Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Presidential power faces major tests at the Supreme Court

Transcript

Presidential power faces major tests at the Supreme Court · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:11
  Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
• 0:15
  This is the Constitution Study on the America Out Loud Network with your host, Paul Engel.
• 0:31
  President Trump has taken quite a few controversial actions lately.
• 0:35
  Some of them are currently before the Supreme Court.
• 0:39
  I think it's worth taking a look at them.
• 0:42
  Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution, teacherizing generation be free.
• 0:49
  I'm glad you could join me today.
• 0:51
  Again, I do a lot following Supreme Court cases, oral arguments, uh decisions.
• 0:57
  And so yeah, it shouldn't be a surprise that several of these cases involving the powers of the president are in different states, different stages of review at the Supreme Court.
• 1:08
  So I want to take a look at some of them just to kind of see, get a look and feel and see what may be coming down shortly.
• 1:15
  Now I'm going to start with one I just recently wrote an article.
• 1:18
  It'll be published soon.
• 1:20
  And it has to do with the question of tariffs.
• 1:23
  Oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court, so we probably won't hear a decision until, oh, I'd say mid to late June, it'd be my expectation.
• 1:32
  But you never know.
• 1:34
  So here's the question.
• 1:35
  Does the president have the power to impose tariffs?
• 1:40
  Now, what is a tariff?
• 1:41
  Well, according to the free legal dictionary, a tariff is a list of items upon which a duty is imposed when they are imported into the United States, together with the rates at which such articles are taxed.
• 1:53
  So a tariff is a tax.
• 1:56
  It's a here's what we're going to put duties on, here are the duty rates.
• 2:00
  That duty is a tax.
• 2:03
  Now, the President Trump claims that he has the power under what's known as AIPA, the uh International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
• 2:12
  From there, we read that at times, and that to the extent it's specified in section 1701 of this title, the president may, under such regulations as he may prescribe by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit any transaction in foreign exchange.
• 2:29
  Uh, it goes on to include uh transfers of credit and importing or exporting currency.
• 2:35
  Now, here's where the question is.
• 2:37
  The the government, the president argues that that power to regulate must include the power to enact tariffs, even though it doesn't say that.
• 2:47
  Now again, I listened to the oral arguments.
• 2:49
  I actually been writing an article, I'm finishing up an article on this, and um there were a couple of of well, to me, interesting points.
• 3:01
  Now, the uh Solicitor General John uh Sauer, uh he argued for President Trump for the government.
• 3:10
  And one of the points he made is that uh he said on April 2nd, President Trump determined that the exploding trade deficit has brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe.
• 3:21
  He further pronounces that the traffic of fentanyl and other opioids into our country has created a public health crisis, taking hundreds of thousands of American lives.
• 3:30
  Well, gee, isn't that nice?
• 3:32
  I mean, uh, okay, yeah, uh trade deficits are problems.
• 3:36
  Uh opioid imports problems.
• 3:38
  Why is it suddenly an emergency?
• 3:42
  See, part of AIPA is that there has to be something unusual, extraordinary in order to uh enact an EPA.
• 3:53
  But the trade in opioids have been going on for decades, the trade balance are going on for decades.
• 3:58
  I'm not quite sure, you know, why suddenly this one is different.
• 4:03
  Now, listening to all the arguments, it really comes down to uh a question of two uh courts, the doctrines, court you know, procedures, not actual law.
• 4:16
  The discussion really comes down to what's called the major questions doctrine and the non-delegation doctrine.
• 4:22
  Now, the major questions doctrine basically says that um when uh uh that federal uh executive agencies cannot enact major policies without the approval of Congress.
• 4:36
  The funny part is nothing defines what makes a major policy change.
• 4:42
  Now, again, the the the government claims that well, this isn't a major uh questions doctrine because the power comes from law, not from an executive agency.
• 4:53
  And they have a point there.
• 4:56
  But in this discussion, another point was brought up uh in a question by uh Justice Thomas that I want to focus on.
• 5:04
  Would you spend a few minutes uh on why exactly the major question uh doctrine doesn't apply to the president in this case?
• 5:13
  Uh yes, Justice Thomas, and I may make two or three points on that front.
• 5:17
  First of all, uh uh, though the major questions doctrine may apply to the president in other contexts, specifically in the foreign affairs context where he has his own inherent article to authority.
• 5:27
  You said wait a second, there's no authority given to the president under Article II that involves foreign affairs, at least not the well, let me phrase that.
• 5:35
  There's one authority that uh president has in foreign affairs.
• 5:40
  That's to receive um foreign diplomats, ambassadors, public ministers.
• 5:46
  That's it.
• 5:47
  When it comes to actually executing foreign affairs, the president has no article two authority.
• 5:52
  Uh sure, he can sign treaties, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate.
• 5:56
  Um, it is Congress that deals with foreign commerce.
• 6:00
  It's commerce that deals with issues of international law and war.
• 6:04
  Um, the president doesn't have inherent Article II uh uh foreign affairs authority.
• 6:10
  And that's by the way, that's a statement that's repeated over and over again by multiple justices.
• 6:16
  And in fact, uh later, uh, while questioning from Justice Kagan, Mr.
• 6:21
  Sauer would once again say that the president has broad authority in the foreign affairs realm.
• 6:26
  But that is not true.
• 6:28
  That is, well, ladies and gentlemen, it's what we like to call a lie.
• 6:32
  But it's this myth, this belief that the president conducts foreign affairs, which is illegal, that I think is led in part to this belief that the president can impose tariffs.
• 6:44
  But let's take a look next at the non-delegation doctrine.
• 6:48
  This is, again, created by courts, but it basically says that that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to another branch.
• 6:56
  Uh, by the way, I find that to be entirely constitutional, even if it is a doctrine established by courts.
• 7:02
  But it did turn into a uh well, an interesting uh back and forth between uh Solicitor General Sauer and uh Justice Gorsuch.
• 7:12
  I want to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books, more or less.
• 7:25
  What would what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the president?
• 7:35
  We don't contend that he could do that.
• 7:37
  Why not?
• 7:38
  Well, because we're dealing with a statute again that has a whole I'm not asking about the statute.
• 7:42
  General, I'm not asking about the statute.
• 7:44
  I'm asking for your theory of the Constitution and why the major questions and non-delegation, what bite it would have in that case.
• 7:51
  I would say by then you had moved from the area where there's enormous deference to the president.
• 7:55
  Actually, both the political branches were here, there's inherent authority and pile on top of that, there's a broad delegation.
• 8:00
  You're saying there's inherent authority in foreign affairs, all foreign affairs.
• 8:04
  So regulate commerce duties and tariffs and war.
• 8:09
  It's inherent authority all the way down, you say.
• 8:12
  Fine.
• 8:12
  Congress decides tomorrow.
• 8:14
  Well, we're tired of this legislating business.
• 8:16
  We're just gonna hand it all off to the president.
• 8:19
  What would stop Congress from doing that?
• 8:22
  Okay, interesting question, at least from my standpoint is an interesting question, because whether they call it the major questions doctrine, the non-delegation doctrine, really, my question is well, it starts the fact that there is no inherent foreign affairs power delegated to the president.
• 8:41
  It doesn't exist.
• 8:43
  So if if Congress can simply take their legislative power, in this case the power to tax, and say, oh no, we're gonna give that to the president.
• 8:52
  Um what's to prevent them from giving everything to the president and the president simply becoming a king?
• 8:58
  Uh I don't think General Sauer had a very good answer to that.
• 9:02
  But I think the core question that the court needed to deal with is this question of does the power to regulate include the power to tax?
• 9:13
  And this is where uh this is a quote, this is General Sauer.
• 9:17
  I want to make a very important distinction here.
• 9:19
  We don't contend that what's being exercised here is the power to tax.
• 9:22
  It's the power to regulate foreign commerce.
• 9:25
  These are regulatory tariffs.
• 9:26
  They are not revenue-raising tariffs.
• 9:28
  The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.
• 9:31
  That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've heard the general say.
• 9:34
  Because the definition of a tariff is the list of items to be have duties and the rate at which they are to be taxed.
• 9:42
  A duty is a tax, and that power specifically delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution.
• 9:50
  And and Justice Sotomayor made this point as well.
• 9:55
  I just don't understand this argument.
• 9:58
  Um, it's not an article.
• 10:00
  It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax.
• 10:04
  And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are.
• 10:09
  Degenerating money from American citizens' revenue.
• 10:12
  And you say it's incidental to the regulatory purpose.
• 10:17
  But I don't see how a quota is equivalent to revenue raising.
• 10:23
  A quota sets a limit to what you can import in, but it doesn't generate revenue.
• 10:29
  That's the point.
• 10:30
  The difference between regulating, you could regulate with a quota.
• 10:34
  Tariffs are taxes by definition.
• 10:37
  They take money, they generate money from American citizens.
• 10:42
  They take there there are a tax.
• 10:44
  And put whatever flowerly language you want, doesn't change the fact.
• 10:49
  And in fact, Justice Sotomayor went on when she was uh uh questioning uh Mr.
• 10:56
  Guttman, the solicitor general for Oregon, and he was arguing on behalf of the states that are parties to this lawsuit.
• 11:05
  I think what we're forgetting here is a very fundamental point, which is the Constitution is structured so that if I'm going to be asked to pay for something as a citizen, that it's through a bill that is generated through Congress, and the president has the power to veto it or not, but I'm not going to be taxed unless both houses.
• 11:29
  The executive and the legislature have made that choice, correct?
• 11:33
  That's exactly right.
• 11:34
  So and so there is something, it's not just the taxing power qua taxing power.
• 11:40
  The question is: do we permit the president to use the taxing power to affect his personal choices of what is good policy for me to pay for?
• 11:54
  Again, a fundamental question, a fundamental point.
• 11:57
  The Constitution vests vests taxing power solely with Congress.
• 12:04
  There must be a bill.
• 12:05
  By the way, if it's for raising revenue, it must originate in the House of Representatives.
• 12:09
  It must be passed by both houses.
• 12:12
  It must either be vetoed by the president or I guess signed by the president, or he leaves it unsigned and it's treated and signed if he leaves it alone for 10 days.
• 12:21
  The point is it's Congress.
• 12:23
  It's the representatives of the people and the states that come up with these taxes.
• 12:27
  Where do we get the idea that we should just hand that over to the president to use for what he believes is the best policy?
• 12:35
  Now, I'm not making a statement about whether or not uh Trump's policies are good or not.
• 12:40
  It's simply a question: does he have the legal authority to impose tariffs, which are by definition taxes?
• 12:48
  Now, one of the things I didn't get into in the article was the question: well, what happens if the courts find these these tariffs unconstitutional and the government has to run them back?
• 12:59
  And a lot of people saying, Oh, you you can't do that, they've done so much good.
• 13:03
  Yeah, but you know what?
• 13:05
  A criminal can do good by committing crimes too, can't they?
• 13:08
  Does that mean they go unpunished?
• 13:10
  I mean, that's kind of the point.
• 13:12
  Do we let them go through, even though they're illegal, because it'd be hard for us to fix the problem that we've made.
• 13:18
  Then where's the incentive to not do that in the first place, to not uh create problems by simply ignoring your oath of office?
• 13:28
  So again, this these are just oral arguments.
• 13:31
  Um you go to my website, constitutional.com.
• 13:34
  Um, that'll also be on America Outloud.news.
• 13:38
  I'll talk more about this as I publish it.
• 13:40
  I'm still going through some of the final edits and whatnot, but I think it's an interesting thing, and we'll have to wait and see what the court actually decides.
• 13:49
  I try not to prognosticate too much because let's face it, I don't have a crystal ball.
• 13:54
  I don't see any of the future.
• 13:55
  Uh, I tend to agree with some of the pundits that say I think the court was leaning against the president in this case.
• 14:02
  But again, that could just be their, you know, uh, you know, devil's advocate activity.
• 14:08
  How they ask the questions may not show as much as what they think, as in trying to flesh out the other side of the argument.
• 14:14
  So we'll have to wait and see.
• 14:16
  Again, I don't expect it much before.
• 14:19
  Oh, like I said, mid to late June, simply because that's when the court tends to release its more interesting uh and and uh, well, consequential decisions towards the end when uh um, you know, they can they can release their decision and then get out of town for a couple of months.
• 14:41
  So we'll wait and see.
• 14:42
  And when when the decision comes down, I'll go into it, I'll research it, and I'll talk about it here, as well as uh probably write an article for it uh for uh for the website.
• 14:52
  But that's where we're dealing with tariffs.
• 14:55
  I took time on that because I've been going into the oral arguments.
• 14:59
  I have some more examples or some more cases, but uh before I get to those, I have to take a break.
• 15:06
  Now, thankfully, blessedly, I generally sleep pretty well.
• 15:11
  Uh I was loving people say, I slept like a baby.
• 15:13
  Really, you're up every couple hours and messing your diapers.
• 15:16
  No, I sleep pretty well, but there are occasions when I have a hard time falling to sheep.
• 15:21
  The mind won't relax, the mind won't shut down.
• 15:23
  Now, sure, I could reach for pharmaceuticals.
• 15:26
  I could reach for hormones like melatonin.
• 15:30
  But they can cause problems with some people.
• 15:32
  They can cause disruptions to your sleep sleep wake cycle.
• 15:36
  They can lead to some dependencies.
• 15:38
  So when I have a hard time falling asleep, I reach for restful sleep from the wellness company.
• 15:43
  It uses natural ingredients to calm the mind and reduce stress for a better, more restful night's sleep without the use of hormones or pharmaceuticals.
• 15:52
  Uh it includes things like, you know, passion flower, chamomile, uh, even Valerian root.
• 15:58
  And again, for me, it works really, really well.
• 16:01
  It's also backed by documentary research.
• 16:03
  It's vetted by the chief medical board of the wellness company.
• 16:05
  But I want you to be an informed consumer.
• 16:08
  So please go to AmericaOutloud.shop, look up the restful sleep uh panel, and click it.
• 16:14
  Read up about it, see what's included, see what's involved, see the testimonials, do your own research.
• 16:20
  And then when you're ready to buy, well, if you use a code out loud at checkout, you'll get 20% off of your order, which is not a bad deal.
• 16:28
  But it all starts by going to AmericaOut Loud.shop, looking up the restful sleep panel, doing your own research, and then don't forget to use the code out loud at checkout to get 20% off of your order.
• 16:40
  If you want a good night's sleep without hormones and drugs, I recommend restful sleep from the wellness company.
• 16:47
  They're a great partner, they've got some great products, and I think that code out loud to get 20% off of your order is a pretty good deal.
• 17:02
  We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth, and washing our nose.
• 17:07
  Well, wait, we wash our nose.
• 17:10
  Yes, the number one place where bacteria, viruses, and pollen enter the body is through the nose.
• 17:15
  So the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day.
• 17:18
  That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses, and irritants to get into your nose and make you sick.
• 17:25
  For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear.
• 17:29
  That is clear, X-L-E-A-R.
• 17:32
  Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose.
• 17:44
  Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway, and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong.
• 17:52
  Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com.
• 17:55
  That's XLEAR.com.
• 17:57
  Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe.
• 18:00
  Pick up a bottle for you and your family today.
• 18:02
  Feeling run down, foggy, or constantly drained.
• 18:05
  Your body might be lacking the support it needs at the cellular level.
• 18:09
  Recharge from the wellness company is a doctor-formulated supplement designed to restore your energy, focus, and immune function.
• 18:16
  It features the first ever combination of methylene blue and urolithin A.
• 18:21
  Clinically studied ingredients that support mitochondrial health, boosts cellular repair, and enhance cognitive performance.
• 18:28
  With added NAD3, COQ10 and PQQ, recharge is the daily solution for deep lasting energy, not just a temporary boost.
• 18:39
  Visit TWC.
• 18:46
  Power up your body and mind with recharge.
• 18:49
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.
• 18:51
  I want to share something that's powerful.
• 18:53
  You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop.
• 18:57
  Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days.
• 19:04
  No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer, just seeds, water, for under a dollar a serving, you can grow nutrient-dense packed greens anywhere.
• 19:15
  City apartments, dorm rooms, off-the-grid cabins.
• 19:18
  In a time when food prices are rising, sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind.
• 19:24
  Join the self-reliance revolution.
• 19:26
  Go to the sprouting company.com slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.
• 19:36
  Well, only when the government vows to the people will America become great again.
• 19:44
  Join me in pushing back against censorship, my fellow Americans.
• 19:49
  Right at the top of America Outlaw.
• 19:53
  Many voices, one freedom.
• 19:56
  United in the First Amendment.
• 20:01
  Now is our time, my fellow Americans.
• 20:05
  America outmaud news, liberty and justice for all.
• 20:17
  Welcome back, everyday Americans you rejoin the Constitution study today.
• 20:21
  We're taking a look at the presidential power that is being decided at Sakotis at the Supreme Court.
• 20:27
  We've already talked about the power of tariffs.
• 20:29
  There's another oral argument that I'm going to get into later.
• 20:32
  I haven't dug into it really yet, but this deals with the ability of Trump to remove a Federal Trade Commission commissioner.
• 20:40
  But it's really the there's a deeper question, and that is the power of the president to control the executive branch.
• 20:47
  And actually, what should be at question here is whether or not there is such a thing as an independent agency.
• 20:54
  See, the claim is that Trump couldn't fire this FTC commissioner because the Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency and under the peer view of the president.
• 21:02
  There's just one problem.
• 21:04
  That's legally wrong.
• 21:06
  See, now Congress may claim to create an agency that's outside the executive branch, but the Constitution doesn't give them that authority.
• 21:13
  So they really have a question.
• 21:15
  Either the Federal Trade Commission is a legal agency and it's under the branch of the executive branch and therefore under the president of the United States, or as I contend, the Federal Trade Commission is not a constitutional agency, either because they tried to create it outside of a constitutional authority, or because the idea of uh the Federal Trade Commission is used not simply to deal with international and interstate commerce, therefore it isn't exercising a power delegated to the government to the United States, therefore, Congress didn't have the legal authority to create the Federal Trade Commission.
• 21:48
  So I guess it's kind of a little win on both of them outside.
• 21:51
  But they they they heard oral arguments, but I wanted to spend some time um before I get into the review of the actual arguments, which I'll probably do in a couple of weeks, to stop and consider this question of they they call it the the uh uh unitary executive theory.
• 22:11
  Again, it's not a theory.
• 22:13
  Article 2, section one of the constitution vests all executive power in the present of the United States.
• 22:20
  It doesn't invest in some executive branch, it invests all executive power in the president of the United States.
• 22:29
  That is a unitary executive.
• 22:32
  It's other theories that have theories and and don't uh uh stand up.
• 22:39
  Now, this actually goes back to a 90-year-old case, Humphrey's executive versus United States.
• 22:45
  And this is where a unanimous court said, well, listen, if the agency only exercises quasi-legislative or quasi judicial powers, well, they can receive extra protections from Congress.
• 22:56
  There's just one tiny little itty-bitty problem.
• 22:59
  The Constitution doesn't authorize that.
• 23:02
  And contrary to popular opinion, the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Law of the land.
• 23:06
  The Constitution is.
• 24:00
  Rather than you couldn't trust elected officials, you needed experts to do it.
• 24:04
  And that is kind of where we started seeing this idea of a, you know, we'll create uh executive branches that are outside of the executive authority because we'll put experts in there and they'll do what's right because they won't be partisan.
• 24:18
  Well, first of all, there's no such thing as a nonpartisan political body.
• 24:23
  No agency is nonpartisan.
• 24:25
  Partisanship is the the cornerstone of government nowadays.
• 24:31
  But again, we're dealing with a question of the violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.
• 24:37
  And as I've pointed out, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 78, um, he said uh that no uh act of the legislature contrary to the Constitution can be valid.
• 24:49
  Not eh, maybe it's uh no, it cannot be valid.
• 24:53
  And by the way, this was upheld by courts for many, many, many years.
• 24:57
  We go all the way back to uh you know Marbury versus Madison, ex parte Seabold, or my personal favorite, Norton v.
• 25:05
  Shelby County, which reads, an unconstitutional act is not a law.
• 25:10
  It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as in operative as though it had never been passed.
• 25:25
  So the simple fact that a court years ago figured they couldn't read the Constitution of the United States and made up this idea that Congress can create agencies outside of the governmental structure.
• 25:37
  Well, it was it was wrong.
• 25:38
  It was an unconstitutional decision, and it tried to uphold an unconstitutional act, but that act isn't operative, it was as if it never happened.
• 25:47
  So we'll see what this court says.
• 25:49
  By the way, the prognosticators, the people who watch the court, they send to they seem to think that uh the Supreme Court did side with the administration that yes, the executive branch is run by the the president and all the power is vested in him, and he has every right to fire anybody in a position, uh, especially one that's not confirmed by uh the Senate.
• 26:15
  There might be a scenario where there could be some limitation, but even that would be questionable since all executive power is vested in a president.
• 26:26
  Now, there are a couple of other cases that the court recently agreed to here.
• 26:29
  They haven't heard oral arguments, but they said yes, we will listen to the will set we'll set the schedules and they'll hear oral arguments.
• 26:37
  The first one I want to deal with uh deals with this this uh myth of birthright citizenship.
• 26:46
  And it's not so much that birthright citizenship doesn't exist, it's what are the requirements to be a citizen at birth, to have the right of citizenship at birth.
• 26:56
  14th Amendment is very specific.
• 27:00
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
• 27:09
  Now, did a little bit of research, a little bit of history on this.
• 27:12
  The gentleman who proposed the language and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, Senator Merritt, I believe was his name.
• 27:19
  He explained on the floor of Congress, on the floor of the Senate, why he, you know, what he was thinking.
• 27:25
  He said this to paraphrase, he said, listen, this is the law of the natural law, this is the way things are, but it would not include uh children of ambassadors, foreigners, or aliens.
• 27:38
  He specifically said this would not include people who are not here and under our jurisdiction.
• 27:44
  But once again, the court made a mess of this when they turned around in a case.
• 27:49
  I'm drawing a blank on the name, Wong.
• 27:51
  That was it, Wang Ark.
• 27:53
  Uh, and they claimed, well, you see, he was a son of residents who were subject to the jurisdiction of China.
• 28:03
  So he's a he's a citizen.
• 28:06
  Again, it appears that once you become a lawyer and a supreme court judge, you can't read.
• 28:12
  It's strictly says you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
• 28:16
  They specifically said that the parents were subject to the jurisdiction of China.
• 28:21
  Um, that means he's not a was not a citizen.
• 28:24
  But you see, once that decision was made, and our slavish devotion to the opinions of court above the law has led us to believe that, oh, oh no, no, no, he's this is the case if you're you're born on U.S., you're automatically a citizen.
• 28:40
  Now, of course, Trump's executive order declaring uh federal agencies to interpret the 14th Amendment as it is written, and as federal law is written, which means that children of illegal aliens are not citizens, because they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
• 29:01
  Again, you would think it was simple.
• 29:02
  It's plain black and white.
• 29:05
  But again, we're dealing with attorneys whose job is to get the outcome their clients want, not fulfill the oath of the Constitution.
• 29:12
  And again, we've seen this in court cases numerous times, where the judges simply ignore the plain language of the Constitution to get to the ends that they want, or because their predecessors have simply ignored the plain language of the Constitution.
• 29:27
  And this reminds me, you know, I know I have a Saturday morning Zoom call with a with a group of people.
• 29:33
  Um, and in this week, one of the people that was there happened to be a an activist in a in the uh libertarian party, but he's also paralegal.
• 29:45
  And the question came up about the power of the Supreme Court.
• 29:50
  And what I found very interesting was his response to some of my questions.
• 29:55
  So, you know, he did he claimed that um, you know, the
• 30:00
  The Constitution delegates to the Supreme Court the power to determine what isn't constitutional.
• 30:07
  I did the power to which I said, well, firstly he said the power to make law.
• 30:12
  To which I said, no, it gives all lawmaking power to Congress.
• 30:16
  When the con they they can offer their opinion, but it's still only their opinion.
• 30:20
  Read what comes out of the Supreme Court.
• 30:22
  Yes, they do issue court orders and certain things, but when they come to a decision, they don't say in the ruling of the court, it says in the opinion of the court.
• 30:32
  We all know about opinions, right?
• 30:34
  We all have them like backsides and they all stink.
• 30:38
  Well, they offer an opinion.
• 30:39
  Show me where in the Constitution that the Supreme Court can make law.
• 30:44
  And what got me is his response was well, first of all, he said, Well, Marbury versus Madison.
• 30:50
  Have you ever read Marbury versus Madison?
• 30:52
  I said, in Marbury versus Madison, the court didn't say it had the authority, the uh ability to overturn law.
• 30:59
  It said it could not follow a law from Congress that violated the Constitution.
• 31:05
  Yes, they said it was null and void, but they didn't say we overturn it.
• 31:09
  They simply say we can't follow it because it conflicts in this instance with the Constitution.
• 31:16
  So then he turned and he called the necessary and proper clause.
• 31:19
  And I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it was all I could do to not laugh.
• 31:23
  I says the necessary and proper clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 says Congress has the power to put into execution laws, uh to pass laws, on laws which are necessary and proper to put into execution the powers vested in the government of the United States.
• 31:41
  Now, I bring this up and I don't mention the person's name on purpose because it shows me I don't know if he's been to law school, I don't know how long it's, but it shows me that the legal education in this country appears to be completely devoid from the supreme law of the land.
• 31:56
  I've said this before.
• 31:58
  I've asked attorneys for years, it's gotta be getting close to a decade now.
• 32:02
  Every attorney I meet, I ask them a simple question.
• 32:04
  When you were in law school, did you study constitutional law or did you study the actual language of the constitution?
• 32:10
  And with one exception, they all said we studied constitutional law.
• 32:14
  Now, several of them said, but I followed, I studied the constitution on my own, or I did it after I graduated, but in law school, they do not study the supreme law of the land.
• 32:24
  So I've recently started adding a follow-up to that, to which my response is so you're telling me that you got a degree in American law without studying the actual Supreme Law of the Land.
• 32:35
  If I were you, I would demand a refund.
• 32:39
  Uh that ends up sometimes in some interesting conversations.
• 32:42
  But it goes to show, even though so many of these things can be decided at the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court's decision is constitutional.
• 32:53
  So again, I'm I'm looking for an interesting decisions.
• 32:58
  These are going to be ones I'm going to be writing about when they come out.
• 33:01
  Does the present is all executive power vested in the president, or can Congress vest executive power in a quote unquote independent agency?
• 33:11
  And when the Constitution says that to be a birth, a citizen at birth, you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not to another country.
• 33:22
  And we'll see what the court comes up with.
• 33:25
  Now, I'm sure you know maybe I'm happy with it, maybe I'm not, but I'll tell you what I what I most likely will find.
• 33:31
  I most likely will find problems in the arguments.
• 33:35
  And I'm gonna look at those.
• 33:36
  I'm gonna look at the good, the bad, and the ugly, because I think I I think that's what you people want me to do.
• 33:43
  Most of you don't have the time or the experience to go through these cases and really under you're dependent on others.
• 33:51
  And there are plenty of people that analyze these.
• 33:54
  Most of the people I've I hear analyze these are lawyers, which makes me question, you know, it means doesn't mean they they're not following the Constitution, but I I listen to a lot of them that don't.
• 34:06
  But I think you'd like it when I come in and I try to take these these massive legal concepts and these big cases and explain them in plain conversational English so that you know what the court is doing as they are exercising a power that we delegated to the federal government.
• 34:22
  Well, we had this, we had our states delegate to the federal government.
• 34:26
  And a lot of it comes with understanding what the constitution says about the power of the Supreme Court.
• 34:31
  They are offering opinions, nothing more.
• 34:35
  Again, uh Alexander Hamilton, Federal 78.
• 34:38
  Uh, the courts have neither force nor will, only judgment.
• 34:43
  That's their job to have judgment.
• 34:45
  Doesn't mean it's perfect, doesn't mean it's right or wrong.
• 34:48
  That's their job to have judgment.
• 34:50
  It's ultimately they're dependent on the executive branch for the efficacy of their decisions.
• 34:56
  Uh, which brings up some other questions that I we may be dealing with depending on how this court um this court finally decides, how they finally did finally find.
• 35:07
  Now, we often look to courts to seek a redress for a grievance.
• 35:13
  And uh there's a couple of cases coming up that that, well, there's there's a case at lower courts, I think it's the uh Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, um, that I want to look at, and another that I bet is going to become a case later.
• 35:28
  But before I do that, I have a break coming up.
• 35:30
  And I want to remind you that now more than ever, it's really up to us.
• 35:37
  It's up to we, the people, to influence our nation and not just through government.
• 35:42
  See, there are plenty of companies that they support organizations that are supporting our rights, but there are many more where they're supporting organizations that are destroying our rights.
• 35:52
  There are age in our companies I don't do business with anymore.
• 35:55
  I don't shop at their stores, I don't use their services because they take the money I part I use when I purchase stuff from them, and they use it to support organizations that are trying to determine our rights.
• 36:09
  No, I want to buy from companies that believe what I believe, that believe in the rights protected by the Constitution and are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
• 36:18
  One of those companies is Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
• 36:22
  I joined them a few years ago, not because of their 4G and 5G coverage, which by the way, is on all the same networks and all the same towers as the major carriers, and it works really, really, really well.
• 36:33
  And I didn't join them because their customer service is 100% U.S.
• 36:37
  based.
• 36:38
  No, I joined them for one really simple reason.
• 36:42
  They take a portion of every dollar to support organizations that are fighting for our rights, including your religious freedom, your freedom of speech, your freedom of assembly, your right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• 36:56
  They also support the sanctity of life, our veterans, and our first responders.
• 37:01
  So switch to Patriot Mobile today and get your line activated absolutely free by using the code constitution.
• 37:07
  Go to patriotmobile.comslash constitution, find a plan that works for you.
• 37:12
  See if you're eligible for a discount.
• 37:14
  Everyone from first responders to families with multiple lines have can be eligible for a discount.
• 37:20
  And then use that code constitution to check out to get free activation.
• 37:24
  See, by going to that URL, the patriot mobile.comslash constitution.
• 37:27
  When you sign up, Patriot Mobile will support the Constitution study.
• 37:32
  And then when you use that code constitution to get your line activated absolutely free, it lets them know you came from us, and they'll support the constitution study.
• 37:40
  So guess what?
• 37:41
  Not only can you protect your rights, you can support the work that we're doing here at the Constitution study by using your cell phone.
• 37:48
  Nice, easy, not hard to deal with at all.
• 37:51
  Also hope you'll check out America Outloud.news.
• 37:54
  See, I go there each and every day for news and information.
• 37:58
  Why?
• 37:59
  Well, sure, yeah, I've got the radio program and the website to prep for, but more importantly, the corporate media has been lying to us.
• 38:07
  You know, I don't watch corporate news.
• 38:10
  I don't read papers and magazines.
• 38:12
  I find sources of information that you know it showed that I can trust.
• 38:17
  I still verify, but I can trust.
• 38:19
  And one of those is America Outloud.news.
• 38:21
  So I recommend it for everybody.
• 38:24
  Every day, go see what's going on.
• 38:25
  But I want you to do a bit more.
• 38:27
  Don't be a passive acceptor of information.
• 38:30
  Be an active participant in your freedom.
• 38:33
  Take the the stories, the articles, the podcasts, the videos, share them.
• 38:37
  Let other people know there are other sources of news.
• 38:40
  Let other people know the stories that corporate media doesn't want them to know.
• 38:44
  And by doing so, you're not just spreading America out loud.
• 38:48
  No, no, no.
• 38:49
  You're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.
• 38:55
  During COVID, we got educated on the power of natural virus protection and immune boosting using vitamins A, C, D, Zinc, and Quircetin.
• 39:05
  The problem, getting them at the right dosage from truly natural sources that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
• 39:11
  Enter the daily V stack using breakthrough cellular absorption technology.
• 39:16
  We put those vitamins together and supercharge them with a complete multi-mineral complex.
• 39:21
  The daily V stack is basically an oral IV of six products all in one at an affordable price.
• 39:28
  Go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud today.
• 39:32
  Get the daily V stack, protect yourself, boost your immune system, and save 20% on your first order.
• 39:40
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 39:42
  But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar preservatives and mystery ingredients.
• 39:47
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 39:49
  Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 39:54
  They're plant-based, organic, packed with protein and nutrients, and are low temp dried for a unique crunch.
• 39:59
  Most energy
• 40:00
  Bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups and sweeteners.
• 40:03
  But bear bars are a delicious combination of veggies, nuts, and seeds.
• 40:07
  They're a perfect fast snack for hikes, workouts, and busy moms and dads.
• 40:11
  To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Outloud listeners.
• 40:18
  That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R.com forward slash out loud.
• 40:22
  Hi, I'm Dr.
• 40:22
  James Bragman, board certified DO and internal in geriatric medicine.
• 40:26
  Maintaining nasal hygiene is crucial for good health.
• 40:29
  The nose is where most illnesses start.
• 40:32
  You wash your hands, you brush your teeth.
• 40:34
  Shouldn't we clean our nose?
• 40:35
  Use cofex orx nasal cleanse daily with polvodone iodine, vitamin D3, and xylitol to cleanse away germs, bacteria, and allergens.
• 40:44
  Every nose knows COFIX ARX keeps you healthy and allows you to breathe with confidence.
• 40:49
  Click on the Kofix RX banner ad in the American Outlawed Shop for 20% off your next order of COFIX RX.
• 41:00
  Welcome back, everyday American to rejoin the Constitution study.
• 41:04
  We've been looking at presidential power at SCOTUS, but there are a couple of cases, or at least one actual case, one I expect to be a case that I think are being will eventually end up at SCOTUS and are also important.
• 41:19
  One goes back to the question of the Pfizer COVID, quote unquote vaccine.
• 41:26
  You see, uh back in uh I think it was 2021, a Wilsonblower at a contractor to uh the FDA um notified the FDA.
• 41:39
  Actually, she knows back in 2020 that she had concerns regarding Pfizer's phase three trials on their COVID-19 um uh the vaccines.
• 41:51
  She had concerns, and she raised them to the FDA, which took about six hours until she was fired.
• 41:58
  Now, um she oversaw uh uh the uh the these trials because she was regional director in Texas for the company Ventavia, and they were the ones doing the testing.
• 42:11
  So when she got fired, she filed what's called a false claims act case in 2021.
• 42:18
  And she did so on behalf of the federal government.
• 42:21
  She said, listen, we are contracted here, we're doing these tests.
• 42:25
  We've I believe I seen malfeasance by by Pfizer, so I want to file this false claims act.
• 42:32
  And this is to me where things get a little interesting.
• 42:35
  Now remember, um the was it week or two ago, the FDA's ACEP panel, the their vaccine regulators.
• 42:44
  I'm sorry, I'm sorry, not the AC, that was a different one.
• 42:46
  The Food and Drug Administration's vaccine regulator told his staff that at least 10 children died after and because of COVID-19 vaccinations, and that he believed that it was tremendously underreported, meaning there were probably quite a few more.
• 43:04
  Now, I find this very interesting because while that leaked, the Department of U.S.
• 43:08
  Department of Justice uh attorney Nicole Smith didn't mention that when she uh uh fought again to reinst during the hearing about reinstating the false claims that see the the court dismissed this case with prejudice, saying, Well, there's no real reason why we should think this should go through.
• 43:27
  But yet now we have it uh, you know, yeah, uh children died.
• 43:31
  Was it because of the problems found by this person?
• 43:33
  I don't know.
• 43:36
  But uh it sure does make it sound sound interesting that if you're a whistleblower at one of these contractors, you can be fired, and uh it's not considered a uh uh unfair uh practices.
• 43:48
  Now, this case is interesting for a couple reasons.
• 43:51
  As I said, she was fired just hours after reporting her concerns.
• 43:56
  Um this, of course, is in 2021.
• 43:59
  The Biden administration could have simply declined to actually to pursue the lawsuit.
• 44:06
  They had every right to do that.
• 44:08
  Um, but they they didn't uh back in 2022.
• 44:12
  They actually sided with Pfizer several months later, claiming the vaccine would have been approved, even if Jackson's claims were right, that 3% of the trial data was fraudulent.
• 44:23
  Interesting, interesting uh position.
• 44:27
  But that was the Biden administration.
• 44:30
  The second Trump administration is continuing this, the these arguments.
• 44:35
  They are defending the court's order to dismiss the suit with prejudice, which means it could not be refiled.
• 44:42
  Um, even though the senior Trump DOJ official is prosecuting a similar case dealing with uh fraud and asthma medications.
• 44:53
  Now, during the motion phase, the DOJ argued, well, we don't have to really give a specific reason why we want to intervene, but we are have concern with what they call secondary issues, like the cost of prosecuting the case.
• 45:06
  Uh the fact that there's a possibility that a vaccine manufacturer, which by the way, people claim have immunity from prosecution from lawsuits.
• 45:18
  That's not true.
• 45:19
  I can I'll talk about that in a moment.
• 45:21
  Um, that uh yeah, that's that's not worth pursuing a case that they provided fraudulent information.
• 45:28
  Hmm.
• 45:29
  And oh, by the way, that lawsuit, the PrEP Act, the idea that that uh uh vision or vaccine manufacturers are immune from civil suit.
• 45:38
  That law is null and void because it violates the First Amendment.
• 45:41
  Congress made a law depriving you of petitioning government for a redress of grievance.
• 45:47
  But Paul, the federal government will pay you.
• 45:50
  That isn't the only redress of a grievance.
• 45:53
  If someone has a when people found out that uh uh Ford Pintos uh had a poorly designed fuel tank that could explode in certain circumstances, it wasn't just that they wanted uh compensation, they wanted those cars pulled off the market.
• 46:12
  The fact that the federal government uh will collect illegal taxes to pay off people's claims, um, doesn't make it legal or constitutional.
• 46:22
  It's quite a mess.
• 46:23
  So I'm I'm kind of expecting this to move forward right now.
• 46:26
  It's at the Circuit Court of Appeals.
• 46:28
  I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up appealed up to the Supreme Court, at which case we'll talk about it again there.
• 46:34
  But I've got another one.
• 46:35
  And again, this one is not a case yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if this eventually becomes a case.
• 46:41
  You see, President Trump recently announced, or I guess unveil the term, a 12 billion dollar bribe package for American fam farmers.
• 46:51
  Yeah, they don't call it a bribe, but that's what it is.
• 46:54
  They call it an aid package.
• 46:56
  Well, show me where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to pay farmers anything to pay them for the cost of the government's mistake for for uh um you know be the well, we get the farmers got affected by our trade policies, so we'll bribe them to not to stop complaining by giving them money.
• 47:19
  This, ladies and gentlemen, is a flat out bribe.
• 47:23
  Our trade policies have harmed farmers.
• 47:26
  Oh, well, we don't want the farmers to be mad at us.
• 47:28
  We want the farmers to vote for us.
• 47:30
  Do we fix the trade policies?
• 47:32
  No.
• 47:32
  Do we change the treatment?
• 47:34
  Maybe not fixed.
• 47:35
  Do we trade or modify the trade policies?
• 47:39
  No.
• 47:40
  How about we just bribe them with money we embezzle from the American people to give to them, oh, well, this money will come from from it'll come from the tariffs.
• 47:50
  Who do you think pays the tariffs?
• 47:52
  When a when a duty is paid on something imported, those costs generally get passed along to the consumer, which means the American people pay these.
• 48:03
  And since this is not money that the federal government is authorized to collect taxes for, right?
• 48:08
  Because uh Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, ex posts, and imposts to pay the debts of the United States, the common defense of the United States, and the general welfare of the United States.
• 48:20
  Capital U capital S, proper noun.
• 48:23
  The very same proper noun in the 10th Amendment says of a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it belongs out of the states of the people.
• 48:32
  So we have Donald Trump planning to embezzle, that's what happens when you when you spend money for a purpose you're not authorized to.
• 48:41
  That's embezzlement.
• 48:43
  So he's going to embezzle 12 billion dollars from the American people in order to pay off the farmers so they won't be mad at him for his trade policies.
• 48:53
  By the way, trade policies that I don't think he's actually legally allowed to make.
• 48:58
  As I've already talked about the uh um the question of tariffs, tariffs or taxes, where's the president authorized to lay and collect taxes?
• 49:09
  And does the power to quote unquote regulate include the power to tax?
• 49:14
  Not according to the Constitution, not according to the laws I'm familiar with, and that's what's one of the things that SCOTUS is talking about.
• 49:21
  It also comes back to the question of remember, Supreme Court's looking at whether or not Trump is the actual uh holds the executive power of the United States, all of the executive power, and whether or not he can fire a member of an executive agency for whatever reason he wants, because he's the one that actually exercises the power.
• 49:40
  What they do, they do in his name.
• 49:43
  So while this isn't already a case, it would it might be a case, but see how it's related to other cases that are already in place.
• 49:52
  Because you see, the president doesn't get the authority, doesn't have the authority to spend money.
• 49:59
  One more thing.
• 50:00
  Right?
• 50:00
  Under the Constitution, no money can be spent from the Treasury, but on appropriation by law of the Congress.
• 50:08
  Only Congress can authorize the Treasury to spend money.
• 50:12
  So he may have this package, and he may send it to Congress, but even if Congress passes it, doesn't mean it's legal.
• 50:22
  It still is embezzlement because they're using it for a purpose other than one authorized by the Constitution of the United States.
• 50:31
  So I hope you see the underlying problem we hear we have here with everything going to a Supreme Court that basically ignores its oath of office to support the Constitution.
• 50:41
  Their job is to decide cases and controversies based on the law, not to make up law.
• 50:49
  Their job is they don't make law.
• 50:51
  Their decisions are nothing more than opinions.
• 50:55
  And when you've got a Congress and a presidency that is simply ignoring the supreme law of the land and the entity that's supposed to be looking at this saying, wait a second, that's not constitutional, in our opinion, that violates the Constitution, but they're not doing that.
• 51:13
  Well, you know, previous courts have said, excuse me, you didn't take an oath to support your previous courts.
• 51:20
  Sorry decisives.
• 51:22
  You took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
• 51:25
  And the Constitution says Congress makes the law, not the courts.
• 51:30
  And I'm sure some people, well, Congress is just too slow.
• 51:34
  Well, then why don't you hire better members of Congress?
• 51:38
  See, there's a reason why.
• 51:39
  If they're, I think part of the reason why Congress is so slow is because they spend the vast majority, I think 80, 90% of their time on things they're not congressional, they're not constitutionally authorized to deal with.
• 51:52
  So they're they're wasting, you know, imagine you hired someone to work 40 hours a week and they only spent four of those hours actually doing their job.
• 52:00
  They spent the other 90, you know, playing solitaire on their computer or you know, uh uh doom scrolling through TikTok or anything but what their job is.
• 52:12
  That's Congress.
• 52:13
  And they work for us.
• 52:15
  We hire them by elections.
• 52:19
  So, yeah, maybe the part of the problem is Congress has shown themselves to be too lazy to actually do their job because they spend the vast majority of the time working on things that are not their job, and they leave it up to the courts to kind of make the decisions for them.
• 52:37
  Whether it's a, well, you know, we're gonna let we're gonna say we want something good, and then we're gonna let the leg the executive agencies actually draft the law.
• 52:46
  We'll call them rules and regulations, but they'll effectively be laws.
• 52:50
  That's them not doing their job.
• 52:53
  And when the president, uh President uh uh W.
• 52:57
  Bush said, uh, you know, I think this law is unconstitutional, but I'm gonna let the courts figure it out, so I'll sign it.
• 53:03
  That was a dereliction of duty.
• 53:05
  That was a violation of his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
• 53:10
  If he believed it was unconstitutional, why did he sign it?
• 53:14
  Why'd he approve of it if he thought it was wrong?
• 53:17
  See, so much of this comes back to the people.
• 53:19
  We the people hire directly or indirectly, and we then complain about what they're doing, and we're unwilling to hold them accountable.
• 53:30
  If you're gonna sit around and let the courts decide what is and isn't real, we are no longer a republic.
• 53:36
  We've become an oligarchy.
• 53:38
  Sure, you have a legislative branch, sure you have an executive branch.
• 53:42
  But if the rules are ultimately made by a group of nine people in black robes, then we are living in effectively an oligarchy.
• 53:52
  And I'm sure there are a lot of people that are thrilled with that idea.
• 53:55
  I'm not one of them.
• 53:56
  I hope you're not either.
• 53:59
  But you know, as I mentioned uh previously, I believe, is that this year, this coming year, 2026, is the semi-quincentennial of the uh the publishing of the Declaration of Independence.
• 54:12
  Actually, it's not the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
• 54:14
  That's a whole other story.
• 54:15
  I'd love to get a chance to talk with you about it at the uh America Out Loud event in Nashville, July 2nd through the 4th of 2026.
• 54:23
  I hope you'll join me then.
• 54:25
  But I hope you'll take this opportunity.
• 54:27
  It's you know, it's a semi-quincentennial.
• 54:29
  This would be a wonderful opportunity for you to read and study the Declaration of Independence.
• 54:34
  I suggest you read instead of the Constitution as well.
• 54:37
  But take some time and read the founding documents and understand the nation, the union, the government that was created by them.
• 54:47
  And then figure out how to hold your elected uh elected employees accountable.
• 54:52
  You know, when I, when someone asks for my vote, when I speak to one of my um elected representatives, usually the first question I ask is, so tell me, um, show me an opportunity where you upheld your oath to support the constitution when it cost you something.
• 55:11
  Not once you know, go along to get along and oh, the party said this.
• 55:15
  No, no, no.
• 55:16
  When did you stand up when it was hard?
• 55:18
  And to me, that's the important point.
• 55:20
  It's not that I, you know, well, I voted for this piece of no, no.
• 55:24
  When did you stand up when it was hard?
• 55:26
  When your party was against you, when the nation was against you, but you took an oath to support the constitution, and that oath meant something to you.
• 55:35
  Sadly, the usual response I get is a blank stare.
• 55:39
  Occasionally I get somebody saying, Well, I raised my right hand and I took an oath and I went into the military.
• 55:44
  That'll get you a chance.
• 55:46
  See, if you're willing to understand the oath, then that'll get you a chance.
• 55:51
  But also means I'm going to hold you accountable to that oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
• 55:58
  And I think that's something we should do.
• 56:00
  And I think this semi-quincentennial is as more and more people talk about it, more and more events resolve revolve around it.
• 56:07
  This may be the opportunity to encourage us to read and study first the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution.
• 56:15
  And hopefully, not only teach the Rising Generation be free, but teach ourselves to defend and assert our rights.
• 56:23
  I also hope you're encouraged to come back and listen to the show, the Constitution Study on America Out Loud Talk Radio, heard on the iHeart Radio Network every weekday at 4 p.m.
• 56:32
  Eastern time.
• 56:33
  Now you can listen on the website through the media player, or we have apps for Apple, Android, and Alexa.
• 56:39
  You can also listen via podcasts.
• 56:41
  Now it does take a day or two for episodes to go from talk radio to podcast, but you can listen in your favorite podcast app.
• 56:49
  But do me a favor, subscribe to the show.
• 56:52
  Leave us ratings, especially an Apple podcast for me.
• 56:56
  See, that helps the algorithm.
• 56:57
  When it's when people are searching for content or browsing for content, number of subscribers, number of four-star and five-star ratings.
• 57:05
  Change how the algorithm shows the constitution to the others.
• 57:09
  So you can help spread the word.
• 57:10
  Now you can find all the links you need on the homepage of AmericaOut Loud.news.
• 57:15
  But please, as much as I appreciate subscriptions and ratings, the most effective way to help spread the news is to share those links.
• 57:24
  Share that information and help share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation home.