Latest / Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags / Supreme Court Showdown: John Eastman on Birthright Citizenship, China, and What They’re Not Telling You

Transcript

Supreme Court Showdown: John Eastman on Birthright Citizenship, China, and What They’re Not Telling You · Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags

0:00
Speaker 1: It's the case everybody's watching and everybody's talking about. This week,
0:03
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is hearing arguments as to whether children
0:07
Speaker 1: born to foreign nationals on American soil. I'm talking about
0:10
Speaker 1: millions of children, whether they're American citizens or not. It's
0:14
Speaker 1: happening this week. And the man who wrote the constitutional
0:17
Speaker 1: argument that started all of this is sitting right here.
0:20
Speaker 1: I've got him. John Eastman was disbarred for fighting this battle.
0:23
Speaker 1: Then President Trump pardoned him. And what he just told
0:26
Speaker 1: me about China and what it's doing in the United
0:28
Speaker 1: States in our borders right now should terrify every single
0:32
Speaker 1: person watching. I know. The fourteenth Amendment was added to
0:35
Speaker 1: make sure that slaves and their children and everybody down
0:39
Speaker 1: the line were not grandfathered out. They got full citizenship
0:42
Speaker 1: rights and everything else subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Was
0:45
Speaker 1: added by Senator Howard, as you know. And there's one
0:47
Speaker 1: reason to add that that says, if you get an
0:50
Speaker 1: allegiance to a foreign country, you and your children are
0:52
Speaker 1: not citizens simply because somebody was born here. Why we
0:55
Speaker 1: confuse this for one hundred plus.
0:57
Speaker 2: Years, well we didn't. It was the first fifty years.
1:01
Speaker 2: We didn't confuse it at all. It's only been for
1:03
Speaker 2: the last fifty years or so that we've backed into
1:05
Speaker 2: this confused notion that anybody born here, no matter what,
1:09
Speaker 2: is a citizen. The clause was changed from the eighteen
1:13
Speaker 2: sixty six Civil Rights Act, which very clearly said all
1:17
Speaker 2: persons born in the United States and not subject to
1:20
Speaker 2: any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are citizens. And
1:25
Speaker 2: they realized that was a bit of a problem because
1:27
Speaker 2: the Indian tribes were domestic powers, not foreign powers. And
1:31
Speaker 2: if they paid a sales tax when they went and
1:33
Speaker 2: bought a beer, did that meant that they were citizens
1:36
Speaker 2: instead of non citizens? And so they changed the language
1:40
Speaker 2: to not subject the jurisdiction thereof, and everybody agreed it
1:44
Speaker 2: meant the same thing. And in fact, Cecilia Wang this
1:47
Speaker 2: morning in the oral argument, who was arguing on behalf
1:50
Speaker 2: of the ACLU, admitted that they meant the same thing.
1:53
Speaker 2: She just said, not subject to any foreign power only
1:56
Speaker 2: meant ambassadors. I think it was the major mistake she
1:59
Speaker 2: made her whole argument. They clearly didn't mean just ambassador
2:03
Speaker 2: is it meant to anybody here temporarily was still subject
2:06
Speaker 2: to their foreign power home country, and they were not
2:09
Speaker 2: going to get citizenship under either the sixty six Civil
2:12
Speaker 2: Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause itself.
2:16
Speaker 1: It is a John Eastpin, he's a great attorney. Let
2:19
Speaker 1: me ask you about Katanji Brown Jackson's assertion today. And
2:22
Speaker 1: we shouldn't take her seriously because she doesn't know what
2:24
Speaker 1: a woman is. But she's on the court and she
2:27
Speaker 1: makes this assertion. If I'm visiting Japan and I steal something,
2:30
Speaker 1: am I not subject to that? To that country's laws?
2:33
Speaker 1: And then she said, and if somebody's still something from me,
2:35
Speaker 1: she tried to make some example that way. This isn't
2:38
Speaker 1: about having to follow the speed limits. This isn't about
2:41
Speaker 1: not stealing or robbing from a bank because you're here illegally.
2:44
Speaker 1: This is about you having an allegiance, as you said,
2:47
Speaker 1: to a foreign country. So I think a simple question
2:49
Speaker 1: would have to be this, Why did they write it
2:51
Speaker 1: in such a strange way subject to the jurisdiction thereof
2:54
Speaker 1: saying that I think leaves it to so much open interpretation.
2:57
Speaker 1: Why didn't they just say, if you're a subject of
2:59
Speaker 1: a different country and you have a baby here, your
3:01
Speaker 1: baby's not a citizen. That would have been simpler.
3:03
Speaker 2: No, Well, it would have, but you had the issue
3:07
Speaker 2: about people who were coming here and taking up a lawful,
3:10
Speaker 2: permanent domicile that were no longer temporary visitors, and that
3:15
Speaker 2: until they become citizens, they still have some distant connection
3:19
Speaker 2: to their home country. Right, but not in the same way. Uh,
3:22
Speaker 2: I think what what justice brown Jackson's commentment, and uh
3:26
Speaker 2: and sodamo Ores and Kagan's uh and and and and
3:30
Speaker 2: and made most of the briefs that were filed on
3:33
Speaker 2: that side in the case confuse, subject to the jurisdiction
3:37
Speaker 2: was subject to the laws if they wanted the broader rule,
3:41
Speaker 2: And why didn't they say, if you're born here and
3:43
Speaker 2: subject to our laws, then you're a citizen. That would
3:46
Speaker 2: have excluded the ambassadors unambiguously and nobody else. The example
3:50
Speaker 2: I like to give is subject to the jurisdiction had
3:54
Speaker 2: two different meanings at the time. Subject to what they
3:57
Speaker 2: call partial or territorial jurisdiction, you were subject to our
4:01
Speaker 2: laws while you were here on our soil, within our borders,
4:05
Speaker 2: with the sole exception of ambassadors. But you did know allegiance.
4:09
Speaker 2: You weren't subject to the more complete jurisdiction. And when
4:13
Speaker 2: Senator Howard, the author of that language, was asked that
4:16
Speaker 2: question directly. He said, it means complete jurisdiction, such as
4:21
Speaker 2: you requires allegiance, not any of this partial jurisdiction, such
4:25
Speaker 2: as anybody's here asked to comply with our laws. He
4:28
Speaker 2: was very clear about that that we didn't have illegal
4:31
Speaker 2: immigrants at the time because there weren't any restrictions on immigration,
4:35
Speaker 2: but we did have temporary visitors, and they were specifically
4:39
Speaker 2: asked about it. What about the Chinese and Gypsies, Senator
4:42
Speaker 2: Cohen from Pennsylvania asks, and Senator Kannas responds, yes, they'll
4:47
Speaker 2: get citizenship. But Senator Cohen had asked further, are they
4:50
Speaker 2: to have more rights than sojourners? What does that mean?
4:55
Speaker 2: That means they all agreed that sojourners were not going
4:57
Speaker 2: to have the right the entitlement to automatic and ship
5:00
Speaker 2: for their kids. Are the Chinese and Gypsy's going to
5:03
Speaker 2: have more rights? Well, yes, if they're not temporary visitors,
5:06
Speaker 2: but if they're lawfully and permanently domiciled here. That was
5:10
Speaker 2: the issue. Everybody agreed about it, and they agreed about
5:13
Speaker 2: it for nearly one hundred years after the amendment was adopted.
5:16
Speaker 1: I think the domicile issue is a huge one because
5:19
Speaker 1: these people, as I said, this is not an example
5:21
Speaker 1: of making up. Women come across the border in Laredo
5:24
Speaker 1: or in del Rio, wherever they want to. I'm here
5:26
Speaker 1: in Texas. They come across the border every day, have
5:29
Speaker 1: a baby. The baby's a citizen, and they have no
5:31
Speaker 1: domicile here. They have no permanent residency there, they have
5:34
Speaker 1: no established residency here. Even if they're here illegally, they
5:37
Speaker 1: don't even have an apartment in their name. So how
5:39
Speaker 1: is it that that baby would ever be considered a citizen?
5:42
Speaker 1: And John, can you tell my audience and me when
5:44
Speaker 1: this started going rogue like this? Was it in the
5:46
Speaker 1: past fifty years, in the past seventy years, when did
5:49
Speaker 1: this start happening?
5:50
Speaker 2: Well, well, some people are trying to say that it
5:53
Speaker 2: was the Supreme Court's decision in eighteen ninety eight in
5:55
Speaker 2: a case the Loong case. Remark, yeah, yeah, the Wang
5:58
Speaker 2: Kim Ark case. Here was a Chinese baby born to
6:02
Speaker 2: Chinese parents who were here at the court twenty eight
6:05
Speaker 2: different times, and the majority and dissenting opinions the court
6:08
Speaker 2: refers to the fact that they were domiciled here. The
6:11
Speaker 2: question presented was, are the children of somebody born to
6:15
Speaker 2: parents who are lawfully and permanently domiciled here a citizen.
6:19
Speaker 2: It's critically important to wankim Ark and most legal scholars
6:23
Speaker 2: all the way up until President Trump started hitting this
6:25
Speaker 2: issue in twenty fifteen. Most legal scholars agreed with me
6:29
Speaker 2: that wan kim Ark didn't settle the question with respect
6:32
Speaker 2: to temporary visitors or the illegal aliens. But now all
6:35
Speaker 2: of a sudden, they're all saying, no, it was very
6:37
Speaker 2: clearly settled one hundred and fifty one hundred and twenty
6:39
Speaker 2: five years ago. Nonsense. If it was settled that anybody
6:43
Speaker 2: born on US soil as a citizen in eighteen ninety
6:47
Speaker 2: eight in the wankim Art case, then why did Congress
6:49
Speaker 2: need to offer Indian citizenship in nineteen twenty four. Why
6:53
Speaker 2: did the Mexican workers in the nineteen twenties who were
6:57
Speaker 2: sometimes forcibly repatriated after the Great Hit, including their American
7:02
Speaker 2: born children, why did not a single case get pressed
7:06
Speaker 2: challenging that repatriation on the ground that the children were citizens.
7:11
Speaker 2: Same with the nineteen fifties Persero's program. Now under the
7:16
Speaker 2: toward the end of the Franklin Roosevelt administration. There's some
7:20
Speaker 2: Office of Legal Council memo suggesting that wan him Mark
7:23
Speaker 2: says anybody born on the soil is a citizen. And
7:25
Speaker 2: so the argument is made that that by the when
7:28
Speaker 2: Congress passed the exact same language in a statute, that
7:32
Speaker 2: they meant anybody born here. I just think that's crazy.
7:36
Speaker 2: And we have on the Passport Office Forum all the
7:40
Speaker 2: way up until nineteen sixty six, if you were born
7:43
Speaker 2: on US soil and you needed to prove citizenship to
7:47
Speaker 2: get a passport, the fact that you were born here
7:49
Speaker 2: should have been enough. But on the Passport Forum that
7:52
Speaker 2: wasn't enough. You had to say where you were born,
7:55
Speaker 2: and then you had to explain what the status of
7:58
Speaker 2: your parents was at the time you were born in
8:00
Speaker 2: order to be able to demonstrate citizenship. That changed in
8:03
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty six, inexplicably, and it's kind of since then
8:08
Speaker 2: that we started to develop as a notion that birth
8:10
Speaker 2: on the soil, no matter what legally present, temporarily present, permanently,
8:14
Speaker 2: president illegally doesn't matter. Anybody born here, no matter what,
8:18
Speaker 2: is a citizen. And it's one of the reasons why
8:20
Speaker 2: President Trump's executive order only at pribe applies forward looking,
8:25
Speaker 2: because all of the people born in the last fifty
8:27
Speaker 2: sixty years under this misgotten, misbegotten notion have come to
8:33
Speaker 2: rely on the fact that we've treated them as citizens.
8:35
Speaker 2: We're not going to pull the rug out from under him,
8:37
Speaker 2: but going forward, we ought not to keep repeating the
8:40
Speaker 2: same mistake.
8:41
Speaker 1: That's a really important point, John, because a lot of
8:43
Speaker 1: people on the left are lying and saying that this
8:44
Speaker 1: would take citizenship away from anybody who's gotten it by
8:47
Speaker 1: birthright up until now. I'm glad that you said that.
8:49
Speaker 1: It's John Eastman. Go to John easpin Legal Defensefund dot com.
8:54
Speaker 1: John Easpin Legal Defense Fund dot com. So let's talk
8:56
Speaker 1: about one, Kim Mark, I want to get too into
8:58
Speaker 1: the weeds with this, but that case I thought had
9:01
Speaker 1: a lot to do with how racism was being used
9:03
Speaker 1: against Chinese people that were working in places like San Francisco.
9:07
Speaker 1: They were being brought here, treated like absolute garbage, and
9:10
Speaker 1: then being tossed aside or repatriated, as you said, and
9:13
Speaker 1: I almost feel like the court ruled in that case
9:15
Speaker 1: to stop the racism against Chinese people. Am I am
9:17
Speaker 1: I off based on that No.
9:20
Speaker 2: I think you're right. Look, in eighteen eighty two we
9:25
Speaker 2: start having these Chinese exclusion acts. I won't even let
9:28
Speaker 2: the Chinese laborers come here. Of course, Wan cam Ark's
9:32
Speaker 2: parents had come a decade and a half before that.
9:34
Speaker 2: He was born in the eighteen seventies. But we had
9:38
Speaker 2: a treaty with the Emperor of China that even though
9:41
Speaker 2: the treaty says, we recognize and the Chinese Emperor recognizes
9:45
Speaker 2: the right of expatriation, the right to throw off your
9:48
Speaker 2: former allegiance and take up a new one if you want.
9:51
Speaker 2: Even though the treaty said that, it also said, yeah,
9:53
Speaker 2: but we're not going to ever let him become us citizens.
9:56
Speaker 2: And this question was brought up by one of the
9:59
Speaker 2: justices that argument today. I mean, for heaven's sakes, what
10:02
Speaker 2: more could they do to demonstrate their allegiance here When
10:05
Speaker 2: we wouldn't let them become citizens, but we let them,
10:08
Speaker 2: with our consent, become lawfully become members of our community,
10:12
Speaker 2: become permanent domiciles here. What more could they have done?
10:17
Speaker 2: And that question I thought was very powerful. They couldn't,
10:19
Speaker 2: And I think that had a lot to do with
10:21
Speaker 2: why the Court went the direction it did. In Wan
10:23
Speaker 2: Kim Mark.
10:24
Speaker 1: It is John Eastman, former Trump attorney, of course a
10:27
Speaker 1: constitutional expert. Love having you on John Eastpin Legal Defense
10:30
Speaker 1: Fund dot com. When it comes to the whole idea
10:33
Speaker 1: of diplomatic community, I think that makes the case, doesn't it.
10:36
Speaker 1: If somebody is here as a diplomat and they have
10:38
Speaker 1: a baby, it certainly is not an American citizen. So
10:41
Speaker 1: somebody who came here legally that we accept, that we
10:43
Speaker 1: understand as a diplomat, they know the rules, that they
10:46
Speaker 1: have their allegiances to some other country. Why isn't that
10:49
Speaker 1: the basis of this entire case. Why would somebody stinking
10:52
Speaker 1: across the border to get whatever benefit they can having
10:54
Speaker 1: a baby get all these benefits, whereas we understand somebody
10:58
Speaker 1: who's somebody who's here diplomatically and legally doesn't have those benefits.
11:03
Speaker 2: This is I think one of the one of the
11:05
Speaker 2: two most important mistakes made in the briefing against the
11:09
Speaker 2: government in the case. Keith Whitning and a prominent schollar
11:12
Speaker 2: up at Yale now made the argument that we don't
11:15
Speaker 2: even think that the children of diplomats are born on
11:18
Speaker 2: US soil, that there's a bubble around them, that wherever
11:22
Speaker 2: they go, wherever they step at that moment, it is
11:25
Speaker 2: the sovereign soil of that ambassador's home country.
11:28
Speaker 1: Oh, that's just dumb. That's kind of dumb, John.
11:31
Speaker 2: No, no, no, but it's but it's the it's the
11:34
Speaker 2: fiction of extra territoriality that is a recognized part of
11:38
Speaker 2: international law. And Cecilia Wang made the same point just
11:43
Speaker 2: as Barrett asked her this question. They're not even on
11:46
Speaker 2: US soil because of this bubble that goes around them,
11:48
Speaker 2: this fictional bubble. Neither are the children of marauding armies
11:52
Speaker 2: that have occupied part of our territory. It's no longer
11:55
Speaker 2: US soil while it's occupied. And neither are Indian reservation.
12:00
Speaker 2: And Cecilia Long agreed with that, But then she said,
12:04
Speaker 2: even Indians off reservation are not subject to the jurisdiction.
12:08
Speaker 2: They're all treated like ambassadors as well. And that's just
12:11
Speaker 2: utter nonsense. Maybe the tribal leader could make that claim,
12:15
Speaker 2: but certainly not the individual tribal members. And if they're
12:18
Speaker 2: born off the reservation, they are clearly born on US oil.
12:22
Speaker 2: They are clearly subject to the jurisdiction in the way
12:26
Speaker 2: that the respondents the challengers claim the subject to our laws,
12:33
Speaker 2: and the court very clearly said and elk versus welcome
12:36
Speaker 2: to eighteen eighty four. But because they owe their primary
12:38
Speaker 2: allegiance to their tribe, they are not subject to the
12:41
Speaker 2: complete jurisdiction. And there's not an iota of difference between
12:45
Speaker 2: that and a Frenchman or somebody from Mexico or Guatemada
12:49
Speaker 2: or Nigeria visiting here temporarily still subject to their home country.
12:54
Speaker 2: So the Indian case off reservation, I think is compelling
12:58
Speaker 2: and should decide the case.
13:00
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I understand. If somebody
13:01
Speaker 1: goes to Joe's restaurant, sits down with his family and
13:03
Speaker 1: he's a foreign diplomat, he could just not pay the
13:05
Speaker 1: bill and say, listen, this is Iranian territory right now,
13:08
Speaker 1: I don't have to pay the bill here, and I'm
13:10
Speaker 1: not subject to your laws. That doesn't make any sense
13:12
Speaker 1: that argument, actually, And I'm not a lawyer. My mom
13:14
Speaker 1: says it'd be a great lawyer. Alan Dershwitz says, that'd
13:16
Speaker 1: be a greatlawyer. By the way, the idea that suddenly
13:20
Speaker 1: wherever you happen to be is your homeland is just
13:23
Speaker 1: silly to me. It doesn't make any sense. And was
13:26
Speaker 1: that argument completely blown out of the water today or
13:29
Speaker 1: is that actually being listened to.
13:31
Speaker 2: No, it's being listened to because it actually is. They
13:33
Speaker 2: call it the fiction of extra territoriality. It's a component
13:37
Speaker 2: of Internet.
13:37
Speaker 1: And that's really the way it is, Johnny. And honestly,
13:39
Speaker 1: wherever they happen to be is their territory.
13:42
Speaker 2: It's treated as their territory. The person of the ambassador
13:45
Speaker 2: is treated as the person of the sovereign. This is
13:47
Speaker 2: why you get you get these ambassadors at the UN
13:50
Speaker 2: racking up millions of dollars in parking kickens in New
13:53
Speaker 2: York City. They do nothing to pay because right they
13:56
Speaker 2: do nothing.
13:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, wow, it is johnn. Eastman, go to Johnny's been
14:00
Speaker 1: Legal Defense fund dot com. Johnny's been legal Legal Defense
14:03
Speaker 1: fund dot com. Well, the fact that there are five
14:06
Speaker 1: hundred different organizations in China literally sending Chinese nationals here
14:12
Speaker 1: to have babies, so they have American citizen Chinese national babies,
14:16
Speaker 1: is that fact going to be brought up at all?
14:18
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't watch everything today. I hope that
14:20
Speaker 1: it's going to be brought up because that is a
14:21
Speaker 1: major problem going forward in the United States of America
14:25
Speaker 1: for our sovereignty, and there's there's an enemy actor, an
14:28
Speaker 1: entire nation state that would love to make this country
14:32
Speaker 1: China doing this. Is that going to be brought up?
14:35
Speaker 2: It actually was brought up, so listener General John Sower
14:38
Speaker 2: brought brought it up during the oral argument, and several
14:41
Speaker 2: of the justices seemed to recognize the importance of that.
14:45
Speaker 2: And it's not just that they're having birth tourism babies here.
14:50
Speaker 2: They'll have those babies and then they'll they'll be sent
14:52
Speaker 2: back to China, they'll be raised by the Communist Party
14:55
Speaker 2: to be enemies of the United States, and then they
14:58
Speaker 2: will come back here claiming to be US citizens, and
15:01
Speaker 2: we can't do anything about it. I saw a news
15:03
Speaker 2: report about a week ago that said there are two
15:05
Speaker 2: hundred thousand Chinese men of military age who are in
15:10
Speaker 2: this country who are the products of long standing birth tourism.
15:14
Speaker 2: While a policy of China two hundred thousand, that's an
15:19
Speaker 2: army already embedded on our shores because of this misbegotten
15:23
Speaker 2: notion of birthright tourism citizenship that has led to birth
15:27
Speaker 2: tourism and our major enemy on the world stage taking
15:30
Speaker 2: advantage of our own idiocy.
15:32
Speaker 1: Incredible Attorney John Eastman going and check out Johnny's been
15:36
Speaker 1: a legal defense fund dot com. How's this likely to
15:39
Speaker 1: come out? I feel as though since John Roberts has
15:41
Speaker 1: been the Chief Justice, just my opinion that it's a
15:44
Speaker 1: weak court in that they don't want to take a stand.
15:46
Speaker 1: He didn't allegedly, well, he didn't take a stand in Obamacare,
15:49
Speaker 1: and he changed a fee to a tax or attack
15:50
Speaker 1: to a fee, and decided to change the legislation to
15:52
Speaker 1: let it go through. And Cony Barrett seems to be
15:55
Speaker 1: somebody who teeters on conservatism or not. Roberts doesn't really
15:59
Speaker 1: want to have rioting the street. So I get the feeling,
16:01
Speaker 1: my opinion only that he's afraid to make really really
16:04
Speaker 1: important decisions. What's likely to happen here? Do you think?
16:08
Speaker 2: Well? I think there are clearly three strong votes against
16:11
Speaker 2: the president's executive order, the three same justices that disagreed
16:16
Speaker 2: with the nationwide injunction order last June in the Kaza case.
16:21
Speaker 2: That's Kagan and Sodomayoor and Brown Jackson. I think Justice Alito,
16:27
Speaker 2: Thomas and probably Gorsiz are pretty strongly supporting the government's position.
16:32
Speaker 2: I got the sense that Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh were
16:37
Speaker 2: leaning that direction. Chief Justice Roberts kept it a little
16:42
Speaker 2: closer to the vest than those two did. I will
16:45
Speaker 2: say this, the media reports out that I've seen this
16:48
Speaker 2: afternoon that Chief Justice Roberts as, you can't do this,
16:51
Speaker 2: it's mandated by the Constitution. That's complete distortion of what
16:55
Speaker 2: he said and taken out of context that phrase. So
16:59
Speaker 2: he didn't say anything of the sort. The question was
17:02
Speaker 2: whether whether Congress could alter the meaning of subject to
17:05
Speaker 2: the jurisdiction, and he said, if it's mandated by the Constitution,
17:09
Speaker 2: then no, they can't. That's that's basic constitutional law. One
17:12
Speaker 2: oh one. So so you know, I don't think we
17:16
Speaker 2: have a read on him. I do agree with you
17:18
Speaker 2: he tries to find a way to avoid this, and
17:20
Speaker 2: I think he was trying to explore whether Congress, under
17:24
Speaker 2: its Section five powers under the fourteenth Amendment, could could
17:28
Speaker 2: adjust the meaning of what subject to the jurisdiction in
17:33
Speaker 2: a way that would impact this, and both Solicitor General
17:36
Speaker 2: Souer and Cecilia Wang, arguing on the other side, said no.
17:40
Speaker 2: And so if he tries to split the baby in
17:42
Speaker 2: that direction, I don't think you know, those those, you know,
17:47
Speaker 2: flat out rejections of that argument by both sides will
17:50
Speaker 2: make it very difficult to do.
17:52
Speaker 1: It's hi, Johnny Easman. So so what is the Let's
17:54
Speaker 1: say the Supreme Court says the executive order is no good,
17:57
Speaker 1: He's just going to stay the way it is, and
17:59
Speaker 1: the birthright policy remains. You've got a majority in the
18:02
Speaker 1: House of the Senate. Do they pass legislation? Do they
18:04
Speaker 1: pass an act that somehow updates or amends the amendment?
18:08
Speaker 1: Do you have to make an amendment through a constitutional conference?
18:11
Speaker 1: What happens because subject of the jurisdiction thereof is problematic.
18:14
Speaker 1: In my opinion, if you rewrite it to make it
18:16
Speaker 1: more clear if you're a subject of a foreign entity
18:20
Speaker 1: your child is not a citizen, that would be much easier.
18:23
Speaker 1: But can you alter a current amendment or do you
18:26
Speaker 1: have to do something different to amend it?
18:29
Speaker 2: I think you'd have to amend the constitution. Supreme Court
18:31
Speaker 2: comes down and says, the Constitution doesn't allow you to
18:36
Speaker 2: not give citizenship to temporary visitors or illegally immigrants. Congress
18:40
Speaker 2: couldn't alter that either. It has no more power to
18:43
Speaker 2: adjust the meaning of the Constitution than the President does.
18:48
Speaker 2: By executive order. What the president's executive order is trying
18:51
Speaker 2: to do is define what the Constitution means, not alter
18:54
Speaker 2: what it means. And so if the Court says, oh,
18:58
Speaker 2: constitution means acts, you're wrong, mister President. Then the only
19:01
Speaker 2: way to fix that, I think would be a constitutional amendment.
19:04
Speaker 2: But the American people are now so awakened to the
19:07
Speaker 2: problem with this issue and this misunderstanding of the Constitution
19:11
Speaker 2: that I think we might have the most successful prospect
19:14
Speaker 2: of a constitutional amendment in relatively short order that I've
19:17
Speaker 2: seen in our lifetime. If there are politicians willing to
19:21
Speaker 2: do it now. I don't think it would come out
19:23
Speaker 2: of Congress because you got to have two thirds vote
19:26
Speaker 2: in each House of Congress to get a constitutional amendment,
19:28
Speaker 2: and the Democrats would never do this. So you'd have
19:31
Speaker 2: to have a constitutional convention limited to this single issue
19:35
Speaker 2: and thirty four states to call that constitutional convention of
19:38
Speaker 2: state legislatures, and I think you could get that, and
19:41
Speaker 2: then they then propose then they propose an amendment that
19:45
Speaker 2: would fix the Supreme Court's wrong decision. In my view,
19:49
Speaker 2: then you need thirty eight states to ratify that amendment,
19:53
Speaker 2: and I think they would get that as well.
19:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I agree with you. There are many more
19:56
Speaker 1: red states than blue states. Right now. It's John Eastpan,
19:58
Speaker 1: former Trump attorney. He is a guy who is in
20:00
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court today checking out the verbal arguments. How
20:05
Speaker 1: long do you think it will take for us to
20:06
Speaker 1: get a result here?
20:08
Speaker 2: End of June, last day of the term. I don't
20:11
Speaker 2: think there's any way they come out with it earlier
20:13
Speaker 2: than that. Maybe earlier that last week, but I think
20:17
Speaker 2: this is a last day type of case that comes out.
20:20
Speaker 1: John easpin Legal Defensefund dot com. It's John Eastpin. I'd
20:23
Speaker 1: be remiss to not talk to you about twenty twenty.
20:25
Speaker 1: The way I see it, John, is that the vice
20:28
Speaker 1: president had the right to not open the electors, yet
20:32
Speaker 1: he had the right to listen with the president said
20:34
Speaker 1: and say, let's make sure we have the right electors
20:37
Speaker 1: before we certify anything today January sixth, and that Ryan
20:40
Speaker 1: the Mayhem, of course, forced everybody's hands to say, yeah,
20:43
Speaker 1: let's just certify, because God forbid we should have this happen.
20:46
Speaker 1: But all that, let's put all that aside for a second.
20:48
Speaker 1: Does the vice president have the right to say, I
20:51
Speaker 1: am not in a position to open this because there
20:53
Speaker 1: are too many questions in Pennsylvania, in Florida, not Florida,
20:56
Speaker 1: but Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan. There are too many questions
20:59
Speaker 1: out there about what happened in this election. We will
21:02
Speaker 1: certify when we're sure we have the right electors. Doesn't he,
21:05
Speaker 1: by his authority as the President of the Senate have
21:07
Speaker 1: that right.
21:09
Speaker 2: I believe he does, although that's one of the reasons
21:12
Speaker 2: I've been criminally prosecuted in Georgia and Arizona because I
21:15
Speaker 2: had advocated for that position, and it's one of the
21:19
Speaker 2: reasons the California bar is trying to disbarm me. I
21:23
Speaker 2: think he has that order, and the language of the
21:25
Speaker 2: relevant language of the Constitution says the Vice President shall
21:28
Speaker 2: open all the ballots in the presence of the House
21:31
Speaker 2: and Senate, and then they shall be counted. And in
21:34
Speaker 2: the presence of the House and Senate pretty clearly means
21:36
Speaker 2: there to be there to be observers that the check
21:39
Speaker 2: on the vice president abusing his power to open and
21:43
Speaker 2: count and necessarily to make decisions about contested and potentially
21:50
Speaker 2: illegal cast votes. They were just to be present to
21:54
Speaker 2: observe so that the power wouldn't be abused. But you
21:57
Speaker 2: had hundreds of state legislators, including the President pro tem
22:00
Speaker 2: of the Pennsylvania Senate, not a big advocate of President Trump,
22:04
Speaker 2: he was kind of anti Trump, not as violently as
22:09
Speaker 2: some others, but had been and he sent a letter
22:11
Speaker 2: to pens and said, signed by almost every Republican in
22:14
Speaker 2: the state Senate, said there were so many illegalities in
22:18
Speaker 2: our election, in violation of our constitutional authority as a
22:22
Speaker 2: legislator to set the rules, that this election should not
22:25
Speaker 2: have been certified, and we need some time to assess
22:29
Speaker 2: the impact of that illegality. There were letters like that
22:32
Speaker 2: from Georgia, from Arizona, from Michigan and Wisconsin saying exactly
22:37
Speaker 2: the same thing, and everybody saw it. Everybody saw the illegality,
22:41
Speaker 2: the playing games, the fact that there were more ballots
22:44
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania cast and counted than there are voters as
22:47
Speaker 2: recording as have voted, that there were three hundred and
22:49
Speaker 2: fifty thousand ballots down in Georgia. They don't have a
22:52
Speaker 2: chain of custody. That the recount came in Fulton County,
22:56
Speaker 2: came up seventeen thousand, eight hundred something short, and they
22:59
Speaker 2: just automatic overnight in a closet found eighteen one thousand
23:04
Speaker 2: missing ballots. I mean, give me a freaking break. Yeah,
23:06
Speaker 2: and so it should have been investigated no matter what
23:09
Speaker 2: the ultimate outcome was. So the American people had some
23:12
Speaker 2: confidence that the election actually produced the true renter. However,
23:17
Speaker 2: the chips fell. We never got that, and now so
23:20
Speaker 2: many half the country still thinks that the election was stolen.
23:24
Speaker 1: You know, it's amazing because every single time some leftists
23:26
Speaker 1: gets somebody in front of them in a hearing in
23:28
Speaker 1: the senator of the House, they first say, do you
23:31
Speaker 1: believe that Joe Biden won the twenty twenty election? And
23:35
Speaker 1: the answer by the person, if there's somebody who is
23:36
Speaker 1: supportive of actually being able to question an election, we'll
23:39
Speaker 1: say Joe Biden was inaugurated and he took office as
23:43
Speaker 1: the president, so he was the president. But they want
23:45
Speaker 1: them to say I don't think he won, as if
23:47
Speaker 1: they got him somehow. John, the fact is constitutionally and
23:50
Speaker 1: correct me if I'm wrong, you're the expert. I'm not. Constitutionally,
23:53
Speaker 1: I have the right as an American to question the
23:55
Speaker 1: outcome of an election, period, end of story. You don't
23:57
Speaker 1: get to squelched me on censor me on social media.
24:00
Speaker 1: You don't get to arrest me and indict me. I'm
24:02
Speaker 1: allowed to say I'm not so sure that election result
24:05
Speaker 1: was the right result. I'm allowed to say that. And also, constitutionally,
24:08
Speaker 1: the states that you mentioned, all of them cheated and
24:11
Speaker 1: lied because in the constitution, state legislatures that's the only
24:15
Speaker 1: body that is able to change how a general election
24:18
Speaker 1: is prosecuted in that state. Attorney's general can't do it.
24:21
Speaker 1: Lieutenant governors can't do it. Governors can't do it, Secretaries
24:24
Speaker 1: of state can't do it. And in all those cases
24:26
Speaker 1: that you mentioned, those rules were changed by entities. They
24:29
Speaker 1: didn't have the right to change it. So what's the
24:31
Speaker 1: problem with you with you challenging that? And how dare
24:33
Speaker 1: they indict you and Rudy and the president and everybody
24:36
Speaker 1: else when you just did constitutionally what you were allowed
24:38
Speaker 1: to do.
24:40
Speaker 2: Well, it's called the right to petition the government for
24:43
Speaker 2: redress of grievances. That's one of the central issues in
24:46
Speaker 2: on appeal in my California bar case. And if the
24:49
Speaker 2: California Supreme Court rules against me and adopts the recommendation
24:54
Speaker 2: of disbarment, we will be taking that issue to the
24:57
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court because I think it is a fundamental
25:00
Speaker 2: constitutional right that is being infringed here. And you know,
25:03
Speaker 2: and what they're doing is not only criminally indicting people
25:07
Speaker 2: for exercising that constitutional right, but threatening their livelihoods by
25:11
Speaker 2: loss of license. Imagine if the Federal Communications Commission decided
25:16
Speaker 2: to revoke your broadcast license because you continue to raise
25:19
Speaker 2: questions about the twenty twenty election. But there's another problem here,
25:23
Speaker 2: and that is it's one sided. I mean, Hillary Clinton
25:26
Speaker 2: to this day continues to say Trump was illegally elected
25:29
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen. You know, Al Gore and most of
25:33
Speaker 2: the left continue to say that George Bush was selected,
25:39
Speaker 2: not elected in two thousand. You know, they all continue
25:43
Speaker 2: to challenge the election. They say that, and there's you know,
25:46
Speaker 2: there was a challenge in two thousand and four, completely
25:50
Speaker 2: frivolous lawsuit filed in Ohio because Ohio was enough electoral
25:55
Speaker 2: votes that they could have turned the election. So they
25:57
Speaker 2: just threw everything they could. It was frivolous. But instead
26:00
Speaker 2: of sanctioning the lawyers that brought that for this thing,
26:03
Speaker 2: the court said, look, you know, election challenges are are
26:07
Speaker 2: you know, intensely emotional. Their short term we're not going
26:10
Speaker 2: to sanction lawyers for trying to bring a case to
26:13
Speaker 2: defend their clients. And yet when the shoes on the
26:17
Speaker 2: other foot, like it has been after twenty twenty, they
26:19
Speaker 2: throw everything they've got at us. It's a weaponization the
26:22
Speaker 2: likes of which we've never seen before. There's a whole
26:25
Speaker 2: movie about it, if people want to watch it, called
26:28
Speaker 2: The Eastman Dilemma, Lawfare or Justice. It is still available
26:31
Speaker 2: for free streaming at Madisonmediafund dot org. I invite people
26:36
Speaker 2: to watch it, and if they've got a big group
26:37
Speaker 2: they want to show it, to contact me and I'll
26:40
Speaker 2: zoom in on a zoom call and take questions and
26:42
Speaker 2: answers after it.
26:44
Speaker 1: Now, that would be amazing. Madison Mediafund dot org.
26:48
Speaker 2: Madisonmediafund dot org. I think it's dot org. It might
26:51
Speaker 2: be dot com.
26:52
Speaker 1: Well we'll check it out or yeah, we'll make sure
26:53
Speaker 1: we get the right one. Also go to Johnny'spenlegal Defense
26:55
Speaker 1: Fund dot com. A couple of things on twenty twenty.
27:00
Speaker 1: The way Hillary Clinton to this day thinks that she
27:02
Speaker 1: really won the election and they lied about Russia collusion
27:04
Speaker 1: and everything else. And you're allowed to say that if
27:07
Speaker 1: you're on the left. In fact, John, and I love
27:08
Speaker 1: your comment on this. Already months before the November election,
27:12
Speaker 1: you've got people on the left, the progressive left, who
27:14
Speaker 1: are lining up to any microphone and any camera they
27:17
Speaker 1: can find to say Donald Trump, through the Save America Act,
27:20
Speaker 1: is trying to steal the midterm elections. You what are
27:22
Speaker 1: your thoughts on that. I guess you could say it preemptively,
27:24
Speaker 1: but you can't say it after the election.
27:28
Speaker 2: Well, they're saying that because of this false narrative that
27:33
Speaker 2: the Save America Act will suppress the votes of anti
27:36
Speaker 2: Trump voters. What it will do is suppress the vote
27:40
Speaker 2: of illegal anti Trump voters. If you've got to prove
27:43
Speaker 2: citizenship and you're not saying I think Chuck Schumer said
27:48
Speaker 2: this is going to disenfranchise tens of millions of people.
27:51
Speaker 2: Are you reading tens of millions of people? Aren't citizens
27:53
Speaker 2: that are already voting? You know, why would you be
27:57
Speaker 2: so afraid that you got to show ID to make
27:59
Speaker 2: sure you are who you say you are. You know,
28:02
Speaker 2: almost all the rest of the countries in the world
28:04
Speaker 2: that have elections, you got to show your vote, your
28:06
Speaker 2: photo ID to say that you know whoever's showing up
28:09
Speaker 2: to vote is who they say they are. And the
28:11
Speaker 2: notion that that's that that's somehow an imposition, or that
28:15
Speaker 2: women who get married and change their name can't figure
28:18
Speaker 2: out how to get an ID with their right name
28:20
Speaker 2: on it, I mean, give me a break. I mean,
28:22
Speaker 2: you know, women, every woman that changes their name when
28:25
Speaker 2: they get married has already figured out how to handle this.
28:28
Speaker 2: It's not a problem. It takes a little bit of effort,
28:31
Speaker 2: but only a little bit. And the notion that women
28:33
Speaker 2: are too stupid to figure that out is quite frankly offensive.
28:37
Speaker 1: It is. I've got five daughters and a wife, and
28:39
Speaker 1: a mother and three sisters, so I mean it is offensive.
28:41
Speaker 1: It's Johnny's been go to Johnny's Been Legal Defense Fund
28:43
Speaker 1: dot com. Why do you think that they're on the
28:45
Speaker 1: wrong side of this eighty five fifteen story John Nutt.
28:49
Speaker 1: When it came to men playing in women's sports, that
28:51
Speaker 1: was also eighty twenty, and the left came up all
28:53
Speaker 1: wet on that, and thankfully the rules are changing to
28:56
Speaker 1: where men cannot infiltrate women's sports or women's spaces. But
28:59
Speaker 1: when it comes to this one, what is what is
29:01
Speaker 1: the as a good lawyer and I as a debater.
29:06
Speaker 1: You have to know the other side very well. What
29:08
Speaker 1: is their point? They can't really think women, Latinos and
29:11
Speaker 1: blacks are stupid. What is their point? They're desperate to
29:14
Speaker 1: keep the illegals voting.
29:17
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's right there. I think there are
29:19
Speaker 2: two issues. One, they know that the that people not
29:24
Speaker 2: legally allowed to vote have been voting. That's why they
29:26
Speaker 2: refuse to clean up their voter roles. You've got a
29:29
Speaker 2: cash of dead people or moved people or illegal people
29:34
Speaker 2: on the voter rolls that that fraudsters could then use
29:38
Speaker 2: and say I'm I'm that name, and I can vote,
29:41
Speaker 2: and if I don't have to have a photo, I
29:42
Speaker 2: d I'm able to use John Smith even though I'm
29:45
Speaker 2: not John Smith because he's on the voter rolls and
29:48
Speaker 2: we know he's not voting because he's long dead. So
29:50
Speaker 2: I don't have any risk of being caught with this thing.
29:53
Speaker 2: So that's one. The second thing is their radical Marxist left,
29:57
Speaker 2: his base demands it, and and none of them, none
30:01
Speaker 2: of them have enough spine to stand up to that radical,
30:06
Speaker 2: idiotic base. And so the base is demanding it and
30:09
Speaker 2: they and they fall in line like a bunch of sheep.
30:12
Speaker 2: So it's a combination of protecting the fraud that they
30:14
Speaker 2: know is going on and not wanting to stand up
30:17
Speaker 2: to their radical Marxist bace.
30:19
Speaker 1: It is h John Eyaspin go to Johnnyspin Legal Defense
30:21
Speaker 1: Fund dot com. Last question, John, and I appreciate the time.
30:24
Speaker 1: Hopefully you'll come back on and do this again with
30:26
Speaker 1: me when it comes to your case specifically. Clearly, you
30:29
Speaker 1: and I just talked about why constitutionally it is righteous
30:32
Speaker 1: to challenge the government, bring redress, to challenge an election.
30:35
Speaker 1: It's righteous to say these states all change their election
30:38
Speaker 1: rules illegally. Sixty one cases you guys tried to bring
30:42
Speaker 1: and no judge would even take the case. There are
30:44
Speaker 1: liars on the left saying you lost every case. Now
30:46
Speaker 1: they were just never heard, which is ridiculous. What is
30:49
Speaker 1: the final disposition dispensation going to be on your case
30:54
Speaker 1: as far as you being disbarred and kicked out of
30:56
Speaker 1: a you know, a Chaptman university and everything else. I
30:58
Speaker 1: hope that you come out on top up. Where are
31:01
Speaker 1: those cases and when will we find out the result?
31:05
Speaker 2: So I've been in nineteen different cases now from Rhode
31:11
Speaker 2: Island to Arizona to California. We're down to the last two.
31:17
Speaker 2: The Georgia criminal charges were dismissed. The unindicted co conspirator
31:22
Speaker 2: charges in the case Jack Smith brought against President Trump
31:25
Speaker 2: and DC was dismissed. We're likely to get attorney's fees
31:29
Speaker 2: out of Georgia because of a new statue down there.
31:32
Speaker 2: Arizona is still pending, but it's on life support. The
31:34
Speaker 2: Attorney General is likely to lose her current appeal to
31:38
Speaker 2: the Arizona Supreme Court, and hopefully that case goes away.
31:41
Speaker 2: And then we're pending before the California Supreme Court on
31:44
Speaker 2: the California bar matter and whether they rule in my favor.
31:47
Speaker 2: If they rule in my favor, I think that ends it.
31:50
Speaker 2: If they rule against me, we go to the US
31:52
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, and I think I've got a fair shot
31:54
Speaker 2: at getting the US Supreme Court to take this up
31:56
Speaker 2: because of the significant First Amendment issues involved. But those
31:59
Speaker 2: are the last two. I've already spent more than two
32:01
Speaker 2: million dollars dealing with this. But that's part of the goal.
32:06
Speaker 2: The process is the punishment. And they've actually said, the
32:09
Speaker 2: groups on the left have actually said, our goal is
32:11
Speaker 2: not just to get him dismarred, but to make him
32:14
Speaker 2: so toxic that other lawyers won't ever take on these
32:17
Speaker 2: kind of challenges again. They're trying to threaten lawyer's livelihoods
32:21
Speaker 2: for daring to stand up to the left's narratives, even
32:24
Speaker 2: though the narratives are patently false, because if you don't
32:27
Speaker 2: stand up to it, those narratives start to take on
32:29
Speaker 2: the patent of truth. It's the big lie. If they
32:32
Speaker 2: repeat it often enough, this false narrative that the election
32:35
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty was the most secure in our inn
32:37
Speaker 2: Asian's history. I mean, that's just laughably false. But if
32:40
Speaker 2: they repeat it often enough and they scare the but
32:43
Speaker 2: Jesus of everybody out who dares to say that the
32:45
Speaker 2: king has no clothes or the emperor has no clothes,
32:48
Speaker 2: then everybody will stop challenging it, and then it'll become true,
32:52
Speaker 2: or at least it'll look like it's become true. And
32:54
Speaker 2: that's why I stand up despite all the crap that's
32:57
Speaker 2: being thrown at me.
32:58
Speaker 1: I love you, I love your back vote. I love
33:00
Speaker 1: that you're going to stick to this, and I hope
33:02
Speaker 1: that you get the right result because going forward, as
33:04
Speaker 1: you said, they tried to bleed you dry, and hopefully
33:06
Speaker 1: people will go to John He'spenlegal Defense Fund dot com
33:09
Speaker 1: and help out there. But they also try to stop
33:11
Speaker 1: anybody else after you from ever taking these cases on,
33:14
Speaker 1: and these cases are important. John, THANKSI Milion for coming on.
33:16
Speaker 1: Hopefully we can do it again soon.
33:19
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Joe, my pleasure.
33:21
Speaker 1: Really appreciate it. All right, that's it for this one.
33:23
Speaker 1: We're back with another, Unshaken and Unafraid with Joe PAGs
33:25
Speaker 1: very soon. Make sure you subscribe