States fighting back against Washington

Music

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.

Washington, D.C., is forgotten that they were created by the states, not the other

around. Then again, the states have forgotten this as well. There are some

examples of states learning that the federal government was created to serve

them, not the other way around. Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here

with the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution.

Teachers in general should be free. Glad you could join me today. I've got a

pretty good episode. At least I think so. I hope you'll think so as well.

Because we're talking about not just states rights, but states power, states

role in this Republic of Republics. First of all, I love it. Tennessee, the

volunteer states, volunteers are leading the way and I have an excellent

interview with one of our state representatives where we're going to give you

some examples. But as I said, we're starting in Tennessee and our state

legislator, our General Assembly has passed legislation that's on the way to the

governor's desk that deals with renters rights. Let me stay with me for a

second. Because again, when you rent properties, it's kind of weird dichotomy,

right? Because you're not the property owner, but because you rent, you have a

lot of property rights in that property. Well, this bill, which again is pass

the legislature's on the way to the governor's desk, it's called SB 0350, would

prohibit landlords from restricting tenants from lawfully possessing and

carrying firearms and ammunition inside their homes or apartments. These

protections would be extended to parked vehicles in a tenant designated space.

So the thing with this way, right? You find you're looking for a place, you

want to rent from whatever reason, and you find a home on apartment or a house,

and then you find, oh, but you can't you can't exercise your second amendment

right in your own home because the property owner says so. Well, this law simply

says, no, you cannot prohibit someone from lawfully possess keeping and

bearing arms on property they rent. Now, it's funny, I'm preparing for to give

a keynote at the, I think it's a late county chapter of the Constitution party

in a few weeks. And I was talking about the fact that they're the gun shine

state. But let's see, I love Tennessee and I love their gun lots because it

recognizes that as a renter, you have certain rights. And well, those rights

really need to be protected. You know, the one, the couple things about the

Tennessee law that I find problematic involving guns. For the one hand, the

Constitution claims that the right to keep them bear arms in Tennessee can

be regulated for public safety, indirect conscious addiction to the

Constitution United States, which has supremacy, but that's one issue. They

kind of have this weird, it's not really constitutional carry, but it's a

permitless carry, which is kind of this odd situation. And I really hate the

fact that in Tennessee, quote unquote, gun-free zones, you know, if you put up

a sign that says no guns, passing that signs a crime, not simply trespass. It's

its own separate crime. And I think that's, that's a bit abusive, right? Because if

you, if you're not paying attention and you walk past it, you know, or if you go

by and nobody knows, you know, I, it's, I understand a person's right to

control their own property. And I don't have a problem with that. I just think

the, the punishment's a little, a little harsh, but here we have

Tennessee. Again, I don't know if the governor plans to sign this or not. I

haven't read anything about it. I just saw this article and thought, well,

that's kind of cool. You know, I, I went my wife and our first married, we

rented property. And we never had issues like this, but I could see where

that would happen. So again, I looked at this. I thought this was pretty good.

These are the states protecting their citizens. And at least paying some

attention to the impact illegal immigration has on the state, like this, this

other bill, which the Tennessee lawmakers, I did, they're going to delay

action. They've, they've kind of put a pause on this. They've defer the, the

general assembly has deferred, working on a bill that would require local

law enforcement to report encounters with illegal aliens and local governments

attract the cost of public services used by those illegal aliens. So again, I

find this interesting because there's a cost. There's an impact. Now, there's

a lot of politics behind this as well, right? Because, you know, what

are they trying to do? Well, again, this appears to be attempts to align

Tennessee's immigration laws with the Trump administration's immigration

policies. Okay, but I look at this as, to me, it's interesting because again, I

live in a county. My town is unincorporated. So I don't have a city

government, but I do have a county government. And we pay for schools and

that we, there are a lot of public services that a lot of people are saying,

well, they're being used by illegal immigrants. I was as a, as a citizen of

this county, I would be interested in, in, well, what are they costing us?

You know, because again, I hear both sides say a lot of things. Oh, no, they pay

more taxes than they cost. Oh, no, they cost more than they pay in taxes.

And I see relatively little evidence for either side. There was one study

done that looked at immigration as a whole, not just illegal immigrants,

and said the first generation of immigrants tend to be a net cost to the, to

their community. It is subsequent generations that tend to be net,

increases, net positives, net providers to their community. But that was

immigration as a whole. This is looking at illegal immigration. And what

are the costs, again, here in the local governments and the states and counties,

or I said, citizen counties, and that course, that's going to be rolled up to

the state level. What is the cost of this illegal immigration? And can we get

real numbers behind it, which to me, that's a good thing. That's, that's

information and that's data. And that is something I think we can use. And

again, not just for our own benefit, but in the question of, okay, federal

government, if you've passed this law and you're not going to enforce this law,

this is the actual cost that puts on us when you do so. There's another

bill that passed our house, I guess it's still waiting for the Senate. And it

deals with tracking the number of illegal aliens in school. This to me is

interesting for a couple of reasons. One is, you know, okay, there is a cost

to teaching children. There's a cost of having a child in public school. And

in fact, that is a debate within my county, the county I live in, because

some of the developments that are coming in, the taxes raised from these houses

doesn't cover the cost of a single child, meaning if the, in a development,

there's an average of just one child per, per home, then we're paying more in

education, though we're collecting in taxes. Of course, it's something we,

where else we're looking at. But there's another point to this as well. And

that has to do with a bill that was considered last year that pretty much died

on the vine. And it was the idea of Tennessee no longer accepting federal

education dollars. I tried, I wanted to testify in front of the committee. I

tried to get in front of the committee. I didn't get a chance because I wanted

to point out two things. One is, well, you know, you're, you're looking at the

financial interests. What about the legal interests? How are the fact that the

the federal government, the, the federal Department of Education doesn't legally

exist, because it was created by an unconstitutional act, which, well, Alexander

Hamilton and the Supreme Court have all said that is, is void. But this has to

do with counting how many of the children in our public schools are immigrants.

Now, this would be an atomized data. I mean, this is not data that could be

used for immigration enforcement. But it would be information that our school

boards and districts could use in understanding where the costs of where the

children are coming from. And therefore, the cost associated with them. And to me,

that would be interesting information. They actually passed a second bill as

well, that would make it a class a misdemeanor to intentionally fail or

refuse to leave the United States when subject to a final order of removal.

This is a state crime, right? So if you are, if this law again passes and gets

signed, if you are in the state of Tennessee, and you have a final order of

removal, meaning you have gone through all the due process, you've had your day

in court, you've been able to challenge it. And now you have an order of removal

and you refuse. You don't leave, you fail to leave on your right date, or you

don't leave, it actually would be a crime in Tennessee to remain in the state.

And because it's part of the United States, when you have a final order of

removal. So again, you've got to process, I know people are going, oh my God,

Paul, but, but immigration is a federal power. No, it's not. Again,

look at the constitution of the United States. The power to control immigration

is not delegated to the United States. Congress can set standardized rules for

naturalization, the process of becoming a citizen, but not for immigration,

which means it's a state issue to begin with. Furthermore, it's even though you

may have a federal order of deportation, a federal order of removal, to remain in

the state still violates the rights of the states. The state, it can still be a

state crime for what you're doing. So again, these are a couple of, to me,

interesting pieces of legislation, where the volunteer state is helping to lead

in the power of the states and the exercise of the power. And again, we're going to

get a little bit more into the protecting us from an overarching and over, an

overreaching federal government. Now, again, these are three Tennessee laws

that are in different stages of the legislation, right? Some are still

pending. One has been passed and gone to the governor, but they are attempts within Tennessee

to enforce our own laws, to recognize what's going on. And I find this important because

there's more legislation coming down the pike from the Tennessee legislature

that, again, are dealing with the overreach of federal government that are recognizing

the rules and laws. In fact, I stumbled across one of them. I was listening to a podcast,

and I heard somebody talk about one of these. And I reached out to the, the Bill sponsor,

a state representative, Gino Bulsal, and had a chance to sit down and talk with him,

and I was able to record it so that we can all enjoy it. But I'm not quite there yet. But I want

to consider this. As I said, the state created the federal government, not the other way around.

The federal government was created to serve the states, not the other way around. Yes,

we have the supremacy clause, but remember, only launching United States made pursuant

of the Constitution are the supreme law of land. We're saying the federal government,

you have these limited and commemorated powers. And sadly, our state seems to have forgotten this.

And I know the feds forgot it, but the states have forgotten it as well. And I think it's

important that we remind them of this. We have elections coming up for state offices as well

as House. And I don't remember if our senators are, you know, but there's a third of the U.S. Senate

that's up for for a election. It's time to remind them, hey, well, wait, the state you created

the federal government, you said it's, it's limits, you said it's boundaries. And it's up to the

states to protect us from overreaching federal government. It's why I say the 16th and 17th

amendments to the Constitution destroyed the Republic. They destroyed federalism. Because before

the 16th amendment, the federal government didn't care how much you made or what you spent it on.

But with the implementation of a direct income tax, well, now the federal government wants to

know everything you make and what you spend it on, they want to know everything about your finance.

They get very nosy when they when they did that. And of course, I know most people were coming up

to April 15th and a few weeks, you know, most people hate the infernal revenue service and the idea

of taxes, but we gave it to them and we didn't realize the damage it was doing to the Republic.

The 17th amendment, the popular election of US senators, same thing. So it used to be the US

senators were pointed by the legislature of the states, because the role of the US Senate is to

represent the states in federal lawmaking, meaning when legislation would come along that

infringed on states rights, it was expected that the Senate would push back because those senators

would be hearing from the legislatures saying, you want to keep your job. This is what you have to

do. And we lost it with the 17th amendment. It doesn't mean that the states gave up their power.

It simply, they gave up the best way to keep the federal government in check by restricting

its money and by restricting its legislative power. And we're suffering the consequences

of those decisions, both by the way from 1913, very much in the progressive era.

But it doesn't mean the states have nothing they can do. There are things they can do and they

are pushing back. And after this break, I'm going to have a nice interview with the state representative

Juneau Bolso. And we're going to talk about some of the legislation that again, it's currently in

Tennessee that will restore some of the powers that a overreaching federal government has

claimed to take from us. But here's the cool thing. Yes, this may be Tennessee legislation,

but it's something you may want to replicate in your own state. So hang around for that interview

before I go though, I want to remind you that this July is the semi-quence centennial

of the Declaration of Independence and the 250th anniversary of that wonderful document that declared

13 free and independent states. And I'm hoping you'll join America out loud me in Nashville,

July 2nd through 4th, for this wonderful celebrate. The early bird pricing is running out soon.

So if you want to get the pricing, go to americaoutloud.news and click on the America out loud 250 slash 10

national and sign up. We're going to have we're going to have speakers. It's going to be days of

entertainment. We're going to have a wonderful fireworks display. It's going to be a blast. And

I'm hoping you can join me. And if you do, please look me up. Find me. Shake my hand. Say hello. I'd

love to meet you. I'd love to talk to you because I think to me, this is some of the best parts

of these types of gatherings is meeting the people that I merely talk to most of the times.

So again, head to americaoutloud.news. Click on the America out loud 250 slash 10 celebration.

Sign up before early bird pricing disappears. And I'm looking forward to meeting you. And hopefully

maybe some friends and family in Nashville this July. And hang around because after this break,

we'll be at the interview with Tennessee State Representative, Genoel.

Hi, this is Colonel Mike from the National Security Hour calling old Patriots to join me in

Nashville on July 2nd, 3rd and 4th for America out loud news. 250 10th anniversary in Nashville.

Go get them. Cowboys along with clear the wellness company. We're celebrating two big milestones.

250 years of America and 10 years of America out loud.news. That's where you come to hear

military and intel experts on the national security hour and where you get freedom of speech

with liberty and justice for all. Not like anywhere else. This is a once in a lifetime celebration.

We will have inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, nationally recognized speakers,

who proudly stand for freedom, just like you and us. Let's unite to salute and celebrate the

history of our great nation and collaborate to protect the future. Join us and register now

at americaoutloud.news.nashville. During COVID, we got educated on the power of natural virus

protection and immune boosting using vitamins A, C, D, zinc and quercetin. The problem,

getting them at the right dosage from truly natural sources that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Enter the daily V stack. Using breakthrough cellular absorption technology, we put those vitamins

together and supercharged them with a complete multi-mineral complex. The daily V stack is basically

an oral IV of six products all in one at an affordable price. Go to chemicalfreebody.com

forward slash out loud today, get the daily V stack, protect yourself, boost your immune system

and save 20% on your first order. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed 47%. Are you

optimizing your health care spending or paying for outdated sick care? The wellness company offers

a better way for $100 per month. One wellness elite membership includes two free

nutraceuticals, free prescriptions on 800 plus meds, free 247 telemedicine and 15% off supplements.

America out loud listeners get an exclusive 20% discount. Go to TWC.healthslashoutloud. Use

the code out loud. Have you been looking for a healthy snack from the go? Well, not all energy bars

are soft and sugary. Bear bars are a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural

ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based. Organic gluten-free contains six grams of protein and

are low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit

and are held together with serps or sweeteners. To learn more, just visit barebar.com slash out loud.

Welcome back, everyday Americans. You've rejoined the Constitution study. As promised, I have with me

Tennessee State Representative, Geneal Bolso. He's not my representative, but he had some

legislation that I think is worth looking at. Geneal, welcome to the Constitution study.

Thank you, Paul. It's my pleasure to be with you. We talked a little bit as I was getting set up

the transplant and all that. What caught my attention was this one piece of legislation, which

to me was unique because I have an attorney who's a politician that actually quotes the Constitution,

which just warms my part. Please tell us a little bit about this legislation you've proposed.

Sure. The bill you're talking about is known in the legislature as HB 1473. We call it the

Obergefell bill. As your listeners know, Obergefell versus Hodges was a case decided by the US

Supreme Court back in 2015. It was a five-four decision written by Justice Kennedy. Somehow,

the majority looked at the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, in particular to the

due process of equal protection clauses and said that the 14th Amendment guaranteed the

ability of individuals of the same sex to Mary, which was a very interesting take on the 14th Amendment,

given that it was passed in 1868 at a time when all the states and all the voters who ratified it

only had marriages between one man and one woman and all of the states that ratified the

amendment. It was a bit of a stretch. We obviously, as a state legislature,

do not have the ability to overturn a US Supreme Court decision, but we can enforce it as narrowly

as possible. That's what this bill does. This bill says explicitly that the Supreme Court's

interpretation of the 14th Amendment and Obergefell is not binding on private citizens,

in Tennessee, or private businesses, and that's actually consistent with the century of Supreme

Court jurisprudence, because it's clear when you look at the text of the 14th Amendment,

that it applies to state actors, not to private actors. It says no state,

but it shall deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any

state deprive anyone of the equal protection of the laws. So what this bill does is it makes it

clear that although Obergefell binds the state and its political subdivisions, it does not

bind private citizens in Tennessee or anywhere else. And I loved it because it's what I refer to

as an in-touch moment. I heard this one on the podcaster, IMTOT. I never thought of that.

Okay. It's obvious once you said it. Once I heard it, I'm like, it's obvious, but I never thought

of that, which is, to me, it's the wonderful part of this. There's things you can discover that

are there that you never, you never heard of. So where does the legislation sit right now?

Let's see, right now it has been passed on the House floor. And obviously in Tennessee,

as in most states, legislation has to pass both chambers of the legislature before it can be

signed by the governor into law. And so right now in the Senate is waiting for action in the Senate

Judiciary Committee, which I believe is set to hear the bill on Monday.

So it's progressing, like all the legislators, legislated,

contrary to popular belief, legislating was not meant to be a speedy activity.

It's meant to be slow and pondering. And so I'm trying not to prognosticate, although I like

this bill. I hope it goes well, not just for us here in the state of Tennessee, but to

remind people in the other 49 states that, you know, the Constitution words mean things. And even

if the Supreme Court gets things wrong, the 14th Amendment still says, well, that binds the state,

you know, as a member of a church to say that you can't come in and force us to recognize same

sex marriages. It's a wonderful thing. Exactly. And, you know, other organizations, again,

it's defending our rights, which securing our rights is the purpose why we create governments

in the first place, at least according to the Declaration of Independence. Do you have any other

interesting legislation that is coming along? I think I've got several things that would fall

into the category of interesting. There's a bill that's going to be heard in our House Judiciary

Committee next week called HB 1491 that seeks to put voluntary vocal prayer back into our public

schools. As you may recall, from the founding of the country or even before, there was always

voluntary vocal prayer in Bible reading, Bible study, in public schools. That was taken away

in 1962 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Ingle versus Vitale out of New York,

as you're familiar with, by name and location. Yes. And that was a case where, once again,

the Supreme Court looking back at the establishment clause for the First Amendment said that having

prayer in public schools violates the establishment clause, which, as written, applies to Congress,

not to the states. Number one, and number two, even after the establishment clause and the

rest of the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, prayer in public schools continued

all the way up until 1962. So there were no one who voted in favor of ratification of the Bill of

Rights thought that what they were doing was taking prayer out of public schools because it continued

for 150 years. Yet now we have the enlightened Hugo Black, a former Klansman in 1962,

reading the establishment clause as some type of a separation of church and state injunction,

which was never the case. And so we've got to bill that, frankly, on its face actually complies

with Ingle versus Vitale, but even if it doesn't, I think under our more recent Supreme Court

precedents of the court, it faced with the issue, well, overturn Ingle versus Vitale. So I think

that qualifies as another interesting bill. I'm just thrilled to have an attorney that not only

reads and quotes the Constitution, that it actually quotes the 14th Amendment accurately and

recognizes that the First Amendment applies only to Congress. And that when the Supreme Court says,

well, we incorporated the First Amendment of the States, the 14th Amendment, it says no such thing.

So that's kind of a pet peeve of mine. I review a lot of Supreme Court case here around the

First Amendment. So that's two for two. Anything else that other constitutional listeners would be

interested in? Probably so. I've got another bill that is known as HB1472 that we call the

Baning Bostock Act. Bostock versus Clayton County, Georgia was a six three decision from the

Supreme Court from June of 2020, where the Supreme Court interpreted the term sex as used in

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation, gender identity,

and gender nonconforming behavior. And your listeners will appreciate the fact that Title VII is

the Federal Anti-Discrimination Statute that prohibits discrimination on five bases, race, color,

religion, sex, and natural origin. And for decades, Congress always tried to include and to add

to that list sexual orientation and gender identity. And it never worked in both the Biden and

Obama administrations, for example, there were bills called the Equality Act that were filed,

but they went nowhere. But somehow the Supreme Court decided in 2020 just to go ahead act as a

super legislature and put sexual orientation and gender identity into Title VII. And so to protect

our laws here in Tennessee, I have a bill that says that for purposes of interpreting our state

anti-discrimination laws, our state courts are not permitted to rely on Bostock, that they have

to look at the term sex as our general assembly intended, which simply meant male or female

man or woman. Because that's the type of discrimination that this Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 was getting at at the time. Discrimination particularly against women in the workplace.

Right. Biology. A biology. In the workplace. And of course, you had Title IX which dealt with

the discrimination in sports. Yes. And all that. But okay, so let's see has three for three.

All of which involve how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Constitution. And I love

the fact that you have a state standing up and saying, no, you got it wrong. But within our

sphere, this is what imp says. It hopefully would be a reminder to those in federal government that

the stage created the federal government, not the other way around. Exactly right, Paul. And

the shame of it is that our state governments for too long have allowed the federal government just

to take over. You go back and you look at the Federalist papers in particular, Federalist 45

that James Madison wrote where he talks about the fact that the powers of the federal government

and the Constitution he just drafted are few and defined and the powers of the state governments

are numerous and indefinite and look at our society now. It's exactly the opposite. It's the

states that have fewer and fewer powers. And the federal government is now all powerful because of

the way it has expanded its role under the Constitution. I mean, it started with Marbury versus

Madison in 1803 with the concept of judicial review. And you look at the way that the Congress has

used the Commerce Clause as a club to take over everything and not to mention the now the federal

use of executive orders to do things that even Congress can't do. And you've got unfortunately

constitutional form of government that is not what Madison and the other founders intended.

And so it's important for state legislators to push back on federal overreach. And I think one

can fairly say that Engel versus Vitale, Obergefell versus Hodges, Bostock versus Clayton

County Georgia or all federal overreaches. Now, I want to encourage you when you find some time

to actually read the Marbury versus Madison opinion because the term judicial review does exist

in the opinion. They said, yes, we have the power. We must, when we review a case, we have to

review the laws related to the case and determine which ones apply and when they're in conflict,

which ones do we follow? And being the Constitution is the paramount fundamental law of the land. It

must predominate, which is why the court said, listen, Marbury is correct. He is do his commission

commission as a Justice of the Peace. However, when Congress said that we would have the power to

issue a rid of mandamus against the president, that would be on the power to delegate about the

Constitution. So we cannot give him what is what is his right do. And which brings you to a question

night. Again, you're an attorney. There are plenty of attorney jokes. I'm not going to tell you

it turns you, but I do have a question to ask, sure, every attorney I mean, when you were in law

school, did you study the language, did you take a class, we studied the language of the Constitution

or constitutional law? We studied constitutional law. Why would we read the Constitution as part of

that? Well, yes, because I'm still amazed that you get a degree in American law, a gradual

level degree in American law without studying the Supreme Law's land, which to me said, you

shall demand your money back. But it's I asked that because in the almost 10 years I've been asking

this question, I've only had one man say he studied the Constitution in law school.

And it to me, it tells me a lot about the legal system, which helps explain why we end up with

judges who don't recognize you don't have the authority to order the president around. They

completely got forgot federal 78. I was in Hamilton that the courts have neither force nor will

only judgment and ultimately depend on the executive arm for the efficacy of their decisions.

And I'm also obviously being somewhat facetious when I say we didn't read the Constitution in

law school, we did. But there was a focus not so much on its language, but on its history of

interpretation and the Supreme courts. But one of the most interesting facts that I remember about

Marbury versus Madison, obviously, it was written by Chief Justice John Marshall. And John Marshall

was the Secretary of State for John Adams, who actually signed the commissions that were to go

to among others, Marbury. And then when Thomas Jefferson won the election and James Madison

became the Secretary of State, Marshall had been appointed to the Supreme Court by that time. And so

he was actually ruling on his own conduct, which we would today think that might be a bit of a

conflict of interest. But somehow, back at the time, it wasn't due that way. Yeah, it's,

I love the, I learned to love the history of the Constitution from things like that. And

you know, I find so many people have this impression of the Constitution. And I, you know,

I refer to Starry Decises to President as it's a legal game of telephone. The Constitution says

a judge says the Constitution meant that another judge says the first judge meant this and you end

up now generations later with these iterations of interpretations, but not going back to the original

document. Me, I'm a horse's mouth type of guy, not the other end of the horse when I'm looking for

information. So I find that, and again, I do with a lot of attorneys. I'm looking at attorneys

in court. I'm reviewing some of the other, their arguments to have an attorney that actually knows

and quotes the Constitution and is also in, in elected office. Okay, you're not in my district.

I can't vote for you, but this certainly would put you high in my list of, of people to vote for

because I have a whole system. You know, I don't, I don't endorse people. I don't endorse

parties. I endorse policies. And the policy of saying, well, the Constitution says this,

and it's our job as the state in part to protect our citizens from a government for overreach.

And I love to see that. I'm, I'm very happy to have had a chance to meet you and talk with you

so far. Those three pieces of legislation are great. And, and I hope they do well. And I hope

they inspire other people. Before I go, is there anything you want to tell my audience? Maybe a

place they can go, they follow up, especially if they're in Tennessee? Sure. If you are someone

who wants to follow our general assembly in Tennessee, go to capital.tn.gov. And that's capital

with an O. And there you'll be able to find the text of all the bills that we've been talking about.

You'll be, you'll be able to have access, live access to our committee hearings. And you'll be

able to find amendments to bills and be able to follow any piece of legislation as it works its

way through the general assembly. Now, I will put a link to this piece of the, that legislation

on the website when this posts so that people can follow it and see what's going on.

Gina, it's been a lot of fun. And thank you for your time and good, good, and blessings and good

luck with the work that you're doing. And the same to you. Well, I thoroughly enjoyed that

interview. I hope I have the opportunity to speak with Gina more. You know, we talked about

federal overreaching governments attacking our rights. Well, it's not just governments.

Our rights are under attack from well, other organizations often funded indirectly through

your dollars. Not just tax dollars, but the money you spend with different businesses. So,

let's stop funding organizations that are supporting those that are destroying our rights.

Join the only Christian conservative wireless provider this nation has. Use your cell phone

to defend your rights and the rights of your family, including the right to life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness. Join me at patreon mobile today. Get your line activated,

absolutely free by using the code Constitution at checkout. Just go to patreon mobile.com slash

constitution. Find a plan that works for you. See if you're eligible for a discount. Everyone

from veterans and first responders to families with multiple lines can get a discount. And don't

forget to use that code Constitution to checkout to get your new line activated, absolutely free.

Let's get that's patreon mobile.com slash constitution to find a plan and discount that works for you.

And don't forget the Constitution as your promo code to get your new line activated, absolutely free.

I also hope you'll head over to america out loud.news. I go there each and every day for news and

information and not just for the radio program and the website. We live in the information age.

The days of corporate media being able to lie to us are over. We don't have to listen to them

anymore. We can find our own news, but where do you go? Who do you trust? One of the ones I

trust is america out loud.news. Now it's a great place to go. You got great stories and articles

you can read, but I'm going to ask you to share those as well. Yeah, they're great podcasts and

videos, but share those too. So you'll be surprised how often people haven't heard this news because

they still listen to the corporate media that's lying to them. So when you share those links,

when you share the stories and the articles and the podcasts of it, you're not just sharing news.

You're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.

Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but our diet and the way we eat has.

Creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums.

For better oral health, get Sprite dental defense and oral care line designed to combat

acid creating bacteria. The toothpaste, mouthwashments and gum all contain xylitol and natural

ingredients shown to dramatically improve oral health. Sprite can be found online and it all

find natural retailers. The smartest food on the planet doesn't come from a lab or in a package.

It grows in a class jar. I'm Doug Evans, author of the National Best Seller, The Sprout Book.

Sprouts deliver up to a hundred times the antioxidants of mature vegetables. They grow in just

three to five days for under a dollar serving. Get your sprouting kit at thesproutingcompany.com

slash out loud. Use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. Gross smart.

Prepare for the next pandemic with the wellness company's 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.gov forward slash

out loud and use code out loud for $65 off your first order plus free shipping.

Welcome back everybody, Americans. You've rejoined the constitution study and today we're

looking at the powers of the state. We've had a pretty good episode so far. We looked at what's

been going on. We focused on Tennessee because there was some some cool legislation in place. There

are that's that's working its way through the process that is about pushing back on federal

overreach. We had that interview with Gina Bolso. Great. I just met him. I saw a story about one

of his one piece of legislation sponsoring and I decided it was worth some time and man,

I'm glad I did. He had three pieces of legislation right here in Tennessee that while they're

pushing back on Supreme Court overreach and government overreach and I love it. By the way,

if you want, I've put the links to all three piece of legislation in the show notes when they

hit the website so you can look at them and even if you don't live in Tennessee and this

is something you can share with your state rep and state senator and let them know these are

the types of things we'd like to see you do. But if we're talking about the powers of state,

they're often powers that had to be exercised against the federal government, especially when

the federal government ignores the constitution that not only created it, but that each and every

member of the government swears know with the support. And in the latest update, FBI director

Cash Patel has confirmed it to lawmakers that the FBI is continuing to purchase a commercially

available location histories and other data from data brokers. Now, if you're not familiar,

if you have a smart phone or pretty much any smart device, the phone knows where you are.

The device knows where you if you're connected to a cell network, they know where you are within

a certain radius. If your if your device has a GPS in it, it knows exactly where you are. And as

much as they say, they don't, well, this data gets tracked and it often, and again, it's not just

the devices, you know, you install an app, but it's the same got one of those apps for say,

meal company, right? Maybe a pizza or a sub shop, you know, one of those where you can place your order

and then it'll tell you, you know, when you when you get close to the automatically, you know,

get your order processed or it's ready and waiting for you, it's tracking you. And all that data

is is collected by those companies and they sell that data to data brokers. Remember, if you don't

pay for the service, you are the service. So this goes to data brokers. Now, the federal department

of the federal Bureau of Investigations is once again buying up this data.

This to me brings in a couple of interesting questions. For example, Senator Ron Wyden asked

Patel during testimony whether the FBI would commit to not buying our location data without a warrant.

Now, this to me is a little I understand. I think we're where Senator Wyden is going.

It's the reasonableness of the search. And does that include the the the seizure of data?

Because remember, this data is not your data. This data was generated by other companies that

you do business with. It was then sold to a data broker. It's their property. They can sell it

to the FBI. I can sell it to anybody they want. That is not an unreasonable seizure. And I think

part of it comes back to a something that the framers the Constitution when they drafted the

bill of rights never considered. And that was the distinction between your information and information

about you. Think about it in the in the 18th century, right? When they talked about your

persons, houses, papers and effects, you were talking physical paper. You would, you know, you

would write stuff up. You would have records. And it was it was secured. But what about data about

you? Now, when when data about you is collected by so many other entities, and it's a serious concern

for security-minded people for a IT-minded people, it's a serious concern. It provides some

wonderful services that people enjoy, but it always comes at a cost. So Mr. Patel said, listen,

that the FBI uses all tools to do our mission. That includes the purchasing of this data. Here's

where I've got the problem. See, that is a that is a reasonable seizure. When you purchase a product

that somebody else owns, that is a reasonable seizure. The question is, what about the search?

Mr. Patel followed up with saying, we do purchase commercially available information that is

consistent with the Constitution and laws under the emergency electronic communications privacy act.

Okay. Wait a second. If it's consistent with the Constitution,

doesn't that mean you need a reasonableness in order to search? How do we know that your search

is reasonable? And that to me is where we get into it. Because now you're, you know, well,

well, you may have legal access to the the data, the searching of the data. Well, is that

reasonable? And that's an area where I think a nice amendment to the Constitution might be good

to update the Fourth Amendment to deal with 21st century reality, the century realities. And that is

it's not only your papers and effects, but it may be data that you generate or is about you

that we want secure. And again, there's always going to be this tension between security and privacy.

The most secure environment, you have no privacy. Everything you do is out in the open

server, but you can see it. The most private system, well, is easily used to conceal information

that we could damage our security. So how do we find this reasonable balancing act? And I think

it's a discussion worthy of a serious consideration, right? It's the type of thing where if there were

a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution, I'd love to see a whole session on the

question of updating the Fourth Amendment to deal with the 20, the realities of 21st century life.

So I'm, it's not like, oh, we, we buy this commercially available data. I don't think there's

anything illegal with that. My question is, how is it being used? And now that they've purchased

the data, the FBI says, well, that's our data. We purchased it. We can go searching at it

at our hearts content. We don't need a warrant. We don't need a reason most because it's our data.

But it's data about the people. And I think that's where we could use a bit, a bit of an update.

Especially now that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that the FISA that we always hear

about is, well, it's up for renewal. Remember, the infamous section 702, which is supposed to use to

target foreign nationals for intelligence purposes, but has been used to extend that surveillance

onto US, not only people in the US, but United States citizens, simply because, you know, you called

somebody, who called somebody, who talked to somebody of interest, a foreign national of interest,

now the, the, the FISA warrants let you believe that, you know, the, the multi-hop

inclusion of all of this data. And of course, there are rules about it supposed to be

redacted and hidden. And you have to have more evidence for your rules. By the way,

apparently, not are always followed very well. So, which is why people I find it interesting that

previously Donald Trump was a critic of FISA, but now all of a sudden, he's all for a clean

extension of section 702. Now, Speaker Johnson says he intends to move such a bill with an 18-month

extension through the House to see, you know, to try and get it passed. That would be,

that would be an interesting discussion. Now, he claims that they've instituted 56

substantive reforms to FISA. This is where change is made in the 2024 Reforming Intelligence

and Securing America Act. And he said, by every measure and review, those are working just as we

planned. We have not had the abuses that were happening before those reforms. I'm not sure I've

seen evidence of that. All right. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence,

so we say. So this idea of a, again, more surveillance extending into American citizens. I mean,

it's one thing for surveilling foreign nationals, especially on foreign soil. It's another thing

when they start targeting Americans, they've got to have a good reason. And I don't think I've

seen stuff that says they're actually got a good reason for this type of surveillance. You also

added that these flock cameras, I was talking to somebody other day about the flock cameras. And

again, you have no expectation of privacy out in public. If you're, whatever can be seen in public

or can be recorded, that to me is not the problem with the flock cameras. The problem with the

flock cameras are when law enforcement search those databases without a warrant, without probable

cause, not even a reasonable, articulate suspicion of the target being involved in a crime.

Now, I'm not saying that happens all the time. I'm sure there are many situations where they go,

yes, you know, there was a, there was a hit and run and or there was some other crime and we got a

car, we got a license plate, we want to track it and yet out of that's one thing. It's when the

reasonable illness is weaker that again, we the people have to make sure that that we are overseeing

our government and the states are supposed to be there to help. And again, I spent 30 years in

IT. So I'm familiar with the IT security aspects of FISA and flock cameras and all of this other

stuff, you know, but to me, you know, the the collection of of of your data

technically fits within the Constitution of the United States, it fits within the Fourth Amendment

because as long as they're not seizing data from you, as long as you and again, we talk about

flock cameras and stuff, just think of the maiden horizon, AT&T, all of these entities,

you know, you've got all this cloud stores drop box and and one cloud and all that stuff,

how often has federal agents, even state agents issued a subpoena saying hand over this data,

not even a warrant, just a subpoena, and they do. That's why this quite because it's their data,

it's not your data, the the data about your cell phone usage, it's the cell phone company's data,

you know, what you store in the cloud is considered the cloud as data, at least according to

to the Supreme Court, I disagree with that opinion, but that's the way the world works. So we it's

really comes back to us. If we want to be secure in our person's houses, papers and effects,

we must start by making sure that we secure our person's houses, papers and effects. It's why,

you know, my my accountant doesn't like the fact that I will not use an online accounting package.

I don't use an online accounting service because I don't want them handing over my data without

me knowing about it. You know, you use one of these services and they and you'll get a subpoena

from the FBI, no problem cause, no reasonable, artificial suspicion, just a subpoena. We're searching

for people for whatever reason and they'll hand it over in the court said that's fine because

you've trusted with the third party is now in their control, they can do it whatever they want.

These are all concerns that I have and it's again, things I think would benefit from a good

discussion about how do we update the fourth amendment to work in 21st century and how can we

the people be involved in making that, making that happen, making sure our rights are secure?

It's again, it's part of the reason why I keep going back to, you know, John Jay's quote,

every member of the state, a diligently to read instead of the cost note, Tushin, I was

gun of his country, teacher, I can generation be free by knowing their rights, those soon to perceive

when they're violated, it'd be the better prepared to defend and assert them. We want to know

on our rights are being violated and we want to be prepared so that we can make sure that we defend

them, that we assert them. It's an important part of being free. It's kind of scary at first but guess

what? When you do this, the liberty you feel, the freedom in your heart, but to me, it's absolutely

amazing. And I know most people are not going to go too far, they'll talk about it, but they will

not do that much. It's why I created the Patriots program at the Constitution study.

It's an invitation only program for people who are serious about the Constitution that want to

read and study and really get into the nitty-gritty, who want to communicate with others of like mine.

I want to know what other Patriot groups are doing that want to be able to do so without worrying

about sensors coming along and blocking your traffic, but also most importantly, people that are

ready at a moment's notice to come to the aid of others. You think about it. I've been asked to

go down to Florida to keynote a speech. That's wonderful. I love doing it, but what happens if they've

got an issue? Wouldn't it be cool if someone down there says, hey, you know what? I'm part of this

group and I know this guy that really knows this stuff. Maybe we can get in touch or maybe there's

a press conference or a committee hearing in a state legislature and they'd like experts to come

in and help explain the constitutional point of view. Wouldn't it be nice to have groups of people

that could do that? In a communications package where you could find out and share that information

without worrying about being shut down because some social media platform decides they don't like

the idea of liberty and freedom. As I said, this is invitation only. This is not your average

group. It's not trying to replace a Patriot group. It's trying to help those groups with some

resources. Now, if you want to find out more, go to constitutionstudy.com slash Patriots.

You can read them about the program, see the details and take the bootcamp. To get an invitation,

you have to start with the bootcamp. It's right out to one hour video and a test of it. Now,

if you'd like me to come deliver that class to you, I'd be more than happy if we can work out

the Travelling Logistics. But once you take the course of the bootcamp and you pass the test,

there's an oath I ask you to take. It's really meant to make sure there are people that are

serious. I'm going to join because I just like joining groups. I want people that are serious

about defending their rights and the rights of their neighbors. You do that. You'll get an invitation

to join us. And since we're still fairly young, you can help shape this program so that it can

be the most benefit to the most people, all with a standpoint of standing to support our constitution

against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, there are plenty of domestic enemies

against our constitution. So if you're interested again, go to constitutionstudy.com slash Patriots.

Read up about it. Take the bootcamp. The bootcamp is free. So even if you decide not to join,

the bootcamp will be helpful and be useful. Of course, I also hope you'll come back and

listen to us here at the Constitution Study every weekday for PM Eastern Time on America.

I allowed talk radio heard on the I Heart Radio Network. You can listen on our media player.

We've also got apps for Apple, Android and Alexa. You can also listen via podcast. Now, it does

take a day or two for an episode to go from talk radio to podcast. But you get to listen in your

favorite podcast app. Do me a favor though. Subscribe to the show. Leave us a rating, especially

on Apple Podcast. It helps the algorithm show us to more people. And hopefully they'll click the

link and join us here and become part of the Constitution Study. Speaking of links, you can find

all the links you need on the homepage at americaoutloud.news. But please share those links.

Share this content. Share the Constitution Study. By doing so, you're helping to share the

blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation. Oh, you need it.