Latest / Brian Thomas / Judge Napolitano - Do we still have a Constitution?

Transcript

Judge Napolitano - Do we still have a Constitution? · Brian Thomas

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Always typically say, and I'm going to say it again,
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: try at least to make it a happy Wednesday, even
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: though my next guest every Wednesday, with the Thinking about
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: Ksey Morning Show, Judge M. Napolitano, is probably as disappointed
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: as I am. We had to take a loss yesterday,
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Judge Anapolitano, Congress from MASSI pretty much roundly defeated by
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Ed goll Ryan ten percent margin of a margin between
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: the two. I knew you and I were really hoping
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: for Congress from Massey. A proud defender of the constitution,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: unwavering defender of the constitution, and we have so few
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: of those these days. Welcome back here, honor boy. That
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: hits right at home with your your op ed beast today.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: Do we still have a constitution? Good to have you
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: back on the show.
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: I'm sick to my stomach to be honest with you.
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: Thomas is the last man standing. There is no one
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: as faithful to the Constitution or the primacy of the
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: individual over the state as he is. And now he's
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: going to be replaced by a two bit political hackle.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: Just do whatever Republican leadership tells him to do. The
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: people of the were served by a giant, and now
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: they'll be served by a mouse. And it's just reprehensible
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: that the president of the United States is so extraordinarily
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: thin skinned like most mobsters, bullies and thugs, that he
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: had to eliminate the one person of the five hundred
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: and thirty five who made sense when he spoke on
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: the floor.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: Well, he's been having some pretty serious success with his
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: attack efforts and various politicians, one of them Senator Bill Cassidy,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: who did vote to impeach him. So I understand perhaps
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: the voter is not being thrilled with Bil Cassidy, but
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: when you do things like that, it tends to have consequences.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: And one of the things I wanted to ask you
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: about is since they did advance a war powers measure,
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: because Senator Bill Cassidy changed sides after voting against them
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: the other day. He said, no, I'm voting with them now.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: So one more Republican at least until after the top
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: of the year next year. That was one of the
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: ones that did Trump went after. But it allows me
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: to pivot over to ask you this because I'm kind
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: of in a state of confusion. Here. Looks like bombs
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: are going to drop or they're not going to drop things.
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Status changed with the erodience day in and day out.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Are we in a pause under the War Powers Resolution
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: or not? I don't know there's any case law determining
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: whether alleged cease fire, which I really don't think we
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: have that pauses the ticking of the sixty day clock
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: and the War Powers Resolution.
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: People who argue in favor of the pause, like Secretary Hegseeth,
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: who committed a public violation of the Hatch Act by
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: using military by appearing for this guy gal Rain while
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: he was the Secretary of Defense, but listen to since
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: crying over spilled milk. These people argue that if the
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: bullets stopped for a period of time, the clock is reset.
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: They have not read the law. The law says from
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: sixty days after the introduction of the troops. So the
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: introduction of the troops was on February twenty eighth. It
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: doesn't matter what the troops do, it's sixty days after
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: their introduction. The Congress has to approve it. This is
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: more of the same cult like following of whatever Trump
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: wants that we saw in the gallerin defeat of Congressman Massey.
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: But I will say this, that probably will be another senator,
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: Republican senator who will soon flip by the name of
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: John Cornan after what happened to him yesterday.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Another valid point. Okay, So, since more traction is being
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: made toward getting a war powers measure passed, and assuming
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: they do pass it, Donald Trump could veto it, and
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: I doubt under any circumstance it's going to be a
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: bulletproof veto override majority. They're going to vote for this,
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: which leaves us where.
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: Back where we started is where it is where it
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: leaves us. And you can blame the Congress in nineteen
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: seventy three for even crafting this monstrosity which recognized that
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: presidents will start wars without the authority of the Congress.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: The whole thing is unconstitutional. That Congress would seede away
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: for sixty days its war making power to the president. Now,
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution. It's a statute,
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: but for some reason they chose to call it resolution.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: I don't know why President Nixon vetoed it, not because
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: it was an improper delegation, but because he felt Remember
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: he famously said, if the president does it, then it's
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: not illegal. He felt that the president could start any
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: war against any adversary at any time and the Congress
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: could not interfere, So he vetoed it for the opposite
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: reasons that I am telling you. In my view, it's unconstanttional.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: So this has never happened before. No Congress has ever
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: purported to negate the president's war authority since the enactment
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: of this law, and so the issue of whether or
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: not the president can veto it has never come to four.
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: Under the Constitution, the president can veto anything that the
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: two houses do, except for his own impeachment. The statute
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: is silent on this, but it's silence must mean that
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: they contemplated that the president could veto it. So all
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: it is is a political statement. If it passes that
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: a majority of the Republican controlled Congress of the United
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: States of America once the war stopped, that's political fodder
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: for those of us who are anti war, even though
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: it won't affect things legally. Look is so indifferent to
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: the law. Even if Congress ordered in the stop, he wouldn't.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: What is he being told what to do by Miriam
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: Adelson and Benjamin that's in Yahoo. He couldn't care less
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: what the Congress wants. The Congress is, as Pat Buchanan
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: famously said, is really occupied territory.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: I hate that. To laugh at that, that is pretty
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: is dute observation.
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: Either way, that great congressman from the fourth District of
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: Kentucky use has used that phrase as well.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: It does sound very massy esque touch the thought that
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: so is there any now going back to the War
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Powers Resolution, the Warpowers Act. Whatever the sixty o'clock running
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: isn't running? Is it not running? I hear your interpretation
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: sounds logical, reasonable, and the lawful interpretation. No court has
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: ever interpreted it yet. How who has standing to go
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: in and challenge this? Is it or is it not?
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: A pause argument?
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah, here we go again. I don't know who would
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: have standing under gold Border against Carter, where Senator Barry
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: gold Border sued President Jimmy Carter to prevent him from
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: giving his sounds ridiculous, but it happened to prevent him
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: from giving away the Panama Canal. The Supreme Court said
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: federal courts do not have jurisdiction over things that are
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: essentially you know what's coming, Brian, because this is what
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: they say, when they don't have the fortitude to rule
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: a political question, yes, yes, political question theoretically means it
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: is to be resolved by the other two branches. What
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: it really means is we don't want to get involved.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: That's true, we don't want to get impeached.
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: We don't want to get involved.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: But if there was standing and the War Powers resolution
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: was being analyzed, they could also be analyzed for its
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: own constitutionality, because it is an unconstitutional delegation of power.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: So if you eliminated the War Power's resolution, what we
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: are left with is the Constitution of the United States
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: of America, which requires congression, approval and declaration of war.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: And who's going to stop the president if they enacted legislation.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: If they put forward legislation saying thou shalt not spend
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: money on weapons and fighting Iran, he would veto that.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: So they've created a monster.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and this has been building since World War Two,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: overtime for over time, Korea and Vietnam. We can go
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: on and on and on and multiple administrations real quick
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: on your column, which was outstanding this creation of this
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: fund through Donald Trump settlement with the IRS over then
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: releasing his tax records. You know, kind of reminded me
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: of Obama forcing banks to donate money to Loraza. Now
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: completely different factual scenario, but you make a good case
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: or controversy question out this. You have the person responsible
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: of an oversight for the Justice Department presiding over and
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: directing the Justice Department to settle with him. Clearly it
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: sounds like a conflict of interest or something obviously wrong,
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: and you pointed that out quite well on your column today,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: which I'm glad enough to get early.
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: Unconstitutional. It's unethical, and it's unenforceable. It's unconstitutional because only
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: Congress can appropriate money under the Constitution for the expenditure
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: of tax dollars. It's profoundly unethical for Todd Blanche. He
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: should be disbarred from the practice of law for him
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: to have divided loyalties. On one side is the man
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: who appointed him, his former client who's dangling the attorney
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: general's job in front of him, and on the other
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: side is the same person Todd Blanche you talk about
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: divided loyalties. This violates a very basic basic canons of
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: illegal ethics, and it's unenforceable because it says in Trumpian language,
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: you must have written this himself because it's in caps,
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: which is a violation of the English language. Forever barred
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: and precluded from prosecute or pursuing pending tax claims against
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump, no court will uphold that. I don't even
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: know why the federal court in Miami, before whom this
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: case was originally venued, would permit itself to be used
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: for in such a collusive, unethical, extraordinary, unprecedented, unconstitutional manner.
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: But we haven't seen the end of.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: This well, since it's an intrusion into the power of purse.
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: Going back to the whole issue of who might bring
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: this before a court a law to declare that he
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: can't gris grab that money and park it wherever he wants.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: Any standing there, Judge Dapaul.
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: Tune, Yeah, again, I don't know, but someone will be
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: aggrieved by this, perhaps another taxpayer. You know. All this
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: started when Trump's taxes tax returns were leaked by an
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: IRS employee, and they showed radically a different amount of
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: payment than what Trump claimed, radically different. His wasn't the
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: only return leaked. Four hundred and twenty five thousand returns
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: were stolen by this guy who's since served four years
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: in a federal prison. Someone in that four hundred and
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: twenty five thousand will have standing to challenge this thing.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Just need a lawyer to reach out to him. Yes,
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: jud Jennet to Polatino, excellent analysis today. I always enjoy
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: our exchanges and I look forward to next Wednesday with
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: another edition of this segment on the fifty five Carecy
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Morning shown me too.
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: Oh thank you. And if you speak to Thomas, please
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: tell him I love him.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: I will absolutely well a matter of fact, we get
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: done here, I'll text them a message and tell him
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: just that. And he reappreciates all your support over the years.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: And of course he is going to remain ideologically firm
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: and where he is. And I'm sure there are other
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: things for Thomas Massey and the country.
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the ranks so as well. Who knows he
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: could end up in the Senate by some circuitous route.