A New Yorker, a Congressman, and a Supreme Court Justice walk into a bar

0:00Music Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, this is the Constitution study on the America Out Loud Network with your host Paul Engel. A New Yorker, a congressman and a Supreme Court Justice walking to a bar. I know the title of this episode sounds like a setup for a joke, but what's been happening in New York? Congress in the Supreme Court? There's no joke. Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution study, where we read instead of the Constitution, teacher I can generate to be free, glad you could join me today. You know, I know the setup for a joke just seems so obvious, I couldn't resist. But I want to take a look at some stuff going on in New York, both the city and the state, within the House of Representatives and well, at the Supreme Court.

1:06So let's start with New York. We have this was a state in New York where well, Kathy Holtkall and her attempt to basically milk the American taxpayer for even more money seems to hit a snag. So in 2024, New York passed a law which Ms. Holtkall signed that would impose a $75 billion charge on companies that admitted carbon. Right now, we're talking about carbon dioxide, they're talking about plant food, but you see the state alleges that this carbon dioxide has caused climate damage within the years 2000 and 2018, for which they want their protection money. I mean, it's a racket. This is right up there with the, the, the, with Capone or, or the Carliones. I mean, it's, it's, this is a racket. Now, a district judge in Syracuse said, no, the, the attorneys general, 22 of them, that sued as well as, well, different industry groups and chamber of commerce said the state measure was preempted by federal law.

2:21And Ms. Holtkall signed the Climate Change Superfund Act back in 2024 and it looked at three dozen different fossil fuel companies that again, would pay $3 billion annually for 25 years to fund all the damage that New York state was supposedly going to incur from their use of in production of, of car of fossil fuels. But here's the twist. According to the judge, the federal clean air act, get delegated to the environmental protection agent to see the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, thereby being under the Supreme Court land, the supremacy clause meant that federal law superseded state law. Well, there's two problems with actually there's three problems with that. So problem number one, the environmental protection agency doesn't legally exist. I mean, I know it exists. And I know there are laws that created it. There's just one problem. They were not made pursuant to the Constitution United States.

3:22Congress was not enacting a power vested in the government United States. Therefore that act was unconstitutional. And according to at least Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court in Marri versus Madison, X Parti C. Bold, Morton, V. Shelby County, that act is void. So we got an agency that doesn't legally exist. So at all, the clean air act, there's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to regulate the environment. Again, means the EPA doesn't legally exist. The clean air act doesn't have doesn't give Congress the ability to really anything in the environment much less carbon dioxide emissions. Just because Congress said so, doesn't mean they legally can, which leads us to problem number three, the supremacy clause. Article six clause two, which says this Constitution and the laws United States made in pursuance thereof. And all treaties made to which I would made in the 30th and I say, shall be the Supreme law of land. Since this since the Clean Air Act was federal law that was not made pursuant of the Constitution, it is not the Supreme law of land. That said, where does Kathy Holgo get the authority to basically charge businesses entities that are outside of her state.

4:33The answer is nowhere that I'm aware of. Now the Constitution of the state of New York does allow the state to enact sales taxes and certain other exposes and exercises, but only for business done in the state of New York. Not some mythical, oh, you're going to cause problems. And oh, by the way, this alleged money, which they say is caused the because of their phosphorus. This is not targeted for any sort of remediation of the alleged problems created by these companies. No, it creates basically a slush fund for anything that's in New York wants. I mean, the money was supposed to earmarked for infrastructure work, stormwater systems, roads, bridges, and responses to extreme weather. Having lived in upstate New York most of my life, actually having lived in New York City for 10 years when I was a child, extreme weather wasn't caused by these companies over those few years. Extreme weather is part of living in the Northeast.

5:39Now that hasn't stopped the state in New York or any other state, by the way, from using their position as a protection racket trying to make these combs come to office, they can't refuse. If not, they'll wake up one morning with a horse head in their bed. And if you don't recognize that, I recommend you watch the first Godfather movie. Meanwhile, there are over a dozen sheriffs in the state of New York that are suing the governor. Why are they suing the governor? Another law. The local cops local crimes act. This law was filed in the northern district of New York in the denser, include the denser county sheriff as lead plaintiff. And the law prevents local agencies from partnering with immigration and customs enforcement. Now, broom county sheriff, Fred Axshart called the law aggressive and grows overreach. Because you have to remember, a county sheriff isn't appointed by the governor.

6:48It's not an appointed position. It's not part of the state government. It is a constitutionally created law enforcement position. They are elected by the people. They are accountable to the people. Now, I'm not that familiar with the constitution. The state in New York, specifically, some states do allow the state government to provide from some levels of oversight of sheriff's activities. But they're claiming this goes beyond simply the overseeing what they're doing. They're claiming it's interfering with their law enforcement powers as sheriff. A second law that was signed back in May handed the attorney general Latisha James, who's also named in the suit. The power to investigate sheriffs who actually cooperate with federal agents again. A lot of power that the that Ms. Hoke and her administration simply seem to think well, they can do it because well, we're the family.

7:48And we tell you what to do and we make you office and it's up to you to follow them or suffer the consequences. Okay, that's a really bad godfather in origination, but you get the idea. This sounds a lot more like a a a a a mob story. Then well, I'd say then law enforcement, but then again, having lived in the in the empire of New York for so many years, it does kind of sound like the way they do business. One of the reasons why I left the Empire State this idea that you know the federal good, the state government as corrupt as it is believes it can exercise any power at once. Constitutions and laws, the contrary, be damned. So let's see Ms. Hoke lost it is so far lost the case involving a racketeering scheme to extort money out of companies because they they they were with fossil fuels. And now there be she's being sued for trying to bully sheriffs into going along with her anti ice, pro legal immigrant political scheme.

8:59But she's not done she will cast the governor, Hoke and mayor, mandami of New York City called on the department of Homeland Security to release a counter terrorism fund that they claim had already been allocated to New York. Now this Homeland Security grant program, which is managed by the federal emergency management agency or FEMA is designed to provide federal funds to help local government state and local governments. Prepare prevent protect against prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism and other hazards. Well, the fact that the Constitution doesn't otherwise a federal government to fund such things should be problem number one. The fact that the state in city of New York believe they are owed this money problem number two problem number three according to FEMA. New York state already has $300 million in Homeland Security funding that it hasn't spent.

10:07In other words, it's not that the city and state are running out of money. They've got $300 million of money that haven't spent. This is just, hey, greedy, we want this. It's it's the old we need to have it because if we don't get it this quarter, we're not going to get it next year. And yeah, that kind of sounds like a scheme at least it sounds like one from my standpoint. Now governor Hoke was off. So no, no, you don't understand it's spent over multiple years. That's why we haven't spent all this money yet. This money to fund upcoming projects and all that. How about the fact that that money is embezzled from the American people. No, we're in the Constitution is the closest you could get is yes, the Congress can provide money for the common defense. Common, common defense, but this isn't about the common defense. Is it it's more about reacting to acts of terrorism.

11:10It's not about defending against terrorism. It's about how do we react to terrorists incidents. So I'm not sure it's the public defense. It's certainly not the common will for the United States. What this is again, federal money being used to bribe states and cities to do what politicians in Washington DC want them to do. And it shows how miss Hoke and Mr. Mondami are just hooked like an addict on the money drug coming out of DC. But again, like I said, Hoke is no, no, we need this money so we can can be better prepared statewide for counterterrorism activities. However, a spokesperson for FEMA said that for more than two decades, New York has received substantially more federal funds than is traditionally received and allocated based on the risk formulas that FEMA uses. In other words, New York tried to be getting extra money. Why? Well, they're a target. But then again, the federal government is an authorised to spend that money first place. That's in, in bezel money.

12:19So what do we see in New York? We see a lot of greed. That's nothing new. We see a lot of federal bribery. That's nothing new. And we see a state government that, well, while they have their political positions, try to enforce those on the counties, even on law enforcement that isn't that doesn't directly responsible to the state government, the county sheriff, which as I've said before, most powerful law enforcement official in the county is the sheriff. They have a lot of power because they are not in a point of position. They are elected. They are elected by the people. And again, there may be some oversight, the state can provide, but only based on the state's constitution, which I don't know that the state constant, well, I don't know off the top of my head, the, what the state constitution says about those powers. What I do know is you have, well, you have people in, in all of New York that want to tell the, the, the sheriffs and the rest in the rest of the state how they should handle their business and how they should do their jobs.

13:32And, you know, again, because primarily it seems to me, because Kathy Hocal has shown herself to be, well, let's just say, disinterested in the actual issues with, with federal law enforcement. Again, I have issues with, I have issues with the federal immigration laws. I think constitutionally, there's a problem with them. Why? Because the power to regulate immigration is not delegated to the United States. And since it's not prohibited the states, it means it's really a state power to begin with. But then again, she's already admitted she's giving up a lot of that power in order to get the state money, which again, does really surprise anyone that, you know, politicians are really to sell their soul for more money they can use to buy influence with others.

14:34Okay, listen, I have a break coming up before I go though, you know, talk about terrorism and whatever, really, we need to be prepared. You never know what emergencies are going to happen. I was granted the odds of you being in a, in a terrorist incident are pretty small. There may be a vehicle accident or a house fire, any one of the number of things that might happen and proper preparations important. In fact, doesn't need not to be an emergency. Sometimes it may just be an illness. Now, part of my preparation, as I said, I've got fire extinguishers and first aid kits and even trauma kits in my home in my car, because you never know when or where an emergency is going to happen. But our friends at the wellness company, they've come up with something next level. These are not the emergency kits to get the pharmacy, right? We're talking about prescription level medications, being properly prepared for whatever may happen. Imagine, you know, something happens and it's the middle of the night or it's a weekend, doctors offices are closed, you go to urgent care, do you wait in line or emergency room.

15:41Wouldn't you like to be able to have that initial treatment as soon as possible? Well, that's where these emergency kits come in. Go to america.loud.shop and click on the emergency kits panel. Take a look, look what's included. You've got the contagion kit has Ivermectin hydroxychloroquine and erythamiasin. The first aid kit includes an epipan, cat flex, attorney kit, even glucose solution. It's a thing of a travel right Z packs, a zoe friend, things that you might need. That's what these are all designed for. And I said, these are prescription level medications, whether you need it for an emergency, a first aid or even for children. Head to america.loud.shop, look, click on the emergency kits series, do your research, look what's included in these and be prepared proper preparation for best for performance. When you go to checkout, use the code out loud, you'll get 20% off of your order. So talk about before we, we try to teach the right generation to be free to prepare ourselves for tax on our rights.

16:47These kits are designed with prescriptions and guidebooks and information so that you can be prepared for the emergencies that may crop up in your life. Whether you're someone who just wants to be sure, you know, hey, I've got kids in the house. I want to be just in case something bad happens or you're someone like my family where I have a person with a medical condition that frequently requires antibiotics. And there's nothing like getting up in the middle of night and having to go to an urgent care. I want to be prepared. That's what these kits are for. So again, head to america.loud.shop, click on the emergency kits panel, see which kit works best for you. And then when you check out, use the code out loud to get 20% off of your order. Are you looking for a healthy snacks, but you've had enough of all the sweet sugary energy bars? Good news. There's new bars to try.

17:49That's savory crunchy and packed with goodness. Bare bars are based just on six simple natural ingredients, a certified organic veggie nut and seed bar. That's low temp dried, never baked or fried. Bare bars are plant-based, gluten-free and loaded with nutrients and protein. Head over to barebar.com slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America out loud listeners. That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R.com forward slash out loud. Feeling run down, foggy or constantly drained? Your body might be lacking the support it needs at the cellular level. Recharge from the wellness company is a doctor-formal supplement designed to restore your energy, focus and immune function. It features the first ever combination of methylene blue and uralithin A. Clinically studied ingredients to support mitochondrial health boost cellular repair and enhance cognitive performance.

18:55With added NAD3, COQ10 and PQQ, recharge is the daily solution for deep lasting energy, not just a temporary boost. Visit TWC.health-out loud and use code out loud for 20% off your first order. Power up your body and mind with recharge. Are you tired of struggling with low energy? We get it. That's why we created organic energy juice. In just one minute you'll have clean, natural energy all day and never struggle with low energy again. And it tastes amazing. And there's no toxic chemicals or stimulants that make you crash. You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy and with organic energy juice. You won't. If you're struggling with low energy, then buying organic energy juice is the right decision. With our double your money back guarantee, there is zero risk to try it. Go to chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud.

19:55A men's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers and woods. But it is a principle. And patriotism is loyal to that principle. I'm happy to report that American patriotism flows freely once again. America out loud.News is that place to awaken your heart, soul and mind to the out loud truth. Welcome back everybody. American should rejoin the Constitution study. We talk about New Yorkers, Congressmen and Supreme Court justices. We did New Yorkers in the first segment. Let's talk about Congress. In this case, specifically the House of Representatives, which has been busy the last few days. We start out with a House past a measure denouncing socialism. They passed a resolution 220 to 192, basically saying that socialism is bad.

21:06The resolution was introduced by representative Jeff Crank of Colorado. And it stated that socialism necessitates a concentration of power that has time and time again, collapsed into communist regimes to tell itarian rule and repressive dictatorships. It also said that the ideology has repeated led to famine and mass murder and the killing of over 100 million people worldwide. Now, okay, the statement is true. The resolution. It's a show. It's not meaningful. It has no legal basis. It's not a law that says socialism is incompatible with the United States. It simply said, hey, you know what? We think socialism is bad and they voted on it. And again, 220 to 192, it tells me something. It tells me that almost half of the people currently in the House of Representatives don't think socialism is bad.

22:06Two members voted present. That tells me a lot about their character. It was primarily partisan, right? Only eight Democrats joined in Republicans in voting for this resolution. But this resolution is nothing but a statement of the House. Again, has no league. It's not legally binding includes no law, no statute. It's just their opinion that socialism is bad. But I wonder if it's 220 to 192 with two abstaining. What's going to be in a few years? Now, the resolution also targeted the Democratic Socialists of America criticizing them for calling for non-citizens and incarcerated criminals to vote in American elections, pushing to abolish the Senate, single to implement a ranked choice voting in all elections, replace the two party system. Now listen, I have no problem with opening the elections up to more than two parties. Legally, it's open, practically, it's all but impossible once you get beyond local elections. But and again, ranked choice voting.

23:13I have some yays and nays with this. I mean, on the one hand, people say it's too complicated. It does delay the actual selection of the person. But it also breaks the stranglehold of the two parties because now you basically if it's if rank choice voting is used to eliminate primaries, hey, that'd be great. Right. Beyond that, ranked choice voting just as listen, I want to pick people in order. And it's kind of a way for people to vote what they really want as their first vote, but not completely throw the vote away. I know the political persons hate it because it disrupts their control over elections. That's their scenario. But again, understand with this resolution is this is simply a statement of opinion of the House of Representatives. And I learned more I glean more from how close the vote was then on the actual resolution itself.

24:14I wonder, would you go to house.gov and and look up the voting record of your repetitions and see whether or not they supported a resolution that said socialism is bad. And are you okay with that with them doing that is that an okay response for your or maybe are you looking for something a bit more than just than that. And let me ask you if you're if you represent a voted for the resolution. Did the resolution go far enough to simply say that socialism is bad. Maybe there should be more. What do you think? I think it'd be interesting. House passed another bill to fund the government at least past election day. Now, I cannot remember the last time that the Congress actually passed a budget much less having a spending program that did more than bandaid their profligate spending for a little bit of time. And let's face the reason the only reason they they did this is to get the the question of a government shutdown past the midterm elections.

25:26That's really what this was all about. It wasn't about having a reasonable spending. It wasn't about being fiscally sound. It wasn't about doing their duty as legislators. It's let's get this past the the midterm elections and we'll let the next house deal with it next Congress deal with it. In other words, it's another kicked the can down the road. Now the Senate had passed this 90 to six back in August. So the house by voting on this 370 to 48. This they can discontinuing resolution this CR this omnibus nonsense goes to President Trump for a signature which I believe he's going to sign if he hasn't signed it already because it moves a problem past the midterm elections. And again, this is about party politics more than it is about actually running the government or funding the government. All the talk all the spin of the contrary. Everything I've seen is this is more about let's not deal with our problems. Let's kick him down the road and either deal with them after the election or if you're retiring or you didn't win your primary and you're not going to don't expect to win the it gets it.

26:44Prime you no longer have to deal with which I believe covers a significant portion of the members of the house. That means come December as the members of Congress are getting ready to go home to celebrate the holidays. There'll be the specter of another government shut down. Oh my God, we're all going to die because the government's going to shut down and it'll be a holidays and I'll be tiny tin or all going to die become crippled and we'll do it again and again and again. And by the way, the government never actually shuts down. They always well, they furlough unnecessary or not sorry, 90 central employees. If they're not essential, why are we hired? Why are they paying them in the first place? And of course, as soon as they the politicians play their dance and and they come up with the funding again. Well, all those people that were furloughed get they get all the back pay. So it's basically a paid vacation. And some people do have some difficulties right there certain services and operations that maybe delayed and whatnot. But again, it's a bunch of of kabuki theater.

27:49It's not really what's going on. This is not really about being financially responsible is really just about like I said, kicking the can down the road so we can have some more theater this time just in time for the Christmas holiday. Okay, a third vote still dealing in the house. This time they haven't voted yet. But the house wants to vote on another resolution that would propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the sides of the Supreme Court to nine justices. Now the resolution, the house to resolution one introduced by representative bigs of Arizona consists of a single sentence. The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one cheese, justice and eight associates, associates, justice. Well, I'll give him points for being sweet, similar to the point. And of course, this is all about the thing done because well, Mr. Biggs is a Republican and the Democrats keep threatening to pack the Supreme Court with by meaning they're going to add seats when one of their presidents is in office so that people who believe the Constitution should be moldable and malleable as wax in order to get what they want.

29:07Could be putting a court so that they can get their agenda the way they did. Oh, four decades in nations past, you know, the 60, 70, 80s, 90s into the early 2000s with the court just made up the stuff out of thin air. And I've covered a bunch of that here. Now I look at this, not a couple of ways on the one hand. It would eliminate this, this talking point of packing the Supreme Court now in order to pack the Supreme Court. Well, if this if by the way this past the house and the Senate by two thirds and was ratified by three fours of the states, then in order to change it, well, they'd have to amend the Constitution again. Something that's a fairly high burden and done for that way for good reason. But I also think with this way is nine the right number. Now right now there are nine circuits and nine just as Supreme Court and the Supreme Court only takes a small percentage of the cases.

30:10And the only thing that they think about take about 10% of the cases that people petition. So, you know, the court doesn't take all the cases as a petition for rid of Cersei, or meaning that the court will take the case. And again, I think on average, they only take about 10% of those cases. Now part of that is the process, right. There are there's the Supreme Court. And the court has to, you know, they have to read all the briefs and then they have to hear the oral arguments and then they have to discuss it and debate it and assign someone to write the opinion. Then people, some people write the sense and concurrences and all that is a very interesting process or it's a very cumbersome process. What makes it interesting is, well, what if the Supreme Court worked more like the circuit courts did? See, very often the circuit courts, the entire court doesn't hear the case. A panel of the court hears the case. And then it's decided that says, okay, the entire court will hear the case. So, what if we said, okay, you know, we're going to take some cases, we'll be first heard by a three judge panel, right.

31:14We'll pick three judges out of a hat and you know, you get this case. And then, you know, we'll pick three more judges out of the next case. We'll take it three more judges. Then the court could probably hear, well, you would assume three times as many cases, right. Because they're being done in three judge panels. It would entirely be true because some cases would be heard by the entire court. Some cases, you know, if the three judge panel would hear it, then maybe it'd be appealed to the full court. But, oh, none of that is unconstitutional. Nothing of the Constitution simply says it will have a Supreme Court as many inferior courts as Congress shall make and establishes the jurisdiction of the federal court. So, this is another voice that's unconstitutional. So, I have to wonder again, there's nothing magical about the number nine. We've had more judges in the past, we've had fewer judges in the past. This, to me, is a move to remove a talking point from Democratic candidates.

32:16I don't know that it's the best answer. I think the court could be more efficient if it was structured a little differently. I know that the Supreme Court didn't hear all cases before the entire court. But that's a discussion for another day. That's not what Mr. Biggs is proposing. I think it's merely an attempt to remove a political talking point. I don't think nine is a magic number. I kind of like the idea of getting rid of the talking point. I just don't know that the way the court is structured today is truly the best structure. For a country as large and as litigious as the United States has become. That's my opinion. So, we dealt with the New Yorkers, we dealt with the congressmen. I do have some cases from the Supreme Court. But I'm looking at this and I want us to think. Again, it sounds like a joke.

33:17And well, I know some of what gets done by these groups is laughable. But we've looked at New York, my country, the state of my birth. I was born in New York City, lived most of my life in upstate New York, escaped the empire about 11 years ago. And the Congress, mostly in the house, we still have this joke. We got to finish up. And like I said, what's going on here is not a joke. What's going on here is really serious business. So I want to get into the questions of what's being done at the Supreme Court level. And by the Supreme Court just as is. But before I get to that, I have to take a break. And I want you to consider this. You know, we talk a lot about our rights being under attack and they are. Right to be free is being attacked. And again, not just by government. We've seen government attack. We've seen the, you know, in New York and then the house attacks on our rights. But those are often being prodded and promoted by other organizations, nonprofits and NGOs that are promoting these ideas.

34:24These ideas don't come out of nowhere. Now I have to ask you, are you funding those organizations that are attacking your rights? You may be doing it and not realize it. How? Well, by who you do business with. Let's stop funding those organizations that are attacking our rights, live free. Join the only Christian conservative Wallace Provider this nation has. Use your cell phone to defend your rights and the rights of your family, including your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Switch to Patriot Mobile today. Get free activation with the offer code Constitution. Go to patreonmobile.com size constitution. Find a plan that works for you. See if you're eligible for discounts. NRA members, veterans, first responders, even family members with multiple lines can get a discount. And don't forget, you got that promo code Constitution that you can use to get free activation. So protect your rights with your cell phone and do it easy, the simple easy way by just going to patreonmobile.com size constitution.

35:28Find a plan and discount that works for you. And don't forget that code Constitution to checkout to get free activation. Now, I also hope you'll head over to americatloud.news. We live in the information age. Information is literally at our fingertips. Think about it. You take your cell phone and you've got access to almost the entire sum of human knowledge right there. And of course, with the new tools, it's easier than ever to get to. But who do you trust? Who do you go to? Are you letting someone else decide what news is important for you? For me, one place I go to for news is americatloud.news. Why? Well, because they've shown themselves to be pretty trustworthy. And they get to verify what they say. So I go there each and every day for news and information. And I'd love it if you'd join me there. But I want you to do a bit more. See, I'm in the habit of sharing that information. I go through my news feed. And all of the time I see an article that I find interesting, I share it. I share it with friends, I share it with family members, I share it online.

36:30I have a whole email list on my website, constucistay.com. That is just articles I think I find that I find interesting and you might too. So please go to americatloud.news, read the stories, read the articles, then share them. Listen to the podcast, watch the videos, share them as well. You'll be surprised how often someone will say, I didn't know about that. I didn't hear that anywhere else. That's right. That's because corporate media didn't want them to know. We needed to share it for them. Know what that means? That means when you go to americatloud.news and you share what you learn there. You're not just sharing americatloud.news. You're not just sharing the constitution study. You're not even just sharing an article or a video. You're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us. We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth and washing our nose. Well, wait, we wash our nose.

37:30Yes, the number one place where bacteria, viruses and pollen enter the body is through the nose. So the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day. That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses and irritants to get into your nose and make you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear. That is clear. X-L-E-A-R. Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose. Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong. Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's x-L-E-A-R.com. Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your family today. I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book. I want to share something that's powerful. You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop.

38:32Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days. No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer. Just seeds, water, for under a dollar, a serving, you can grow nutrient dense packed greens anywhere. City apartments, dorm rooms, off the grid cabins. In a time when food prices are rising, Sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind. Join the self-reliance revolution. Go to thesproutingcompany.com. Slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. Prepare for the next pandemic with the wellness companies Contagion Emergency Kit, designed by Dr. Peter McCullough. Get life-saving medications like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Plus a free nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use. Order now by going to TWC.HELF, forward slash out loud. And use code out loud for $65 off your first order plus free shipping.

39:32Welcome back to the American Tribune. Join the Constitution Study. So far we've talked about New Yorkers. You've talked about Congress and it is time to talk about Supreme Court justices. And there's some interesting things going on. For one thing that's actually a, there was a hearing in the House about the Supreme Court's recent decision about birthright citizenship. The House subcommittee under Jissiary had a thing and not quite sure all the details, but it's an interesting, they had an interesting lineup of people planning to testify. They had the Daggerty Secretary of Homeland Security, Ken Kuchinelli, Kansas Attorney General Chris Kobach, the director of the Immigration Accountability Project Rosemary Janks all came to testify on the subject of the jurisdiction thereof.

40:32Now again, I've talked about this during the case. I talked about this before the taste. I talked about this when it comes up all the time. The words and subject to the jurisdiction there. I've done research on it. That language was actually added to the joint resolution that became the 14th Amendment by a Senator Merritt Howard. And in his own words, he said that, yeah, this would recognize what is already natural law and national law that people born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. This would not include aliens, foreigners or the children of ambassadors or other foreign ministers. So he was quite specific and what he meant when he proposed adding that language, language that was added to the resolution that became the 14th Amendment adopted or ratified by the states. The exact same language that exists in federal law that says Congress says, in order to be a born a citizen, you not only must be born in the United States. Well, he says, yeah, if you're born, if you're born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they go on a bit more about what a natural born citizen is.

41:39And this is exactly what Donald Trump put in his executive order, subject to jurisdiction and born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the court decided, no, we we're not going to pay any attention to the Constitution, to the laws, to the history, to the actual purpose of Congress, the intent of Congress. We're going to stick with our own misguided understanding when we when the previous court had said that a gentleman whose parents were resident in the United States, he was born in the United States, but his parents were, were a subject to the emperor of China. But we don't care about that. We're going to change the rules. Now representative chip Roy of Texas, who chairs the subcommittee, said an interview says the four, the Supreme Court failed the American people. The 14th amendment was never meant to turn American soil into a factory for making US citizenship. I wholeheartedly agree, I believe this has got to be this is probably one of the worst decisions this court in its kind of has made.

42:46Because again, they ignored the Constitution, they ignored the law, they ignored everything except an erroneous decision made a hundred years previously that literally again turned the language of the Constitution on its head to come to their decision. Now representative Roy said Congress cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. He said the subcommittee is looking to confront the fundamental question the court failed to resolve. What does a citizenship clause of the 14th amendment actually mean? I don't think they failed to resolve it. I think they got it wrong. I think they made up their own understanding. Just look at when I look go to the website. I covered the opinion. I wrote about it. I went in detail. I have quotes you can follow. Even at the point of the justice is supposedly the smartest legal minds in the country that don't understand the subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States. I have to then understand that. But then again, we're dealing with lawyers who contradict a popular belief, apparently not the smartest people in the room.

43:51But I think this also points out something else that I hear quite a lot. And I think it's really important that we understand some people said in response to the court's opinion that we need a new law, kind of like what Chip Roy is doing. Some said we need to amend the Constitution. And I ask you, what good is amending the Constitution when you have a Congress and a court, not in this case, Congress is done in other times. But when you have a court, they completely ignores the language of the Constitution to get to the outcome they want. That's kind of my point. A lot of people think that we can fix the Constitution by amending it. And there are a couple things I'd like to tweak in the Constitution. But the problem rarely is the language of the Constitution. The problem is people who simply ignore the language or make up language in regards to the Constitution of the United States. And in another example, here we had something that doesn't happen very often. We had two justices of the Supreme Court, justices Kagan and Barrett that testified in front of a committee of Congress doesn't happen very often.

45:00You remember you got separation of powers. But during this interview, this, I don't know if it's on the interview during this hearing. The first question came up and it had to do with prediction markets, sites like Calhsi and Polymarket that allow people to effectively bet on just about everything. Now, they don't call it betting. They call it investing. And the question really came up was, are members of the court and maybe their staff or even others making money on these prediction markets based on insider information. And a couple of things I want to think about here, because this brought up another discussion I heard on another podcast. And it really is a question, are these prediction markets investments or they gambling? And like so many things, the answer really is it depends. It depends on how you're going about it. Because if you're investing money, you're risking money based on, well, based on your understanding of what's going to happen.

46:08Now, a lot of people think that the stock market is gambling. And to an extent, that's true. Right. You're not assured an outcome, but you're making an educated guest, hopefully based on your own studies and research. What about a prediction market where you're not investing in a company, they are investing in something's going to happen. That to me is a bet. Right. Now, here's the interesting. These prediction markets have found generally been very good in predicting what's going to happen. Meaning when people put their money where their mouth is, we tend to get a much better outcome under a much better prediction of what the outcome is going to be, whether it be an election or anything like that. But again, the problem comes in. If it's a bet, what about insider trading? In other words, let's say you're a justice or you're a court staff member and you have information about the decision in the case that hasn't been published yet.

47:17Could you go to one of these prediction markets and lay a prediction wager that something is going to happen? Sure you could. And that would be, you know, if you know that the court's going to decide things a certain way, you could go to the market and say, I want to bet $1,000 that that the court's going to decide this case this way. And right now, I don't think there are any laws that prevent that kind of pencil how you define up the prediction market. But there's, but it's not just the prediction markets, right? So if you are a member of a justice or a court staff member and you're seeing a case involving say a large corporation. And you know how the decisions going to come out. Could you invest based on that? Now, that's could you buy stock or short stock based on what's going to happen once the decision is announced? Well, technically, yeah, but that's considered insider trading in an investment market is if a prediction market is an investment market, then that would also be insider trading.

48:31If it's a betting, well, then insider trading is part of the gambling process, right? You have people who work with the horses and they know when a horse is really on point, maybe when they're running a little slow. And they either if they don't place the bets themselves, they tell people who place bets has been part of gambling all along. Now, to me, the question is, ethically, should people who work in government? Be allowed to use these prediction markets on things that are impacted by government decisions. To me, that's an ethics violation. And of course, ethics rules for the court have been a bet noir over the last couple of decades, especially with those in the Democratic party. The court, the Supreme Court adopted a code of ethics back in 2023, something they'd never done before. Of course, remember, federal judges served during their good behavior, which means if the court, I'm sure if the house doesn't think that justice are behaving good, they can impeach them.

49:44That's Article 3 Section 1, right? The judges of both the Supreme and the Court's served during their good behavior, who determines good behavior? Well, that would be the house, your representative, my representative. But again, it got to me to be an interesting question is there evidence that, that that members of the court, either justice or their staff have been using their insider trading for these websites, because again, under US law, apparently they're not considered gambling, but are really investment, because you're not buying anything. You're placing a wager. You're betting on something is going to happen. It's not like you're buying ownership stake in a company, you're, you're just making a bet. So I think this is something that we're going to people are going to be discussing for quite a long time to come. Of course, something that has been a discussion for quite a long time, are your rights under the Second Amendment, including not just your right to keep them bare arms, but does that right extend across state lines?

50:52Now, this comes up because the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit back in 25 against the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and their commissioner Bob Jacobson, because the state refuses to recognize out of state permits. There were two truckers that were part of this lawsuit, and this suit now they're requesting that it be heard by the Supreme Court. You see the eight circuit court of appeals held that your your second amendment rights are confined to the borders where you hold a permit, which again, sounds irrational. But it's kind of what we've kind of used to for courts. You're right to keep them bare arms, shall not be infringed. Well, except we're going to infringe them because you've got to get state permission and that state permission is only valid within that state. And the they're basically saying that the states can write laws that supersede the Constitution of the States. So this is another in a series of second amendment cases, major second amendment cases that the court has been asked to hear in their upcoming term.

51:58No, of course, I'm interested because well, I've been a gun owner my entire adult life. I've been I've carried a handgun for many, many, many years. And yes, I do sometimes cross state lines. In fact, I'm planning a trip in the near future. Take care of some of my father's business back up in New York state. And one of the things that hurts me is I'm not allowed to bring a firearm because New York state doesn't recognize any Mike Terry permits. And they're supposed to be able to issue a permit as an out of state or but I haven't tried that because let's face it, I'm trying to avoid going back to the empire as much as humanly possible. So I find that's interesting. And again, federal law allows you to transport firearms across state lines as long as you're legal in your in your place of origin, your place of destination, but they must be on, they must be unloaded and locked where the driver, the driver cannot access them, right, which makes life really interesting people with like SUVs, where you don't have a separate trunk.

52:58Another question here. And again, I remember when, when I lived in New York when I was moving out of New York, I had to go through some machinations, I had to take my handguns out of the state of New York and then go to the courts and say, I'm turning in my license. And of course, they were your guns out of state. Where out of state, what we like to know, you don't need to know, they're out of state, I'm turning in my license. Deal with it. And then I got a letter a few weeks later saying, a judge approved you were giving up your license and like, well, gee, that's nice. I really don't care. Go, go pound sand. But again, here we have a New Yorker, a congressman and a Supreme Court, Justice walk into a bar. And I think in many places, it does seem like a joke. It seems like people treat the Constitution as if it's a joke, as if it's not really important. And if it does, as if it doesn't say what it actually says, and that's what other reason I want us to read and study the Constitution so that we can defend our rights for ourselves when those we hire to secure our rights, don't do their job.

54:06And as the declaration says, we have the right and the duty to alter abolish governments that don't protect our rights. But we have to understand what our rights are. We have to understand how they're protected. That's why I believe every member of the state, diligently to read and study the Constitution of this country teach the rise in generation to be free. Now, how do we do it? What do you do next? It's a question I'm asked all the time. And I understand why people ask the question, well, most people realize is my answer, it depends because it really does. Have you read the Constitution before? Why are you doing it? What are your goals? These all factor into what I would recommend next. It's why I created the Constitution study wizard. Just go to constitution study.com slash wizard. I do ask for your name and email address because I'm going to email you responses. Then I ask questions like, well, when was the last time you read the Constitution? Have you read any other documents like the Federal's to anti-Federalist papers or Washington's Fairwell or something like that? And then I ask, what are your goals? See, some people just want to know their rights. Some people want to teach them. Some people want to run groups.

55:15Based on those answers, the system will generate emails with recommendations. Now, the wizard is free. Many of the recommendations have free options. And oh, by the way, I read every entry. And if I see something unique, well, I'll email you something special directly personally. But the point is, these are suggestions. These are recommendations. It's not like it's a rule. If you don't do this, you get in trouble. It's meant to give you ideas of things you may try. What you might try next. And I find a lot of people who said it's been very hopeful. I think you'll find it as well. So please head to constitution study.com slash wizard. Take the Constitution study planning wizard. And let me know what you think. I'm really curious if there's things that you think I should add or change about it. I also hope you come back and join us here for the Constitution study. I'm an American out loud talk radio heard on the I heart radio network every weekday for PM Eastern time. They can listen on a media player. We have after apple Android or Alexa. And of course, all the episodes go to podcasts. Now, it does take a day or two for an episode to go from talk created to podcast. But you get to listen to your favorite podcast at me favorite though. Subscribe to the show. Leave us a rating on Apple podcast. It helps the algorithm show us to more people.

56:33Who will hopefully click the link and join us here for the Constitution study. Speaking of links, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at America out loud. News. But please, as with everything else, share those links, share this program and hope share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation.