Who holds the gavel accountable?

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.

The way most people exercise their right to petition the government for these grievances is through the courts. So keeping up on what the courts are doing is important.

Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution study where we read instead of the Constitution,

you know, I do spend a lot of time looking at what goes on in the courts. Now part of it is just the nature of the job. It's the the business here of what's going on often involves looking at what courts are doing because well the courts were decisions are made generally or at least supposedly based on the Constitution of the United States. I say supposedly because well, let's just say that's not always the case.

So I naturally kind of see what's going on in the courts and I want to bring that to you because there's there's some important information that comes out of these court decisions, even what cases the courts are looking at. So let's start with this.

The case is called Watson versus RNC and it's a dispute of challenging a Mississippi law allowing election officials to accept mail-in ballots up to five business days after election day so long as they are postmarked on reform the day of the contest.

This to me is interesting for several different reasons right because again we often talk about election day and there are some there's some beliefs about election day that not are not always accurate.

Now remember Congress does has generally I should say the states set the time place in manner for holding elections. However, Congress can modify those for dealing with but they can modify those but only for elections for House and Senate.

But Congress chooses the time of choosing presidential electors and the day on which they give their votes and those day that they shall be uniform throughout the United States.

So we have to understand that what we generally think of an election day, the actual ability of Congress to deal with these elections, the cost you says is limited.

Congress can set the time place in manner for elections in House and Senate and only in House and Senate. They determine the time of choosing electors and others when the the states legislators appoint the electors which nowadays is done based on the vote of the people of the state but that must be the same throughout the United States.

So this brings us to the situation in Mississippi. How do you define election day.

So again, Mississippi and there are several states have variations of this that say you were understanding that if the vote is cast by election day.

Then we can count it as long as it arrives within a few days afterwards. Some states say it's five days. Mississippi says it's five days.

I think some states go as far as two weeks. The point is as long as it's postmarked by election day, then the ballot was cast on election day.

This bothers some people because one they want. It's the instant coffee in the microwave generation. We want our answers now.

And how are we going to know our answers on election day. How are we going to get those nice updates on all the screens and all the TV stations and whatnot.

Well, if they can vote still arrive afterwards, which brings me to the question is election day, the day the votes are cast or is election day, the day the votes arrive.

And that to me is the fundamental question here. Now this, of course, this was challenged in the district court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

If you look at this and they said, no, the state is correct that Mississippi statute does not conflict with federal law because the ballot was cast by election day.

But again, this only really should apply to house Senate and choosing electors, but that's that's a, that's where things a little iffy. So hang on to that for a second.

Well, this was, of course, was sent to the circuit court, the fifth circuit, they disagree. They said, no, that the quote unquote federal election day statutes preamps Mississippi law because they say that apparently the election day is a day the ballot is received not the day the ballot is cast.

Again, interesting. I haven't looked at the details to see how they came to that decision, but, but that's their decision. And now this is sitting with the Supreme Court and it's going to be interesting, because like I said, it really comes down to well, how do you define election day.

Now, the fact that after COVID, we had such a dependent on mail-in ballots, that became problematic.

Or I should say the problem became more widespread, which has led to a lot of these challenges, and we'll just have to wait and see how the Supreme Court comes down on this particular question.

Whether or not election day is actually the day the ballot is cast, or the day the ballot is is received and recorded.

That to me is an interesting question, because again, really if you think about it, because the constitutionally this only matters for races for a House Senate and House and Senate actually, in fact the only real impact where I see this to be problematic is presidential electors.

You see, Congress sets a date when the president of lunchures must be appointed, and this is where things get a little tricky.

See, title three section one of the United States, US code says that the electors of president and vice president shall be appointed in each state on election day in accordance with the laws of the state enacted prior to election day.

So the state is supposed to appoint the presidential electors on election day.

Well, if they're accepting ballots that have been cast by election day, but haven't been having a ride for five days, then how do you appoint presidential electors if the votes haven't been counted yet?

This to me seems to be a problem, because again, and it's not just mail-in ballot, mail-in ballot, just maybe the one that we're talking about now, but think about this way.

How often have we had close elections, right? Go back to was it 2008 and you'll Florida and the hanging chads and the pregnant chads and the challenges and challenges, there is not sufficient time allowed by title three section one of the US code.

To allow for challenges and problems within the election.

So I think the US see one has a problem, and that is if the votes are cast on election day, and again, this only really matters for president.

House and Senate, okay, yes, you have to have the elections by election.

You know, the Congress can say this is the time election day.

All other elections, Congress has no real say, but you look at the number of times we've had close elections that weren't decided on election day.

Well, how do you appoint electors if the election hasn't been decided?

So again, this to me seems to be a problem in federal law in that there's not sufficient time.

And again, when this was originally passed, I think the prior version was passed in 1948.

I don't know if back then, you know, the states had popular votes for presidential electors.

Maybe it wasn't much of an issue. Maybe, you know, maybe everyone just voted on election day.

And the count was relatively easy in there.

There was not the opportunities or the requirements for these recounts and whatnot that we've seen in later elections.

But that to me is where we run into a problem.

It's not the mail-in ballots cause a problem, but again, it's only for a couple of elections.

It doesn't say we shouldn't deal with it, but we need to remember that Congress can only deal with election day for House Senate and the day that which in the day that the presidential electors are appointed.

Not the day you vote for them, the day the legislature appoints them.

But again, since there are a few people actually have bothered to learn how we actually elect a president, most people don't realize this.

Okay, another case, this one also coming out of Mississippi and involves a street preacher's challenge to his conviction for preaching outside of a designated protest area.

Apparently back in 2019, the city of Brandon, Mississippi passed an ordinance setting a designated protest area during live events at the amphitheater.

Now Oliver said he could hardly reach anyone with his message if he was forced to stay in the protest area.

For preaching outside of the protest area for violence, he was fine $304 and a year of probation, but here's where the interesting twist is.

You see, when he's first sued, I give it back in 2021, to block the enforcement of this rule, the lower court said that the street preacher, a Gabrielle Oliver, could not challenge the city's ordinance under the Supreme Court's 1994 Hecht versus Humphrey decision,

which prevents challenges when a judgment would necessary imply the validity of his conviction or sentence.

Now, I'm not entirely sure what Hecht versus Humphrey is dealing with. I'm not sure why this involved, because let's face it, if you were wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced, that should be challengeable.

But that's not the point here.

The twist is, Mr. Gabrielle is not looking to overturn his conviction or his sentence.

He's looking to make sure that this doesn't happen again. He is asking for an injunction, stopping city officials from enforcing this ordinance in the future.

Now, because of this, the Supreme Court said, yes, he can go ahead with his case. Here's the problem I see, though.

I don't see a problem with him, but it looks like he's making a challenge based on the first amendment.

And remember, the first amendment says, Congress shall make no law. Congress didn't make this law.

So this cannot violate the first amendment, something completely lost on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I know they say the 14th Amendment rewrote the first amendment so that it would apply to the States, except it did no such thing.

There's no language in there doing that. What this is is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

It is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

By the way, not only is this a civil case, but Mr. Oliver actually has a could file a criminal complaint because the officers of the city have deprived him of a right protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Not that I expect anybody to actually do that because if there's one thing I've noticed, most of the FBI, the US Attorney General, they don't actually look at cases based on Section 242, a Title 18, because you mean we might actually get in trouble for violating someone's rights?

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath if anybody did that, but this case is going forward. We'll see what happens with it.

Meanwhile, a House subcommittee is looking at ways to challenge a 1982 Supreme Court decision.

In the case, prior versus doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that barred illegal immigrant children from enrolling in public school and argued that these illegal immigrants were entitled to the benefit of public schools and many others under the 14th Amendment.

I'm not quite sure how they got there, but then again, this is the nine high priests and black robes who apparently cannot read and cannot understand the basic history of the basic language of the Constitution.

From which the 14th Amendment reads, no state shall make or enforce any law which elaborates or privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Nor should I state to provide any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor denied any person with jurisdiction, equal protection of the laws.

So it cannot be a privilege and immunities claim because that's reserved to citizens.

And you don't have a right to a state funded school if you're here illegally.

And again, equal protection, you're still dealing with a scenario. It's like the court simply made up this nonsense to say, you're here illegally.

You've committed a crime and you're supposed to be eligible for state funded benefits when you come here and commit a crime, the crime of coming here.

Now, according to, I think it was Chip Roy, who, not surprised, he's a representative of Texas, says that these public school enrollments have cost Texans almost $2 billion.

And it's cost to the United States $78 billion in total.

So Roy Subcommittee is looking at ways. How do we challenge this?

And hey, Mr. Roy, reach out to the Constitution study. I'll take a look. I didn't see what ideas I can hope to come up with the Constitution because I've already pointed out.

It can't be a privilege and immunities. And I'd have to look at the, at the, the, the, the prior, the prior versus the case to get more details on how the court came to this nonsense.

But I'd be willing to do that and, and, and you know, write up a paper, give you some advice at how you could actually challenge this.

I think it'd be a rather interesting exercise. But then again, I guess I'm weird that way.

So what do you think? Are these some good examples of, you know, try trying to see what's going on at the courts?

You know, what's going on there? What's Congress trying to do? Remember, Congress, with the exception of the Supreme Court, Congress created the inferior court.

So they have a lot of say over their jurisdiction. Kind of interesting. Now I've got some more stuff to cover.

But I do have a break coming up before I go, you know, I was talking before about how COVID was used to change our elections.

Well, COVID's still having an impact on our lives. You know, you've got long COVID. You've got a vaccine injury.

You've got shedding. And people are still being impacted by the, the, the toxic spike protein.

That's the, the part of COVID-19 that really gets you some inflammatory, the toxic part of the virus.

The part that these mRNA quote unquote vaccines taught your body how to make.

Is that sound crazy? Sound crazy to me. So what do you do?

Well, our friends at the wellness company have come up with a, an answer.

It's a revolutionary combination of ingredients designed to block and dissolve the spike protein.

Now, I'm not a virologist. I don't play one on TV, but this is backed by document of research.

And it's been vetted by the chief medical board of the wellness company.

Find out more. Go to americatloud.shop, look up the daily spike support panel, click the link and do your own research.

I want you to be an informed consumer. So you need to do your own research.

If you decide to give it a try, use the code out loud and check out and you'll get 20% off of your order.

So whether you're concerned about shedding or vaccine injury or just long COVID and you want to give it a try, go to americatloud.shop,

look up the daily spike support panel, do your own research, make sure it's what you're looking for.

And then when you're ready to check out, remember to use the code out loud to get 20% off of your order.

And by the way, share this with others who may have been suffering from some sort of vaccine injury or long COVID.

That's what I've done. Please do that as well.

This is Dr. Peter McCullough. You know me from americatloud, Pulse, and the McCullough Report.

While I'm inviting you to join me in Nashville, July 2nd, 3rd and 4th, for a truly historic experience in 2026.

America loud news, 250 slash 10, Nashville.

I'm calling all pages to be a part of this unforgettable weekend, packed with inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks,

and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom.

Together with you and our partners, Clear and the Wellness Company,

we'll celebrate two major milestones, 250 years of America and 10 years of America out loud news,

led by Malcolm out loud. I can't wait to see you there, because your presence matters and you are family.

So make history with me and Malcolm. Register now at americatloud.news,

that's americatloud.news, forward slash Nashville. We'll see you there.

One in three people will face cancer and most never see it coming.

I'm Dr. Kelly Victory with the Wellness Company and I know this personally.

I exercised daily, avoided processed foods, and had no symptoms when a routine mammogram resulted in a cancer diagnosis.

And modern medicine is often reactive instead of preventative.

That's why I formulated shield, a two-part system designed to support immune health and antioxidant defense.

A chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels, prevention is power.

Visit TWC.health slash out loud and use code out loud for an exclusive discount.

Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on 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, contained 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 bearbar.com slash out loud.

If you've got a mess, two-thirds of Americans suffer because of gastrointestinal issues and I was one of them.

That is why we created a three-step, doctor-formulated, completely natural gut reboot system that you can do at home in just minutes a day.

Go to chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud today, get the Malcolm Healthy Gut Bundle, reboot your gut, and your energy and save 20% on your first order.

Welcome back every day, Americans.

We've joined the Constitution.

Today we've been talking about what's been happening at the courts.

And let's take a little bit of a quick thing.

I talked to you before about the Scotus case, Mirabelli Bonta.

And it had to do with, well, parental rights and the fact that California law required anyone who worked at a school to not only hide from the parents,

the child's desire to transition, their gender disfigure, to hide a serious mental condition from the parents.

But also to encourage the child towards down that road of mental disturbance through the use of the child for pronouns, using all false names,

and all these things that the school was required to by law, and that they were prohibited from even giving the parent permission, even telling the parent what was going on.

And the Supreme Court said, no, that denies parents, they're right.

The children don't belong to the state.

They belong to the parents.

The parents guide their upgrading, bringing.

They said they have a liberty under the 14th Amendment to control the raising and upbringing of their children,

and that California was violating that.

And they basically said, no, bad California, bad, bad California.

Well, California took no time at all trying to, I don't know how to put this, they're trying to kind of narrow the scope.

They're trying to find a way of reading this that says, get know well, you know, we, we, I know you said no, but really maybe couldn't we under these circumstances?

I mean, literally just days after the decision came down, California filed an emergency motion trying to create what they called an abuse exception.

I guess they, they, they used vague language to go with an abuse exception.

But again, what is the abuse?

You're telling me that, you know, telling the parents what's going on in school is somehow preventing abuse.

It's a warped and twisted nonsense that goes on between the ears of California's political leadership.

And this claim that, you know, not actually treating a child's mental disorder as a mental disorder as being abusive is just an attempt to get around the Supreme Court decision.

And that's exactly what the Ninth Circuit found.

The Thomas Moore Society filed a, an opposition brief calling it and then round around the Supreme Court.

And the Ninth Circuit said, yeah, no, yeah, you're, you're just trying to get around the decision and basically declare that anybody that disagrees with the state is being abusive to their children when they do so.

So again, this is just California again, trying to manipulate the judicial system to allow them to treat parents as the evil enemy.

If they don't fully endorse this destructive harmful progressive nonsense that boys can become girls and girls can become boys.

And they tried and well, they failed in this round. Do you really think they won't try again?

I expect them to, but it's not only states that are abusing the judicial system.

Now, we all remember Carter Page, right? Trump's campaign advisor who was wiretapped by the FBI.

Well, according to a FBI agent, um, another gentleman, a wallied fares was electronically monitored for a year between 2017 and 2018.

And he was assigned to investigate this gentleman as part of Robert Mueller's.

Quite Russia probe, right? Now, right, Mr. Mueller's dead, but you had this whole nonsense of your Russia, Russia, Russia's all Russia's fault.

Now, what's interesting is in Carter Page's case, the FBI literally withheld evidence exonerating him as well as in the fares case, they did this from the court in order to get their warrant.

And this is part of the problem. See, the reason why the Fourth Amendment, the warrant clause is so specific, it must be based on probable cause supported by author affirmation and specifically identifying the places to be searched and the people are things to be seized.

Now, the reason why it's got to be probable cause, but it's got to be supported by author affirmation is you need someone under oath to make a testimony.

Cause if they lie under oath, that's a crime. So I have a question here. If the bureau withheld information is this was called a Brady violation.

Uh, uh, the Brady requirement is in court, you, the, the prosecution has to bring forth information that might be helpful to the defense.

I don't know that that's a judicial requirement under the, uh, under the warrant clause, but it certainly seems to be quite apropos.

If you're saying there's probable cause, but you have evidence that says that exonerates the person, meaning there is no probable cause.

Isn't that manipulating witness? Isn't that coming in? Isn't that lying to the court under oath when you say, well, here's my probable cause.

Oh, I know there's information exonerating witness, but I'm still coming to you with probable cause.

That seems to be at least lying to the courts. If not outright, uh, uh, uh, uh, perjury by providing false testimony.

So that to be seems to be a pretty big idea.

But that also leads me to another interesting twist, one that I haven't seen, uh, dedicated and really should.

See, during an interview with real court lawyer investigations, Mr. Ferris said, I had no idea any of this was happening.

This is shocking because they told my lawyer that I was only a witness and then they just needed some, and they just needed some information, meaning the FBI knowingly lied to Mr. Ferris.

Now here's to me the problem because the federal courts have determined that the FBI can lie to people, but it's a crime if people out of the FBI.

By the way, every state, I think, does the same thing with their state law enforcement.

It is a crime to lie in law enforcement, but they are, they're personally allowed to lie to you. That to me is not equal protection under the law.

That is not, uh, that's a way of depriving people without due process of law.

In other words, if you, if you have to lie to somebody to get information, you know, then if you've misled somebody to me, in fact, and to me, this is even worse.

We're saying, no, no, no, we're not investigating you.

We just need some information from you.

We're really investigating, but we're not going to tell you that is an issue that I think really needs to be investigated further because you're, you're, it's not simply the case.

Again, it creates a, a dramatic power imbalance because let's say, let's say you just misremember something, right?

You're being interviewed by the police. It's why, by the way, you have a right to remain silent and it's why almost every attorney I've ever talked to about it.

I've ever heard talk about this as keep your mouth shut, invoke your right to remain silent and then shut your mouth until you've converted a lawyer.

Because anything you say can be used against you and will be used against you in a court of law.

Even if you misremember something, they will spend it as lying. This is what I've heard from again, numerous, numerous lawyers.

According to reports, investigators could find nothing criminal on Mr. Fares during the program, nothing.

And in fact, according to the lead case agent, they concluded he was honest.

Yet Mr. Mueller's team continued to secretly spy on Mr. Fares without providing the, the, the, the, anything that the, the spy court, the, the FISA court, any of the expulpatory evidence that could have shown the Mr. Fares was, was cleared.

Evidence that is required by law. Still, let me ask you, who at the FBI is going to jail?

They've committed a federal crime, ladies and gentlemen. Among other things, they violated 18 USC section 242. And in fact, I'd go on to say they violated six and 241.

242 is when you are deprived of a right under color of law. 241 is when people conspired to deprive someone of a right under color of law.

Which certainly sounds like what happened here. So let me ask you, ladies and gentlemen, who is going to jail?

See, it's one thing to investigate. Hey, we think something's going on. We're going to do our investigation. But once they came out with no corroborating facts that Mr. Fares had done anything wrong.

Why did they continue to surveil him? Why do they continue to deprive him of his right under the fourth amendment to be secure from unreasonable searches?

Why did they continue to try to deprive him of his right under the fifth amendment to be, to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law? Why more importantly, why is known at the FBI actually being held accountable?

That to me is the big issue. It's this like this falsehood that says that the government can lie to you, but you can't lie to government. Uh-uh, that's not the way this works.

And the fact that the courts let this happen again show the corruption of our judicial system.

And when you see people within the FBI misleading a court lying to a court, sending a court down the Primrose Path in order to get the warrant that they want, ladies and gentlemen, that is to me more than a simple crime.

To me, that, that should be a, that should be, should be a felony. It should be punishable by at least a year in jail. And in fact, if you have the, the 241 statute, the conspiracy statute, that's punishable by a 500 up to 10 years in jail.

We're not talking about somebody that made a mistake. We're talking about people on Mueller's team that blatantly violated this man's rights that lied and misled a court.

And if we let that go without punishment, without accountability, what's the stopping from doing it in the future? Well, cash patrol wouldn't let anything like that go. Yeah, but he's not going to be FBI director forever.

If we let this, if there's no accountability, then there's no deterrent to do something like this in the future.

All right, let's head back to California where they got another bit of a Smackdown. It's California law 229 49.80.

Apparently, this law was attempt to regulate not just who could buy guns, but, but guns market, market it towards younger shooters.

It was about a 22 version of an AR 15, an AR 15 shoots a 223. If you're not familiar with firearms and lingo, a 22, a 22 versus a 223 sounds very similar, right?

0.22 versus 0.223, but the rounds are drastically different, right? 22 is a squirrel gun. It's something to use for small varments. It's often what people first learned to shoot the first gun. I learned to show them was a 22 very small round, very low power.

As opposed to a 223, which is a high power center fire rifle and can be used even for medium size game, but the thing is I used to have a 22 that let look not exactly like an AR 15, but it has that same type of look and that is what California was going after claiming that these were marketing that they were marketing firearms to children.

This is their attempt to get around, you know, Supreme Court decisions about the right to keep them firearms. Now again, if you are a youthful shooter, if you're a younger shooter, it's an excellent gun for that, right? It's again low power, not a lot of kick, not a lot of recoil, but it looks cool and it's a great gun to learn on.

In fact, when I teach people to shoot the first guns, they handle our 22s. That's what the design for, but the thing it looks scary. And that's really where California seemed to get all bent out of shape. How dare you have a scary looking gun.

And that apparently just got shot down by the, I think it was a ninth circuit shot this one down.

No, no, sorry, it was the, it was a district for the Central District Columbia. They said it's hereby declared the section 22949.80 in its entirely violates the first member of the United States Constitution on its face and has applied to plaintiffs.

So they're saying, listen, you're suppressing speech. I can't violate the first amendment because Congress didn't make this law, but again, we're dealing with courts who apparently can actually read the Constitution.

They also currently enjoined the defendant, Rob Bonta, the Attorney General, from enforcing this law. The Attorney General is directed to issue and alert through an information billing, letting everybody know all the district attorneys, all the city council, all the city attorneys that they cannot enforce this particular law.

But they went even a little bit further because they went after apparently these, these gun ads and in gun magazines as their target is their attempt to get around it.

And the Attorney General was not only ordered to point pay attorneys fees for the Fire on Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, but Gavin Newsom, who pushed the law and the state of California is going to pay one, almost 1.4 million.

$1 million in fees for this violation of the Constitution. I get out of the issue with the first amendment because Congress didn't make this law, but it certainly does violate the Second Amendment and California is getting a bit of a pushback, which I don't know, it just sounds like a good idea to me.

And of course, the people that brought the suit are getting some funding, the Second Amendment Foundation on Samir, the Fire on Policy Council, not so much. But gee, you know, these organizations could use some funding because the other side gets a lot of funding. A lot of the times the corporations we do business with are funding these agencies, these groups that are attacking our rights.

It's why I joined Patreon Mobile years ago. I wanted to buy from a company that believed what I believed. I didn't want to buy from a company that's supporting things that I dislike or I disagree with.

Patreon Mobile is America's only Christian and services wireless provider. They've got great 4G and 5G coverage and all the same networks and towers that the major carriers use, and their customer support is 100% US-based.

But as I said, I joined them because they take a portion of every dollar to support organizations that are fighting to protect your rights. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of keeping bare arms, freedom of security from unresolved searches and seizures and to not be deprived of life-limited property will not do process of law.

Squish to Patreon Mobile today, get your new land activate absolutely free by using the code Constitution to check out, and you're also help support these organizations, including the Constitution study, simply by paying your cell phone bill.

Just go to Patreon Mobile.com says Constitution, find a plan that works for you, see if you're eligible for a discount. Everyone from first responders and veterans to families with multiple lines can get a discount.

And don't forget that promo code Constitution to check out to get your new land activate absolutely free.

Support those who are supporting your rights by going to Patreon Mobile.com says Constitution, signing up today, and remember to use that code Constitution to check out to get your new land 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 on the website.

But because we live in the information age, we have access to more information than our founding fathers could have ever imagined.

And the corporate media has been found out lying to us. So we need to find stuff for ourselves. How do we do that?

Well, one place to go is America out loud.News because it's a place you can trust, but also verify.

And then I want you to do your part. It's one thing to go there and gather information, but I want you to share it.

Yes, read the stories and articles, but share them. You'll be surprised how many people say, I never knew this was happening.

Listen to the podcast, share the videos, and let other people know what's really going on. See, it's by doing this work, but I'm just finding out the news by sharing with other people that we help secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.

You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands. What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe.

Air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear. No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.

Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.

Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is x-l-e-a-r.com.

I'm Doug Evans, author of The Sprout Book, and I've devoted my life to helping people reconnect with food at its most alive stage, The Sprout.

When you germinate a seed, you're not just growing food, you're activating potential.

Sprouts grow without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer right on your kitchen countertop. They're organic, fresh, and cost less than a dollar serving.

Its nature's fastest form of farming accessible to anyone, anywhere. Discover the joy of growing your own food and the power of living nutrition.

Visit TheSproutingCombie.com and use the code Out Loud for an exclusive offer.

Welcome back everybody, Americans, you'll be joined the Constitution study, and that we've been talking about what's going on in the courts.

And we left off with California getting smackdown for attempting to ban a junior version of the AR-15 through a not saying that's going to itself is a problem,

but because it was advertised, it was marketed to the youth shooter, which, well, hey, as long as it's legal, shouldn't they have access to guns as well?

Well, let's stay out in California because one of the things they have is they prohibit switchblade knives.

A case was filed and actually heard first and district court, then in the knife circuit court of appeals, in the case knife rights ink versus banta, which challenges the the ban on switchblade knives.

The attorney for knife rights ink says the record is clear switch blades are unquestionably protected by the second amendment.

The state entirely failed to present any evidence that switch blades are not in common use, or that they are dangerous or unusual.

We hope the Ninth Circuit will fully apply the proper standards demanded by the Supreme Court and ruling our favor.

A three judge panel said, no, California can have this law.

It's being requested to be heard by the unbunked by the entire court.

But I want you to consider this so that we often talk about the second amendment relating to firearms, but it says the right to need to bear arms shall not be in print.

And arms, at least back in the 18th century, were defined as weapons for office, offense and arm and armor for defense.

Now, a switchblade is a knife and a knife is certainly a weapon for offense and could be used for defense.

It is therefore in arm, therefore it is obviously protected by the second amendment.

Again, we were dealing with courts and judges seem to have this inability to read the Constitution.

They focus on what previous courts have said this theory of case law, which is not law.

At least not the federal level, right, because the Constitution says that says all of lawmaking power, all legislative powers vested in Congress, not the courts.

So when the courts pay attention to what other courts say rather than the actual law, they're actually acting in bad behavior, which is a violation of their oath of office and a violation of their term of office.

So I want to keep an eye on this, not because I've every, you know, not a huge fan of switchblade knives, but I do have knives and I carry knives because there are times when you need a knife.

And why should the state tell us you can't have this weapon because we don't like them, we think they are scary.

But again, it so often comes down to the judges and, you know, in at the federal level, judges are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, meaning who we, who the states choose as a president has a long term history.

Their, their impact on the country goes on for as long as their judges are on the court.

Here's a perfect example, US district judge Susan Nelson, who was appointed by Obama.

Well, she ordered the release of a four time deported MS-13 gang member with quite a colorful history, including rape.

So not only has this guy been deported four times.

All right, four times. He is still here illegally. He has a convicted sense sex offender and a silent under federal law.

And yet this judge says, oh yeah, yeah, let's let's let's let them go.

Let's release some items. He's supposed to show up later to get deported. I'm not quite sure what's going on here.

But according to a Lauren Biss, she's the acting assistant secretary, I think of Department of Homeland Security.

She said the releasing violent criminals is inexcusably reckless.

And now this criminal will be able to perpetrate more crimes against innocent Americans.

And to me, this is again, this isn't this is what's described as an activist judge.

By all means, this person should not only be detained, they should be detained only long enough to put them on a plane back to El Salvador.

They should either be removed in this country or incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives.

But this judge says, no, no, we have to let him go. And I'm curious what the logic for this person for this judge is.

I mean, again, it's not like you're talking about something that oh, they were caught up in an ice sweep and this is this is someone's grandma.

And there's a no. This man is it has already been deported four times.

Maybe deportation just doesn't work. How about you just lock him in the slamer for a while.

He has a criminal record for both rape and assault.

And her solution is to let this person into the public.

Maybe hoping he shows up for a later court date. I have no idea what the logic behind this could possibly be.

But there you go. Again, this is a judge making this decision. And I believe in no way following the law.

And again, we've talked a lot about people where you're dealing with government actors. How about one that's not a government actor.

So there is a case in federal court that if in the state of Tennessee, three people, two of whom are minors, have sued X AI.

Well, claiming that it knowing that that X knowingly designed their AI, the GROC, their large language model to their image generated to create people using sexually explicit content using real photos of others.

Meaning you take an innocent photo of a person. And according to them, you can stick this into GROC. Right. You can can upload it and tag it and then go to GROC and say, Hey, make a image of this person in some and some sort of fashion.

Right. Show this person as a cowboy or show this person as a as a sailor or show this person, you know, digging a grave. Well, apparently one of the things they allow to do is to show them and sexually explicit images.

The lawsuit was actually filed in San Jose, California, because that's where X AI is based. And they're seeking class action status, meaning they want to represent any person who was reasonably identifiable in these sexualized images or videos generated by GROC based on real images of them.

Just imagine imagine you your wife and someone takes a birthday photo and then someone takes it and turns it into something, you know, suitable for playboy or penthouse and posted on the internet.

But yet, imagine your son or daughter, some picture they post on Facebook and some little pervert turns it into a sexually explicit image. And then that gets posted on the internet because guess what? What's on the internet?

Never really disappears. Oh, yeah, you can delete the photo, but it never really disappears. There are archives of it that live forever. Now, this group of people are looking for obviously looking for damages. They haven't specified what they're looking for yet. They want their legal fees, but what do they want?

An injunction, a permanent junction require X AI to stop making these images to stop creating sexualized images of people. I believe without even their consent.

So again, consent is a big deal, right? I would certainly be very unhappy if I were to find that someone took pictures of my wife or my daughter and turn them into pornography, sexualized images and then posted them on the internet.

People went crazy when people who were taking, well, let's just say pornographic images of their lovers. And then when they broke up, they would put them on the internet in order to get back at their former boyfriend or girlfriend.

Imagine not even having to have done anything to simply have a computer generate a false image that looks exactly like you of something you never did. Imagine trying to explain yourself, you know, you're a young person applying to college and they look at your social media and they discover these images and they have to question, well, how do we know this isn't real?

How do we? Or as I said, imagine, you know, you got some pervert out there who collects all of these pictures for his own little, you know, child pornography site. And you didn't, this never actually happened, but again, a spouse, a son, a daughter is suddenly found through, again, through no actions of their own. They didn't do anything. This is a made up image of them.

And I think the people that are doing this are really should be prosecuted as well. But they're asking X to shut it down. Again, because you're making the sexualized images.

But I have no one who's going after the people that are that are making the request, you know, X didn't actually have rocked and you suddenly wake up one morning and say, you know what, I'm going to make pornography of random people images, I see on the internet.

Someone is asking the system to do this. Are they being held accountable for generating pornography. And in some cases, I imagine child pornography.

To making images of somebody without their consent, you know, when I put on an event, if I record the event, I have to get, I have to get a release from people, if I want their, their, their likeness to appear in, in a video.

But now they're saying, well, rock can make it because rock made it. Well, they, you know, rock holds a copyright or X holds a copyright, not the person whose image was stolen to make it.

There are a lot of issues behind this. And I think it's going to be a fairly long and involved case. I don't expect this one's going to go away anytime soon. I fully expected to see it at the Supreme Court. It may take as many as two to three years.

But I expected to be there. And of course, I'll cover it when it gets there.

But I want you to remember, see, we live in a litigious society. And what happens in courts is the main reason is the main way people seek a redress for agreements.

I have a grievance against somebody. This group has a grievance against rock. People had a grievance against California's laws. People had a grievance against you, you name it. And what did they do? They went to court.

Right? The Mississippi Street preacher had a grievance and he sued. He went to court. He petitioned the government for a redress of that grievance.

What about the rest of us? What are you going to do when these court decisions are being made not based on the law, not based on the Constitution, but simply based on a judge's win.

When a judge says, hey, yeah, I know, sure, you know, they've entered this country illegally multiple times. They've been convicted of rape and all these terrible, but we got a lot of them walk until what until some court case and hope they show up.

Aren't they the definition of a dangerous society? Isn't that why we denied bail because someone is too dangerous to be allowed out during the preparation for their trial? It's crazy.

And at the federal level, judges are held accountable, not directly by the people, but by the people's representatives in Congress.

So let me ask you, where are those members of Congress looking at the actions of these judges and saying, you know what, that's not good behavior.

Therefore, you don't have the right to be a judge anymore. Article three, section one, the judges are both the Supreme and Fear courts shall hold their offices during good behavior.

These about time you remind our representatives in the house that is their job to oversee the judges and when their behavior is not good to hold them accountable by impeachment.

And then remind our senators that we now hire. Hey, remember, if they acted badly, is their job is your job to make sure they're removed.

See, isn't always how he coming back to we the people, we the people, the opening three words of the concept, we the people.

According to the preamble, we are getting an established constitution. It's our job. We are the sovereign in this country and we have to hold our employees in government accountable.

Now, this year's ladies and gentlemen, it's the semi quintentennial. It's a 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence. And I think it's a great opportunity to celebrate.

So what do you do? Oh, obviously, I would say we should all sit down and read the declaration of independence. Not that hard. It's not that long.

But you know what else to be good reading and starting the constitution.

Those are two documents. I think we should take this you to dedicate. They were going to read them. We're going to study them.

And we're going to figure out how to apply them to our lives today.

You know, Ronald Reagan said freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. And based on what I've seen over the last few years, this may be that generation.

But it doesn't have to be. We can learn our rights by reading and starting the constitution. We can recognize when they're violated and be that better prepared to defend a certain.

And since the declaration identified the problems we had, the grievances we had against the king of England, the infringements on our rights.

What better way to start than by taking this 250th anniversary said, I'm going to read instead of the declaration.

So I know what they were complaining about because guess what?

When I look at Washington DC, each and every one of those 27 grievances, I can make the same claim against some some group in Washington DC.

So please, join me. Pick up a copy of the record. Find it online. Absolutely free. Read it, study it. No, by the way, if you have questions about it, you can always go to constitutionstudy.com.

I'll ask questions and ask. I'll answer any question I can. That's there. But we need to be prepared. We need to read and study.

And I think the best place to start, especially on this 250th anniversary is by reading the declaration of independence, giving a good study, go through those 27 grievances, ask yourself, hey, can I charge us against the federal government?

And then get to the end. Those powerful words. I love these words. When they, the, the signers of the declaration said in support of this declaration, we mutually pledge each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

I hope you come back and join us here for the Constitution Study on America. I'll talk radio, heard in the I heart radio network every weekday at 4 p.m. Eastern time.

You can listen on our media player. We also have after Apple, Android, and Alexa. And of course, you can always 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.

Just do me a favor. Subscribe to the show. Leave us a rating, especially on Apple podcast. It helps the algorithm show the Constitution Study to more people. And of course, the more people to see it, they're likely to click the link.

And join us here. Now, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at AmericaOutloud.News, but please share those links, share this program, and share the blessings of liberty to everybody.

Everyone who calls this great nation, home.