that in most americans feel
you're not We have to have all of these administrators guess they say we have to have the administrators, because they have confidence those administrators expertise. You see This is part of a progressive vision, the progressive vision, we're going to leave governing and governance decisions to the experts because we ve unwashed masses are incapable of such action. The problem is Their version of the law and of lawmaking is unconstitutional, and we have to put it all out of such it also antithetical too. I mean one of the things that I love about when we were constructing the jury, trial is how thomas jefferson there was no debate. Should we get the experts to be the jurors and miss jefferson said nod rather have farmers than scholars there's some
about a man who has his hand in the dirt all the time that roots him in two truth and common sense, and that it's true we had a. I think it was. I think it was jefferson and then again, churchill that said you know trust the american people to do the right thing. Half They ve done the wrong thing they wake, up and go we'll. Do the right thing This new system seas. People outside of government as flawed and idiots But anybody in these positions is genius, yes, and in effect we ve now replicated the very tight. of system that we despised when ordinary Our government was based in london, consolidated relatively
limitless run by people who are experts detached from the people relatively on accountable to the people and that's approach When venezuela packed the court, I think they have now forty two judges. What happens to countries that pact courts like that their courts become a rubber stamp rubber stamp for the political authorities in charge and Venezuela is not the only example of this and at the same time, if the hour experimenting with core packing here other that's one way or another to give, military figures. Dictators true of their system of government, italy and in germany, hitler and Mussolini were doing their own thanks to try to throw off the objectivity, neutrality and independence of their court system. So this is just what you do if
regard yourself as having a mandate from afar God mandate from principles of whatever ambitions. You have what you do you can, already power, because you, right and nobody else, gets it. That's what you I have to do. You can't have an independent, neutral judiciary and be a tyrant. It doesn't work, people would self select right now. I think our problem is especially the laughed, but there are those on the right to I'm the force everybody to live my. What and the way I want, I'm going to force the people in texas, though, to live the way that california, lives Well, I don't live in california for reason. You know it's got the greatest, whether who wouldn't living cholera in in California. If you could if it was an insane ready and I
mind californians and safer to do what you want poop, the streets, all you want, I'm not gonna come and visit, and I won't live there. You know what mean, but then was kind of thee. The genius of this system, that we're, all little laboratories is likely. I didn't have a problem with mitt romney stupid to health care up in Boston. I mean it. Actually I do, but I never spoke out against it. For me, choose- you want to do that new. That right, except now we're on the hook for people now. if you do a bad idea, federal government's gonna come in and bail you out, and I paying for that. Well, I could had the sunshine and I taxes, you know and just
then part of california. If I, if I wanted it, I I wanted to live in a place. It was seen and knew that this financially is gonna, be a wreck at some point. That's right now: this works and less here too, the central promise of the constitution, which to say going to allow you to govern yourselves on most issues locally. will join together. We will have a unified government hitting with a close fist at a national level. Only with back those areas that were going to define its national, which are narrow, trademarks, copyrights and patents date and foreign trade what terry matter is granting letters of marque and reprisal immigration laws, bankruptcy, laws and that's about it, and you talk a lot about the the commerce clause, but there's something else that you are working, as I I've, been thinking we are seeing a lot of things change in the supreme court in I'm, seeing that the nine circuit court of appeal,
so I think I've slip through a wormhole they start making sense after four years of the term presidency. We really good nominees on that court. People like my friend, ryan nelson nights, get from idaho champions of liberty and people who believe first and foremost in the constitution and in their own to it. They believe that their job to interpret the law based on what it says, rather than what it means made a huge difference, huge difference, huge difference. but it's causing. Consternation with the left course who is here: the court's their way for quite some time, that will force everybody and and now they're saying the courts have changed. And they're. Saying no you don't! have the right to to do that. You explain what
natural right is and how you don't have to believe in god for a right tip. We believe, fundamentally, that our our rights exist. They exist in the abstract. I believe I believe you believe that our rights come from god whether you believe in god or not there are certain rights that just exist because they are there because we exist. Those rights are given to us there, not the generous bestowal by government, they just exist and so one of the things the constitution. Does anyone explain what inalienable means inalienable something that can't be taken away in in this context, when we speak of rights we should speak of rights in the sense that we're identifying things that the government can do to you not things the government, provide to that. When we talk of those This is right. That's that not here! That's not it
it's a things that the nature of god or nature right, so it's happening in the animal kingdom. A bear. can mall another animal or animal that happens to be mad man, malta to death in their case, because you walked in on our pet. The baby bear right a natural right, Well, it's a natural law. If you walk in the unnatural long, which gives us the natural right, correct, rank You don't need god to tell you any politician. Everybody knows you. Of course, you walk into that and they're gonna mall you to death and if it does not bear knew how to make a gun and use it gun, he would probably shot you and if you ve, got weapon and the means by which to defend yourself. You have a natural right to defend yourself against a beast to machine against other humans right, ok, so that's what
Natural rights are ok, so now go ass to what we were discussing on how you know what How do you know what right is for instance, a racing rovers wade. I have a right to an abortion in the supreme courts, it that's not wherein the continent we can find a riot and if they find it. Then it absent. Leave does belong to the state it right there it. He doesn't make a right that that's right. That's right the fact you like something? The fact that you want it to be available to people or that you think it would be good policy for given thing to be available, that's not our a right that is a ip. Less choice, they are different things. do you have a right to own body yeah. I did the best description. The best summary of natural law, dear,
from the writings of John locke and others is in the declaration of penance itself inalienable rights, life, liberty and the sort of happiness elsewhere, described in the due process, clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments that life liberty, and property government can take those things away from you. Without due process, of law, it can interfere but those and ultimately it is the job of the government to protect life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness So those are our or natural rights they They exist because we exist now on the constitution. We have a number of rights that are spelled out in the bill of rights that say things that the government can't do to us. Government can't tell you, when whether how our, how not you're going to worship or believe, can't tell you what to say or not say can't take it
you're right: bear arms, get subjected you unreasonable searches and seizures. Can't do those things without a warrant, can Ghana shrouded ourselves Try you without a jury, unless you requested exactly so. Those are. Those our rights that we ve specifically protected in the constitution and then fourteenth do those are all protections as yet congress as against the federal government, so can states my late though, to that dead? That's that's where this gets interesting. The fourteenth them comes along after the civil war, the fourteenth amendment also contains it do process clause get depressed one of life, liberty, property, with due process of law that was later and herbert to mean that most of the substantive protections in the bill of rights are:
install operated by the fourteenth mehmet and and applied by the fourteenth amendment as operating since the states, meaning is not just a federal government that can't, mess with your freedom of religion or your freedom of speech or of the press or your second emirates. It's also the states, and so but in examining those in examining how this works and how the states are prohibited in court will look to weather. Particular right is deeply rooted in our nations, history and and traditional, and whether they are essential to any the scheme of ordered liberty and so in going true in my former boss, justice Alito the lido for my court twice first, when you, on the third circuit and later when he was on the springboard, wonderful human, being a real role model on men towards me. Did a man. Awful job of outlining office in his draft opinion that was late and explain,
going back to seven hundred years of anglo american legal jurisprudence. There's nothing in there that identify as this is deeply rooted in our nations, history and tradition or essential too the scheme up, ordered liberty. It doesn't make any of those characteristic nor is it even ordered or hinted at in any pretence in the bill of rights or elsewhere in the constitution. So I I look at as two separate human rights. I believe the baby is human, so those Rights have to be protected, no matter what the man wants to do. and the left tries to make it about my body, my choice It doesn't seem to apply when it's maxine mike Question is do you have a right to body or can the governments say you are doing this in your body,
they can say you have to put it in your body and they say you absolutely I have a right to take now to your body gift. You have rights that in here in the protection of life, liberty and property motor liberty interests take something Do your body you nobody who, whatever the thing is, if it's not supposed to be in there could kill you that take away your life. If you I prefer not to have that thing in your body. It's a pretty soon statue invasion of your personal liberty and autonomy and oh, they did. The government's gonna have to make up have they showing as to why they need to be able to do that. We have. they do that for covert. Do you think no here I am in particular with the cobia vaccine mandates right as one of the great best usurpation of power. I've ever seen to look at the presidential.
Abuses of power. Of this magnitude we had to go back to nineteen. Fifty to define an analog were truman. seized every steel mill and america to support the korean war effort, but that doesn't even come close now sweeping and industrially. This was my way in writing in ordering tens of millions of americans to be vaccinated against their will be swept aside the vertical protection, we call federalism that makes most government powers state rather than federal. He swept aside the horizontal protect. Of separation of powers because he was exercising effectively lead, slave authority, not executive power, he doesn't. Not a legislator. and he also violated substantive. protections in the constitution in the bill of rights among others damn of religion. Many people have religious objections. He swept all those aside and said, look
I just really want everyone to get this right. Does he decay, did emergency or donald trump declared an emergency right yeah, he could do that under emergency orders in interpreted or or so he claimed here right and the and what he claimed was the emergency temporary ordered the must sweeping among those vaccine mandates was by OSHA. Oceans enabling statute gives, the power to issue these temporary emergency orders awe and another example of bad lawmaking brought about by bad jurisprudence, and and but by the Supreme court's unwillingness to stand up to things like this. Congress pass a law saying OSHA will have the power to make good policy on same workplaces and then they run roughshod even over what scares mutations can be found in that and the present
directs ocean ocean dutifully complies by saying, Look you if you're any company with more than ninety nine employees, you ve gotta fight everyone who hasn't been vaccinated and if you dont far them working to issue crippling, finds, finds that would cripple literally in a company not just in america, but in oh yeah, we we we looked at the and we had to make a decision as a business. well as fathers day and trust me. If you're gonna get your dad socks all men, three things in socks comfort dirt Letty and never having to worry about any of that stuff. Again, it's kind of a I philosophy: This year's this. Your dad's got enough on his plate. He's got enough ties, flashlights, one I'd, get him socks and they don't in ordinary socks. That's is bad a flashlight or a tie. I mean greed, a grip six socks, their comfortable, their durable and best,
all their made here in amerika. These came as a surprise to me. They're all wool I thought I knew what a woolsack was like and I would never have said this cause there they are moisture. Your I think, is what they call I wear them all the time. But in the summer I would never think put on a wall sock. These are good and their knitted on special machines that, them thinner. traditional wool socks and their made from far a fine micron wool, which means they don't h there right the comfortable lifetime guarantee grip, six you can find him now just go to grip six dot com, slash back grip, six dot com. Slash back, so let me go back to You know the one thing that Donald trump told me. He said I knew I would you know not popular. I knew I'd have to fight he's
but I didn't realize I was in a fight for my life and my family life every day from every side. Now part of that is mean he likes confrontation, what me I think he lives on that that he thrives on that, however, He had no idea about the deep state This is all the administrative arms and don't care. They don't care whose elected president and I thought, how are we going to get past all of this and I thought first commerce clause to eat get. Can we get a good case in front of the supreme court. but the reins act, is the way to do it. The reins act is the way to do it. It's a legislative proposal, that's very simple. Its purpose is elegant.
Put lawmaking power back in the hands of elected representatives. We, as this is something in the constitution, the frame is never They thought everybody would be so jealous of their power that no, branch would give their power up right right, they didn't for today, when the elected federal lawmaker would do so you know what I really wanted to escape through? an easy next election, and it's easier to get. Reelected perpetually if you're, not one actually making many laws, because laws are controversial, so we'll just make other makers? Instead of making laws, they we foresee that that broke the circuit, that that got rid of a circuit breaker on the key. risk protecting its own path as you don't they're, not using the power the purse exactly which is the way to stop it, because we don't have a budget anymore right right and then
they are not having to make the laws. So what the hell are? We even hiring these people for its excellent question and that's why we The reins of the range act would say whenever these new Secular branch regulations come up bitter just federal laws. They shouldn't be self exe. Shooting they shouldn't take effect and lesser until both houses of commerce, Heaven, formidably enacted them into law, but see all the things one the erosion of our bill of rights. The creation of the rights that are not rights at all, resulting in the taking of innocent human life the arose federalism and separation of powers are rights. There all part of the same thing. They are all the outgrowth. They are all the consequences that we are living with from fdi. Our desire to pack the supreme court in nineteen thirty, seven, that for it failed This is why I wrote saving nine it's about so much more than court. Packing wrote, saving nine, because all of this ties back to that we're still living today with
happened then, when he tried to pack the court he failed. He succeeded in scaring owen roberts just as own roberts enough to change that austrian ever Instead, we ve been living with think of it. This way, Thirty one trillion dollars and debt. We have. Regulatory compliance costs that cost the american economy, hardworking, americans more, two trillion dollars every year. Everything you buys more expensive because of those rags, most americans work for many weeks. Many cases, many months out of every year, just pay their federal taxes. It's got half the year by half a year. This is the result of at the oars failed core. Packing plan failed. Legislatively succeeded in every other way. Oh really, obama care is the same failure. The court, stopping that, yes, because John Roberts, we know was afraid of painting the court or having troubles are having people lose,
faith in the court this had he rewrote it himself, which is not their john John roberts. and I was raised to always referred to them by their title. I should chief justice robert, but in this instance it was now Acting as chief justice even well claiming to be exacting as John Roberts, the guy because he took lawmaking. He rewrote obamacare not once but twice in order to save it from two independently fatal constitution abnormalities that either of which should have sunk it. This is the very same legacy that that really is the autumn. The worst of the first, where I heard roberts exactly bryce, equates the same legacy. There's there more concerned about preserving what they view The court's institutional rep reputations of the problem is Nothing has a reputation anymore,
no one stands for anything like an end. You know So crazy is you're. Seeing this You see this in in your own race you are the most, rational, reasonable guy. I know it's so easy to predict what you're gonna be for and what you're gonna be against his politics does play a role with you, not that I've seen it doesn't play a role with you. You know this one's gonna cost me. You know I mean, but you stick. To the constitution that I think you have a decent reputation, nobody else seems to be doing that and and you are under it back in salt lake light, raese they from from a media that is, owned by the church. Both of us go to
and they're, calling you a radical- and I dont know how mike I know of it. You ve never been a radical you at what nine. You said to your dad. We demand at that should be a legislation, that's not a radical! No, I don't think that's radical too, to try to support that doctor and those set of rules that are protected. The american people for two and a half centuries. It's it's not radical. What in many places, look our are our media establishment in this country is run by the left in utah per golly acute, because we're pretty conservative state were estate inhabited by between three and three and a half million people who love and riviere this country and the constitution. And yet what the exception, all far too ready tosh o house for employed, matheson and and and our or
mutual friend rod, orkut too ready, talk show host other than that, our entire media establishment in Utah leans? Thirdly to the left. What lebron television, radio the whole bit, not just liberal but solidly progressive right and that's a makes things tough as way blood you exist. I'm glad there are a handful of people nationally who can still ample the truth and are still willing to stand up for the constitution. Even when, especially when it's difficult, I will tell you, though, that mean. We need to be able to count on somebody standing up a media know. If it's you know you just keep going to the barrel further new apples. the new journalists. That's too late. I I'm more right now, with some people, to suggest a question. What are we doing
you know. We are with the industry. The entertainment industry it's getting either the people who couldn't make it or had the spine stand up. Then that's fine! and far between, or people who are really accomplished that don't have any andalusia anymore in remain You have to go to the tree and we have to stop training, those people and I hear from people in the media all the time when he had a higher the journalist. Why why If you know it's poison, why there are other people who can truth. There are other people who know how to write, who don't from that tree and it's one of the advantages of these innovations in technology that we ve seen in recent years there. other ways of disseminating truth? It don't necessarily require a printing press
that. Don't necessarily require all the things that we used to have in order to speak truth to mass is, but one of the reasons why you ve seen efforts by google and facebook in and twitter and other entities to, the sort of snuff out to take out the oxygen from those entities but is also why I am so disappointed in order like the desert news, you know better. A mere owners at least know better and Why aren't you going to the tree right right a lot of people don't question them, because They believe in their owners. ability to discern truth. Yeah they'll assumed that that discernment and spurs to the and entered a correct which it does not. Ok, let's go over a couple of them things here before we wrap it up? the
it's coming this summer? First, we will see a decision by the supreme court in the dobbs case. An abortion ruling, be we now and the end of june. I person I wish that the court has issued its immediate willing immediately. I dont think the sun should have gone down the next day geiger before they should at least have procured him unsigned order. Saying here is the result: rose overturned opinions to follow later. Your guess, my guess is june thirtieth because desist like these tend to be drawn up until the last week day in the month of june, the court at europe where they get out of town that where they can get out of town, but there the controversial ones are always draw. because the way the court works, you know you issue an opinion until every justice is comfortable signing on to whatever opinion he or she was onto at the end of the day, your gut tells you which direction five to four percent
sixty three in support of just two leaders, a six six to three chief justice roberts and up jointly at I hope, and that he will. I think that he certainly should justice a leaders. Opinion is correct one. I hope that I can together. A flying monkey army, like the witch did in wizard of oz, but that doesn't mean it could happen. You look at these questions. The chief justice roberts asked at world, or even on December first of last year in the dobbs case me into eight, along with other things we ve seen from him. He doesn't know the difference between legitimate constitutional analysis and made up policy agenda of material that was sort of passed on this constitutional jurisprudence case. So they issue it. Are we find out where they can apply The person that leakers, I believe- and I think you believe, apps lately they know by now. They have to know, I think they know. I ethically
haven't told us he had in part because they don't want to I too much of a spot lighting money when it told anybody in in the inside with the trust I heard justice thomas the other. He said we are for were changed because we don't have trust now now yet look this is. This is going to have lasting consequences, not pleasant ones was always it an air of trust. When I click the supreme court, there was an air of troy, between the justices with the lock works, free flow of information an exchange of ideas, it was good, is a good thing not everyone always a great, but but it got to better outcome. better opinions that worst sharper because her at dialogue, this will be harmed by that some of the other cases that are coming out ones on guns, dramatic case on guns right, This is bigger than the heller case. I I think it could end up
in as big as possibly bigger than the how heller case late in the sense that it has the floor essential to be a case that, if cited the way. I think the court will decide it. Will allow the heller case to finally have its full impact, in other words, in this, based its pending in front of us supreme court states, new york state rifle and two association, verses broom, the state of new york tried, take the second amount right, too bear arms and limited to those people whom the state diem sufficiently in need of governor guns to justify giving the stake, sweeping subjective discretionary powers to decide. Ok, glenn, you may have a gun yeah, you people don't like and so we can have a gun, but he might turn to Stuart or packed the same.
state official in new york and say now. You don't really need it that much you're, not as well known Nah just dumb know be careful and china, where helmet. When you around that's the kind of weeping power. They gave him no. I, along with a number of my colleagues, submitted front of a court or amicus curio brief written by a drastic lawyer and jean share a mentor of mine, making the case, the second amendment doesn't give that discretion to estate. In fact, the whole point of the second amendment was to me a deal so second, amendment has incorporated against the state by the fourteenth amendment, says that negotiation that dumb balancing of interests, has already been struck. The founding fathers knew when they wrote this. They wrote second amendment and when they ratified the fourteenth amendment along time later they knew that there are safety, interests, that this is a balancing of interests that yes, some bad thing.
what happens if we let people have guns, but that on balance, it's better, if you let them have guns, I think the court is going to amplify. These sentiments it's going to embrace them, and it's going to ultimately empower the heller decision when you look at the sky, the world the or of the public private partnership now that wherein s cheek The federal reserve, the idea of a fence coin- All of these things that are real they truly at our doorstep, people warrant paying attention think that it's all yeah Let's say no. It's here and if god forbid. We go into an emergency on food, energy or war, which all are it
least, maybe likely, but very well. Could happen, How do how do we brace for this mike? How do we how do we get passed? An emergency like this intact? First we have to remember the risk of emergencies. My wife has two fundamental tenant that I believe in my wife Sharon's very wise all socialism starts out as emergency socialism and socialism is never forth. The socialist we have to be aware of these grave risk that we face if we run headlong into that next, have to remember that. terms the only thing standing by in us dangers associated associated with the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few and all few just described emergency sweeping actions in response to this or that crisis? They all have that in common, the best
the work we have against. That is sometimes the courts, the supreme court in particular, and in order to exercise those powers to be that control, rob that steps in and says no we're not going to let this proceed, because this violates about ten different features of our constitution. You've got to have independent federal judiciary is not merely an academic exercise, is one of the reasons why we ve been the biggest economic powerhouse. The world has ever known its own, have an independent court system and is also why our constitution- average length of a constitution for any country is seventeen years right right, not ours. Two hundred and thirty five years and in its work each year and regardless of whether you believe, Like I do that was written by wise men raised up, I got to the very purpose it works, so put in If to continue working, we have to have an independent federal judiciary. The court packing plan
The left is pushing prison Biden. Many of my democratic colleagues in the senate, most of them in fact, and their counterparts in the house. It is there to destroy that and to conceal power, we can't let that happen even fit. Fails just slightly this time as it did with after nineteen thirty seven. It will leave another lasting work, one that could settle us with something else horrible, just as it did last time, one if they tried this in that's, why saving nine. What always? We have keeping affirm our minds that we should trust government government. Not a deity. Doesnt have eyes wished to see you arms with which to embrace. You are a heart to love. You government is just power, just force and it's gotta be controlled Why these separation of powers? That's? Why these all these protection in the constitution matter and they're, not just academic likely. Thank you. Thank you it's
just a reminder, I'd, love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and passes onto a friend. So it can be discovered by other people. The.
Transcript generated on 2022-09-28.