Latest / Brian Thomas / Judge Napolitano - The Coming Constitutional Ice Age

Transcript

Judge Napolitano - The Coming Constitutional Ice Age · Brian Thomas

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Bowl is over. Go to our next guest blog for
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: political commentary predictions for all thirty two Major League Baseball
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: teams and his mock NFL draft. Bengals are going to
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: take a safety. You've heard it here first, the judgees next,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Chuck Ingram, I'm fifty five KRC, the Ain't Talk station.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Six p thirty one, fifty five KRS detalk station. Of course,
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: he's referring to Judge entered Apoloitano. Every morning Wednesday at
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: eight thirty we get to hear from the judge and
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: a constitutional protector. He is welcome back, you're honor. It's
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: always a pleasure to have you on the fifty five
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: KRS morning show. He's tapping, he's he can't hear us. Joe,
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: all right, he's gonna have to call, Oh, hell's bells.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: How is it? That's always ends up happening. So Judge
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: or Joe, you want to get him on the phone,
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: please as soon as possible, and we'll see if we
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: can't work this out. It's always troubling when this happens.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: I definitely was going to ask him about the terrorf situation,
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: because of course that's a constitution. Unless you as framed
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: by Congressman Massy. But we also have this whole idea
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: of administrative warrants versus judicial warrants, and he's talked about
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: that before in connection with the demands that the Democrats
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: are seeking to get the government reopened. They want judicial
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: warrants only, and the judges comment about that many times before.
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: So we're gonna hear a little bit about that in
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: context of his column tonight, the Coming Constitutional Ice Age.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: Judge endedapoltanic. Can you hear me?
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: Now? Yeah, they hear you, and that Brian and I
• 1:29
  Speaker 3: see you. I see you through the wizardry of the
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: digital system, but I hear you through an old fashion.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: So well, the crazy, it is crazy. I don't know
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: how we always stumble into these problems, but we'll blame
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: the gremlins and my conspiracy theory. Audience are probably suggesting
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: maybe some left wingers out there, or people who don't
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: like Congressman Thomas Massey or you and your positions on
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: the Constitution are sabotaging the segment. Anyway, your column tonight
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: comes out at midnight, the Coming Constitutional Ice Age Congress
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: A Massy kind of stumble little on this in the
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: context of a question. I asked him about his vote
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: on tariffs, and he said, well, the Constitution's very clear
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: tariffs are the power of Congress, not for the president.
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: You to latterly wage, and he is not in favor
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: of Donald Trump's tariffs. Have you and I talked about
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: this before. I don't recall that this subject matter has
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: come up, and I apologize if it has your honor,
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: but your position relative to the tariffs, which the Supreme
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: Court's got a case in front of it right now,
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: I wish.
• 2:25
  Speaker 3: The Supreme Court would rule. We keep hearing rumors that
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: there are colossal battles going on in the Supreme Court
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: over this. Congressman Massey is one hundred percent correct. A
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: tariff is a tax. It's a sales tax and co
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: only Congress can impose taxes. It's the very first authority
• 2:47
  Speaker 3: given to the Congress in the Constitution. The president can't
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: impose them on his own. Presidents have imposed tariffs, but
• 2:54
  Speaker 3: only when Congress has expressly authorized them to do so.
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: Congress has never authors President Trump to impose tariff. In fact,
• 3:03
  Speaker 3: the statute on which he realies doesn't even mention tariffs.
• 3:07
  Speaker 3: The President's argument is that tariffs are an instrument of
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: foreign policy, and foreign policy is exclusively an executive function.
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: But the sounder argument is the Congressman Massy argument, the
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: one that was held up by the Trout Court and
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: the Appellate Court, and the one that I think of
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court will hold up as well. But as
• 3:30
  Speaker 3: I said, we're still waiting for a ruling to come down.
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: Well, I guess the way I see it, having worked
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: with at least Trump and his actions on tariffs, he
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: imposes our love he's of tariff, or threatens one and
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: uses that threat as a vehicle to negotiate some foreign
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: policy agreement with a foreign nation. So it became the
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: motivating factor for some foreign land to engage in a
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: foreign policy discussion. But you're saying that that's like an
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: original sin. You can't do it in the first place.
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: Therefore it doesn't act as a event threat to the
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: foreign country.
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: Yes, yes, nicely put. And of course he's also done
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: it for very petty and personal reasons. When the governor
• 4:13
  Speaker 3: general or prime minister I'm not sure what his title
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: is of Quebec ran a television ad of Ronald Reagan
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: lasting tariffs. Trump got so angry that he raised tariffs
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: on Canada. I mean, this type of presidential mercurial personal
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: behavior with respect to the taxes that people paid. These
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: taxes are paid by Americans was never contemplated or authorized
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: anywhere in the Constitution or in Supreme Court jurisprudence. This
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: isn't even a close call in my view, nor was
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: it a close call at the trial court. Troldcourt in
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: this case is not a jury. It's a panel of
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: three judges. Then there's the appellate panel. The trout Court
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: was unanimous against it. The appellate panel was seven to
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: four against it. Now it's been before the Supreme Court
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: since September. Here we are in February and we don't
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: have a ruling yet.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: Fair enough, pivoting over to constitutional issue number two, declarations
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: of war, we seem to be all ready to I mean,
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: we've amassed a massive force to deal with Iran. Obviously,
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump is endeavoring to get some concessions from Iran
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: regard to their missile plans that they don't want to.
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: They say they won't concede an inch on missiles. So
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: we seem to be the stalemate with Iran. But the
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: implicit threat behind all this is the massive armada of
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: US military hard where that's floating around very close, and
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: the veiled threat that Donald Trump's gonna unleash what seems
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: to me to be an actual outright declaration of war
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: talking about regime change, unlike perhaps a contrast some may
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: make like a single military strike on nuclear facilities to
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: maybe rid the world of an impending nuclear threat. But
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: this is sounds to me like literally all out war,
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: which I would argue, and I think you may feel
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: the same way. We'll find out that Congress needs to
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: be involved.
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: Could not be clearer. The president wages the wars that
• 6:11
  Speaker 3: Congress declares he can't invade another country in tending to
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: bring about regime change, to change the government effectively. That's
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: why we fought the Nazis, not to kill the German people,
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: but to change the government. You can't do these things
• 6:28
  Speaker 3: under the Constitution without a declaration of war from Congress.
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: He couldn't care less. Look as we speak, he may
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: be getting ready to bomb Mexico. Now I'm not exaggerating.
• 6:39
  Speaker 3: The FAA just ordered all aircraft away from the El
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: Paso region because of an impending emergency. Now, what the
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: heck could that be? Other than maybe drum strikes on
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: cartels in Mexico. That's called an invasion. It Congress authorized that,
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: of course not.
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: And constitutional issue number three in the subject matter of
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: your column, the coming constitutional ice age back to the
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: concept of administrative warrants versus judicial warrants. You're on record
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: previously judicial warrants are obligated under these circumstances. Administrative warrants
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: are a sort of whole cloth creation, the idea that
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: a federal agent can authorize the entry into someone's about
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: or building absent a judicial review with probable causes required
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: by the Constitution. Something in your article, though I wanted
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: you explain to my listeners because I know they're going
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: to read it. You start a paragraph, it's eight or nine.
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: Entering the United States illegally is a federal crime. Next paragraph,
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: Entering the US illegally and remaining here beyond the time
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: limits imposed at the time of entry is not a crime.
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: Can you explain the distinction between those two if you
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: don't mind, sir.
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: Well, Congress has not characterized overstaying your permit as a crime.
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: That's a civil wrong. Therefore, no judge would sign an
• 8:02
  Speaker 3: arrest warrant for anybody, which is why they've created this
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: administrative warrant nonsense, so that they can arrest these people.
• 8:10
  Speaker 3: So somebody comes here on a student visa, they finish graduating,
• 8:15
  Speaker 3: they don't return the visa is expired. They get married,
• 8:19
  Speaker 3: they have children, they have a job, they have grandchildren,
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: they've been here for thirty years, they pay taxes, they
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: have a Social Security number, They don't vote, and not
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: an American citizen. Their spouse is, their children, are their
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: grandchildren are? Can they be arrested? No, but I will
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: arrest them anyway. They can't be arrested because no judge
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: would sign an arrest warrant because that is not a crime.
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: The crime is the illegal entry. They entered legally. Overstaying
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: your legal entry is a civil wrong, like failing to
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: shovel your sidewalk or paying your taxes too late. These
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: things are wrong, but they're not criminal. Therefore they can't
• 9:02
  Speaker 3: be the basis for an arrest. Therefore, ICE has made
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: up its own rules so that it can arrest these people.
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: It's rules in utter contravention of the clear language of
• 9:13
  Speaker 3: the Constitution. Until yesterday, actually until Friday, this was all
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: ICE nonsense. On Friday at United States Court of Appeals
• 9:24
  Speaker 3: ratified it. That's two judges sitting on the fifteen judge
• 9:29
  Speaker 3: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I would imagine.
• 9:32
  Speaker 3: I know that this will be appealed. I don't know
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: what the Supreme Court.
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: Will do with it, probably an on bank review first
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: before it goes up to the Supreme Court.
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: Will this is the most conservative court in the Union,
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: But I mean one of these, some of these the
• 9:49
  Speaker 3: conservative judges have a libertarian or a constitutionalist strain in them,
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: even though they've been appointed by Donald Trump and I've
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: not gone along with this nonsense. To the extent that
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: this will tee up the concept of administrative larrance for
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court finally to rule on That's a good thing.
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: But to the extent they might be ratified, it would
• 10:12
  Speaker 3: utterly fly in the face of the Fourth Amendment.
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: Excuse me. Judging of Paulton. Will always appreciate your stage
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: wisdom and well your commitment to the Constitution the United
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: States of America. Who's on the program today? Judging Freedom?
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: Judging of Poulton is podcast which I'll encourage my listeners
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: to check out as well.
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: I have two of my superstars Scott Ritter and Professor
• 10:33
  Speaker 3: Jeffrey Sachs. How soon will Trump do what Benjamin Etsigna
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: who has come here to ask him to do, which
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: is to invade Iran for the benefit of the expansion
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: of Israel's borders. Because Iran poses no national security threat
• 10:52
  Speaker 3: to the United States. That's the other reason conngressy won't
• 10:55
  Speaker 3: get the declaration of war from Congress.
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: That is true, certainly that and that's I guess that's
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: really the key component here. They may be a threat,
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: imminent threat, existential threat to Israel, but Iran is not
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: an existential threat or eminent threat to the United States
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: of America, which is to the point, and it's well taken,
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: Judge Entita Politano. Always appreciate you coming on the program
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: every Wednesday. I'll look forward to another conversation next week
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: and keep up the great.
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: Work with me. Thank you. Next week, Strucker and I
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: will work out this audio issue all the best, Brian,
• 11:24
  Speaker 3: thank you.
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: I'll keep my fingers crossed. God bless you, sir. Eight
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: forty two Here fifty five KR see de talk station
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: don't away.
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: Fifty five KRC dot com.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: I wish i'd