Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of judge

Transcript

The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of judge · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News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
  Have you noticed how often people look to courts to resolve their controversies?
• 0:35
  I mean, sure, courts are there for us to seek redress of our grievances.
• 0:40
  But what happens when those courts become the grievances themselves?
• 0:44
  Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution, teacher action generation be free.
• 0:50
  Glad I could join you today.
• 0:59
  But my my daughter showed me this message, and it it just brought back memories.
• 1:06
  Now, as you know, Artemis II has been flying, it's been it went out at extended on the moon.
• 1:13
  I've heard a lot of questionable information about it, but they were out there.
• 1:17
  Now, I'm old enough to remember the Apollo 11 launch and the men landing and standing on the moon.
• 1:24
  I I have vague memories.
• 1:25
  I was a child at the time, but I do have those memories.
• 1:29
  I don't so much remember Apollo 8 or Apollo 13, other than the movie, which I thought was absolutely wonderful.
• 1:36
  But I did remember the old Jim Lovell was on both of those missions.
• 1:41
  I remember the I've seen the wonderful picture of the the Earth rise that was recorded on Apollo 8 the first time we went around the moon.
• 1:50
  I of course remember the story of Apollo 13.
• 1:53
  And we we lost Mr.
• 1:55
  Lovell last year.
• 1:57
  Um I mean, he was 97 years old.
• 2:00
  He's been around for a while.
• 2:01
  And uh so as we're making these new milestones, new records.
• 2:07
  I heard this and it was surprised.
• 2:09
  So apparently, mission control before Mr.
• 2:13
  Lovell died, they had recorded a message for the astronauts.
• 2:18
  The astronauts have been chosen for Artemis II.
• 2:21
  They recorded a message from Mr.
• 2:24
  Lovell to the Artemis astronauts to be played as they were going to uh out to the moon.
• 2:32
  Hello, out of the Apollo astronaut, Jim Lovell.
• 2:37
  Welcome to my old neighborhood.
• 2:39
  When Frank Borman and Bill Andrews and I over to the moon on Apollo 8, we got humanities first up close much and got a view of the home planet and inspired and people around the world.
• 2:54
  I'm proud of pass that torch on to you.
• 3:03
  It's a historic day.
• 3:04
  I don't know how busy you'll be, but don't forget to enjoy the view.
• 3:10
  So Victor and Christina and Germany, all the great teams are voting here.
• 3:16
  Good luck.
• 3:17
  Godspeed from all those here on the good earth.
• 3:21
  Now, I have not talked much about Artemis and that because it's not really a constitutional issue.
• 3:28
  But I'm sorry, as an American old enough to have remembered the Apollo program, even if if it's a vague memory at this point, I just thought not only that having Jim Lovell, right?
• 3:40
  The man twice orbited the moon, never landed, but to have him leave such a message, again, from orbiting from Apollo 8, the first one of the first men to see the moon that close, to see the earth rise behind the moon, and to send that message.
• 4:00
  And that message touched me.
• 4:02
  He said, Welcome to my old neighborhood.
• 4:06
  This is where I used to be.
• 4:10
  He talked about the view, and yes, you're doing great things, and you've got all this.
• 4:14
  He says, he goes, I know you're busy, but don't forget to enjoy the view.
• 4:20
  You are seeing things only a handful of people have ever seen.
• 4:25
  And he also said, good luck and Godspeed from all of us here on the good earth.
• 4:32
  I don't know.
• 4:34
  That touched me.
• 4:35
  That just it evoked the memories of the great lines, the great messages that were given us from these men, the Apollo men.
• 4:47
  Now, I I'm not uh, you know, I've been following Artemis that closely because, well, it's not a constitutional issue.
• 4:57
  But I'm still curious.
• 4:59
  And if you are younger than me, if you don't remember Apollo 8, Apollo 11, Apollo 13, if you're not old enough to remember, take it from someone who sort of who does.
• 5:11
  Granted, yes, I was young at the time, so the the memories are a little a little, you know, faded.
• 5:17
  These are incredible times.
• 5:21
  And these are times that we should remember because in a few decades, when people are doing other great things, we may look back and remember at these days and find them worthy of remembrance.
• 5:34
  So I wanted to take a few minutes a day.
• 5:36
  Again, because that message from Mr.
• 5:38
  Lovell touched me, not simply because it was recorded before his death, but because here's a man who was there, sending a message to people who are now there.
• 5:51
  And that, ladies and gentlemen, I think that's a big deal.
• 5:56
  Okay, let's get back to the news and the courts.
• 5:59
  In this case, I'm actually going to start in the main Supreme Court, because the state of Maine has been flirting with the idea of ranked choice voting.
• 6:09
  Now, I want to explain this because well, there may be some people who haven't heard me explain it before.
• 6:14
  Ranked choice voting is well, it's a way of voting that allows you to select multiple candidates and then rank them as your preference.
• 6:26
  All right.
• 6:27
  So uh I imagine you get you have your ballot.
• 6:30
  This is the person I is my first choice.
• 6:32
  This is my second choice.
• 6:33
  This is my third choice.
• 6:35
  And the logic goes something like this.
• 6:37
  They take all of the first choices, and they see if any one member person gets a majority.
• 6:45
  If they do not, they go to everybody's third choice, they figure out who was the lowest, who got the fewest number of votes, they remove them from the count, and then if if that was the person you voted for, your second choice now moves to the top, and they do this all over again.
• 7:04
  It is a bit convoluted, I admit.
• 7:07
  But really, is it any crazier than states that have runoff elections?
• 7:12
  Where, you know, if nobody gets a majority, they have a runoff of the top two.
• 7:16
  It that's at least cleaner and simpler, but you know, I'm I'm kind of with ranked choice voting.
• 7:24
  I don't know.
• 7:26
  Part of me says, you know, hey, I'd love it if it'd be really cool if I could vote for first who I really would like to hold that office.
• 7:34
  And then second, who I think would be most likely to win.
• 7:38
  And at least it would it would help break up the monopoly of the of the two parties.
• 7:43
  But I see where people have problems.
• 7:45
  So we get to the state of Maine, and they say, well, this violates the constitution of the state.
• 7:52
  That's what the Supreme Court said.
• 7:53
  Now, I I didn't find their actual decision, but I did find the original uh the the one of the briefs, and they point to it something interesting.
• 8:03
  This they say, the main constitution originally specified that candidates for representative center and governor must receive a majority of votes to win.
• 8:13
  I find that way that is worded interesting, right?
• 8:17
  Because they then quote uh different parts of the 1820 main constitution.
• 8:23
  But I think there's a problem with that.
• 8:26
  Do you know what that problem is?
• 8:28
  The Constitution has been amended.
• 8:31
  In fact, in 1847, it was amended to change the majority of votes to highest number of votes.
• 8:42
  The governor, senators, and members of the House of Representatives shall be elected by the highest number of votes.
• 8:46
  They've changed that.
• 8:48
  And that to me is what sound is what got my attention.
• 8:52
  Because you have a judge that says, Because of the main constitution's language, there are strong and convincing reasons why LD 1666, that's the legislation that uh created ranked choice voting, is unconstitutional.
• 9:08
  It goes on to say, based on the language and structure of the Constitution itself, we conclude that LD 1666, like the legislation upon which the justice opinion in 2017 would, if enacted, violate the main constitution.
• 9:22
  Now, here's what's interesting.
• 9:24
  I'm trying to figure out why.
• 9:26
  Again, I don't I don't have access to the full opinion.
• 9:28
  I'm just reading some quotes that were brought by it.
• 9:31
  But why does it violate the constitution?
• 9:34
  And and interesting, the brief says, well, the constitution originally said you had to get a majority, but it no longer says that.
• 9:43
  That 1820 part of the constitution has been superseded by the amendment in 1847.
• 9:50
  So I'm kind of curious.
• 9:51
  Like I said, I'm not necessarily a fan of ranked choice voting.
• 9:55
  Uh, mostly because I think it confuses people.
• 9:58
  It's a very convoluted process.
• 10:00
  To get to a decision.
• 10:02
  And I don't know that helps.
• 10:03
  But I'm also looking at this going, well, wait a second.
• 10:06
  How has the court gotten to this decision?
• 10:09
  They say it would likely violate the constitution, but they don't explain.
• 10:13
  None of the quotes I've seen explain why.
• 10:15
  And that's what I really want to find out.
• 10:18
  Now, apparently the court relied highly on a 2017 case against the main supreme judicial court that said that ranked choice voting was is consistent with the constitutional requirement that the winners of those elections must be determined by a plurality of all votes returned.
• 10:36
  And again, I'm not entirely sure because I don't have I haven't gone access to the actual decision.
• 10:44
  How they came to that decision.
• 10:46
  Now again, maybe you like the idea of ranked choice voting.
• 10:49
  I like the idea of breaking up the monopoly the donkeys and elephants have, but I'm not sure that ranked choice voting is the way is the best way to do it because of the confusion that it can bring.
• 11:05
  But I look at this saying, well, courts are saying it's uh it violates the main constitution, but I haven't now I'm not an expert in the main constitution.
• 11:13
  I'm not an expert in main law.
• 11:16
  But everything I've seen so far seems to point to, well, you have to have a plurality of all the votes.
• 11:24
  Well, does that not happen if people voted for them?
• 11:29
  Just maybe not as their first or second choice.
• 11:32
  It it to me, a little again, a little bit of a of a conundrum when it comes to courts and how they're coming to these decisions.
• 11:44
  Uh another example is a a judge has issued an injunction uh to prevent Donald Trump from constructing the ballroom on the White House.
• 11:55
  And of course, well, the Trump administration has uh well, he's asked the the for an uh appeals court to pause that decision to put a stay on the injunction.
• 12:09
  Now, the district court judge, Richard Leon, uh, who issued this a uh who issued the the injunction said, listen, um this project, unless it's approved by Congress, um the the group that the the group that was that's suing to stop it are likely to succeed.
• 12:27
  Now, this is a preservationist group, and they're can their problem is that this project includes they call demolishing the east wing of the White House.
• 12:36
  I'm not sure I haven't seen the plans, I don't know how much gets done.
• 12:40
  Um, I'm again I'm torn.
• 12:44
  Are you destroying part of our history by taking down parts or of the East Wing to build this new ballroom?
• 12:53
  And again, I like you know, I like old buildings, I like historic buildings, but sometimes our our desire to preserve history supersedes all reason and logic when it comes to other concerns.
• 13:08
  But then again, I turn around and I see lawyers for Donald Trump saying that uh that that completing this facility is a threat, is a threatening grave national security arms, harms to the White House, the president, and his family.
• 13:26
  Okay, so by not building a ballroom, how are you creating a grave national security threat?
• 13:33
  I mean, it's not like this was the this is recently changed.
• 13:38
  There have been decades and numerous presidents that have not that have been there.
• 13:43
  And to my knowledge, since 1812, the White House has never been attacked.
• 13:47
  I mean, same.
• 13:48
  I mean, sure, there's never been, there's never been taken.
• 13:51
  All right.
• 13:52
  Yes, there are people, there were shots fired outside of it and stuff like that.
• 13:55
  But you know, is there really a national security issue if you don't build a ballroom?
• 14:00
  I'm trying to figure that one out.
• 14:02
  Um, or maybe they're just complaining that based on the state of progress, there's a security issue.
• 14:08
  Maybe that's it.
• 14:09
  Um, but again, it's the preservation of history versus what's in the future.
• 14:16
  You know, sometimes, well, you got a little little history go because the benefit outweighs the value of the history.
• 14:25
  I mean, what is historic about the east wing of the White House?
• 14:29
  I mean, we all know about the West Wing.
• 14:30
  That's where the the Oval Office is or offices are.
• 14:33
  The East Wing is that most isn't that mostly the residential area.
• 14:36
  Doesn't that where the family lives?
• 14:39
  And and again, I'm sure there's historic value in those.
• 14:44
  I don't know.
• 14:45
  And that's part of it is, you know, I I see a judge, I see a district judge ruling against Trump, and I gotta admit, part of me wonders is his is he just doing it because it's Trump, or is there something else?
• 14:58
  Uh we'll have to wait and see.
• 15:00
  But I wanted to bring this up because again, live by the courts, die by the courts.
• 15:05
  If we make everything a judicial decision, well, think of it this way.
• 15:11
  Are we truly a republic?
• 15:15
  No, it's what this judge is saying, it says, yes, this needs to be approved by Congress.
• 15:20
  Uh, but I'm trying to figure out where he gets the idea that that Congress needs to approve the project.
• 15:25
  They're not approving money.
• 15:26
  This is not being funded through the treasury, so Congress doesn't need to approve the money.
• 15:31
  Um, I'm trying to figure out where the judge gets the idea that Congress needs to approve the project.
• 15:37
  Where are you seeing that in the Constitution that Congress oversees all federal buildings?
• 15:43
  You can't do anything to any federal building without congressional approval.
• 15:48
  Or is it only historic buildings, or it's only is it only because it's Donald J.
• 15:54
  Trump?
• 15:55
  Because I don't remember anybody requiring congressional approval when Obama wanted to put a basketball court on the on the White House.
• 16:04
  I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
• 16:06
  Maybe I don't, I don't know.
• 16:07
  I don't, it's possible.
• 16:09
  There's a lot of things I want I wasn't sure about.
• 16:11
  There's a lot of things that I was fairly sure about that came out after the fact.
• 16:15
  One of them is that uh, you know what?
• 16:18
  Those mRNA vaccines for COVID are going to cause long-term problems.
• 16:22
  People with long COVID, shedding, vaccine injuries.
• 16:26
  What are we supposed to do?
• 16:27
  Again, I'm not a virologist, I don't play one on TV, but I listen to people that not only have expertise, but are able to explain things way that I can understand them.
• 16:38
  So I was very happy when our friends at the wellness company came up with spike support.
• 16:44
  It's it's a a product designed to block and dissolve the spike protein, the toxic part of COVID-19, which the very part that uh the MRNA vaccines teach your body to make, which to me always was a concern.
• 17:00
  Again, I'm not an expert.
• 17:02
  Do your own research.
• 17:03
  Go to AmericaOut Loud.shop and click on the spike support panel, see what's included, read the details, be informed.
• 17:11
  And uh I know it's backed by documented research.
• 17:14
  I want you to check that out.
• 17:15
  And it's been vetted by the chief of medical board of the wellness company.
• 17:19
  Now, when you've done your research and you're ready to buy, use the code out loud at checkout, and you'll get 20% off of your order.
• 17:26
  So whether you're dealing with the aftermath of COVID or the vaccine, when you're dealing with the spike protein, or you know someone, family member or friend, point them to AmericaOut Loud.shop, click on the spike support panel, see if this can be used either to protect you or to help you deal with the aftermath of the vaccines and shedding.
• 17:45
  And don't forget, when you place your order, use that code out loud to get 20% off of that order.
• 17:52
  And I pray that uh this product does you and your family well.
• 18:06
  Let's get real.
• 18:07
  Let's get loud.
• 18:08
  On America Out Loud Talk News.
• 18:10
  Yes, this is Dr.
• 18:11
  Peter McCullough, and I'm personally inviting you to join me in Nashville on July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for a historic experience in 2026.
• 18:20
  America Out Loud News 250 slash 10, Nashville.
• 18:24
  Along with Clear and the Wellness Company, we're celebrating two big milestones: 250 years of America and 10 years of America Out Loud News.
• 18:33
  I'm calling all patriots to this historic weekend with inspiring entertainment.
• 18:38
  Incredible fireworks and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom.
• 18:42
  I would love to see you there because your presence matters and you are family.
• 18:47
  Now's the time to get together and we can exchange ideas, answer your questions, and enjoy fellowship.
• 18:54
  Join us and register now on AmericaOut Loud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 18:59
  That's AmericaOut Loud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 19:03
  We'll see you there.
• 19:05
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.
• 19:08
  And I've devoted my life to helping people reconnect with food at its most alive stage, the sprout.
• 19:16
  When you germinate a seed, you're not just growing food, you're activating potential.
• 19:22
  Sprouts grow without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer right on your kitchen countertop.
• 19:28
  They're organic, fresh, and cost less than a dollar a serving.
• 19:32
  It's nature's fastest form of farming accessible to anyone anywhere.
• 19:37
  Discover the joy of growing your own food and the power of living nutrition.
• 19:42
  Visit the Sprouting Company.com and use the code Out Loud for an exclusive offer.
• 19:48
  One in three people will face cancer, and most never see it coming.
• 19:51
  I'm Dr.
• 19:52
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company, and I know this personally.
• 19:55
  I exercised daily, avoided processed foods, and had no symptoms when a rude.
• 20:00
  Mammogram resulted in a cancer diagnosis.
• 20:03
  And modern medicine is often reactive instead of preventative.
• 20:06
  That's why I formulated SHILED, a two-part system designed to support immune health and antioxidant defense.
• 20:13
  A chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels.
• 20:16
  Prevention is power.
• 20:17
  Visit TWC.health slash out loud and use code Outloud for an exclusive discount.
• 20:24
  In just two minutes per day, you can reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.
• 20:31
  Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra concentrated essential nutrients, stops hunger in its tracks and supplies your cells with what's missing in the grocery store food.
• 20:43
  Go to Chemicalfree Body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin Green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 21:02
  Welcome back, everyday Americans rejoin the Constitution.
• 21:08
  It's uh kind of the way so many things happen today.
• 21:12
  You know, you you pass a law, you follow the rules, but then you got to get through the judicial challenges, which to me makes us wonder are we still a republic if the judges get to sign off on every bill?
• 21:24
  There's a couple of cases that I want to look at the federal courts.
• 21:28
  First is out of the Supreme Court.
• 21:29
  Now, one of the limitations to our system, generally by based because of so many lawsuits, is that the Supreme Court only has time to take a small fraction of the cases that come before it.
• 21:45
  There's a process called a writer sortiari, a request for the court, the Supreme Court to hear your case.
• 21:52
  Um it's kind of convoluted, right?
• 21:55
  Because you sub you submit this, and then the court has a stack of these writs, and uh generally on Monday, they go through them and well, they release orders where they're going to say that we're either going to accept it, we're going to issue the writ, we're going to deny the writ, or we're going to hold on it and maybe we'll pick it up later.
• 22:16
  This is important because in a recent case, uh, Schotenthal versus Raoul, the court has denied certiority, meaning the Supreme Court's not going to hear this case.
• 22:26
  Now, what is this case about?
• 22:27
  It challenges a ban that prohibits the concealed carrying of firearms of any arms, I believe, on public transportation in the state of Illinois, and was hoping to extend uh to the Chicago transit authorities similar rule prohibiting lawful carry.
• 22:45
  Now, uh again, I'm I'm a I'm a gun owner.
• 22:49
  I've been so I've been, you know, since I've been old enough to own guns.
• 22:53
  Before that, I used to shoot my father's guns.
• 22:56
  Um, and I've seen so many of these places that are so afraid they they they demonize the gun for bad people that they make what I think are really foolish decisions.
• 23:05
  All right.
• 23:06
  Now, understand you have a right to keep and bear arms.
• 23:10
  You can only be deprived of that right via due process, which is a process that's supposed to protect the rights of the individual.
• 23:17
  And I don't believe that these that these laws barring uh uh uh carry on public transportation, either I don't believe they they are conform with the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms, nor the deprivation of that right was done via due process, meaning the rights protecting the rights of the individual.
• 23:40
  Here's my concern.
• 23:41
  I got a couple because first of all, uh, you know, public transit has been used in the past as a target for crime, right?
• 23:51
  Um it's kind of a thing, right?
• 23:54
  And if you don't have the tools to defend yourself, why should you be stripped of your ability to defend yourself simply because you walked on to public transit?
• 24:04
  Now, again, public it's it's important that it'd be public transit.
• 24:07
  We're not talking about people saying I don't want a gun in my car, or that if you have a private company providing a bus service, that private company can say I don't want guns on my buses.
• 24:18
  That's different.
• 24:18
  You're talking about public.
• 24:20
  When you're talking about public, you're talking about government holding something in the name of the people.
• 24:26
  It is property held by government in trust for the people.
• 24:31
  So the government is not allowed to deny people's rights in public.
• 24:36
  This is a public area, this is a public space.
• 24:39
  I find it really interesting that you can you can carry your firearm in one spot, but you take one step over simply because it's used for public transit and now it's a crime in their mind.
• 24:49
  But to me, there's another another issue here.
• 24:52
  Now, I I've I lived in a big city as a child, and you know, when you're dealing with public trans, public transit is often how you get from your home to work.
• 25:03
  When I was in New York, right?
• 25:05
  You go down and you get on the subway and you take the subway.
• 25:08
  My father used to go down, take the subway uptown to where the his office was.
• 25:14
  Well, if you can't carry on public transit, even though you may be legal to carry in the city, which by the way, New York City is very hard.
• 25:21
  But if you said, but I can't leave, even though I can legally carry, I can't legally carry here.
• 25:26
  Now you're saying I can't be armed anytime during my work day because I have to take public, or I either I take public transit and go disarmed, or I pay a lot of money for a taxi because I wish to be armed.
• 25:41
  And I wonder if taxis are covered under their public transportation ban.
• 25:45
  That'd be an interesting one, too.
• 25:46
  No, that I'd have to call hire a town car to get from place to place because, well, you know, um, I'm concerned about I want to I'm concerned about my safety.
• 25:57
  I want to be able to carry, and the city says I can't, or the state says I can't.
• 26:02
  Now part of this goes back to the Supreme Court's uh uh decision in Bruin, where they say, well, sensitive places um can be can be restricted.
• 26:11
  But how do you define a sensitive place and why is it sensitive?
• 26:16
  Is that a place that I might be more interested in carrying?
• 26:18
  For example, if public transportation is a place where crime is where crime is not unheard of.
• 26:26
  It's not, it's it's it's relatively frequent.
• 26:29
  Does that make it a sensitive place?
• 26:31
  So I can't defend myself there, or should it be a sensitive place meaning I should be able to defend myself?
• 26:36
  That's where, again, I believe the Supreme Court kind of dropped the ball on that one.
• 26:40
  But what's happened is again the court has decided we're not gonna hear this case, so they're not gonna that means that the uh law, we're gonna rest with the Seventh Circus uh rationale saying that the um the law's constitutional, even though it directly violates both the second amendment and the 14th amendment, right?
• 27:02
  The second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
• 27:06
  It's infringing on the right to keep and bare arms, simply because people are because people in government are afraid of guns and apparently judges are afraid of guns too.
• 27:14
  But it also is a violation of the 14th Amendment because you're depriving people of their liberty and their property they have in their rights without due process of law by simply declaring that this is a sensitive place where there's no security.
• 27:30
  I mean, are they stationing police officers on all the stations in all the trains?
• 27:36
  Do you have is your security provided for by the state at this point?
• 27:40
  No.
• 27:41
  That's why you know the the you're you're not protecting the rights of the individual, and this is gonna stay.
• 27:46
  Now, is this because the court um didn't think they had time?
• 27:50
  It wasn't a priority.
• 27:51
  I don't know.
• 27:52
  I don't think they actually signed the order as to why they denied cert.
• 27:55
  They just said, no, we're not gonna hear this case.
• 27:58
  So um if you use public transportation in Illinois, um, yeah, your rights are being violated, and you're gonna have to wait until someone else finds another way to take a bite at the apple.
• 28:11
  Uh and now here's another one.
• 28:12
  This is interesting because we're starting to see a split in the circuits, which means this may eventually go to the Supreme Court.
• 28:18
  Uh, and this involves Maine's law requiring a 32, sorry, 72-hour waiting period on most gun sales.
• 28:26
  Um, and it's based on the theory, the common quote-unquote common sense theory.
• 28:33
  I don't believe it's based on facts or evidence, it's just people think that it will prevent um crimes of passion.
• 28:40
  Right.
• 28:41
  The idea is uh uh, you know, somebody does something and you're really, really mad about it.
• 28:47
  So you go out and you buy a gun and you shoot the person.
• 28:51
  Uh that's what these are often called cooling off periods.
• 28:55
  Now, here's the interesting thing to me.
• 28:58
  Um, how many people use a firearm to commit a crime they purchase within the last 72 hours anywhere in the country?
• 29:08
  Does this I mean, let's face it, the last numbers I saw, and this was a while back.
• 29:12
  Um, people who use guns to commit crimes already own the gun.
• 29:18
  So saying you can't buy a new gun because you might use there's a there's a cognitive disconnect there.
• 29:25
  But here's what I found interesting.
• 29:26
  There's a district court judge that said, yes, acquiring a firearm is encompassing the right to keep and bear arms.
• 29:33
  How can you keep an arm if you're not allowed to purchase the arm?
• 29:38
  And if you're infringing on my right to purchase an arm, are you not therefore infringing our right to keep that arm?
• 29:45
  Because the same argument that says, hey, we need a cooling off period because someone might commit a crime.
• 29:52
  Well, what about the person who's a potential victim of a crime?
• 29:56
  Say that uh uh there's a woman who is threatened.
• 30:00
  By a man.
• 30:01
  He makes verbal threats against her safety, her life, maybe those of her children.
• 30:06
  And she wants to defend herself because this guy's made threats.
• 30:10
  Now she calls the police.
• 30:11
  Maybe she gets a temporary restraining order, but I'm sorry, that that piece of paper with the TRO is not bulletproof.
• 30:17
  So she wants a way to defend herself should this person come and attempt to fulfill their threat.
• 30:22
  And the state of Maine says, no, you can't do that because, well, you might be a hothead and go after this guy.
• 30:30
  Right?
• 30:31
  So the district court judge, and I believe correctly said, listen, acquiring a firearm is part of keeping a firearm.
• 30:38
  You can't keep something you can't acquire.
• 30:40
  So this violates the second amendment.
• 30:43
  He also pointed out that there was no historic analogs.
• 30:46
  You're going back to the Bruin decision, where the court said, listen, you've got to have some historic analog to these laws that were if it's going to restrict the second amendment, you gotta have this gotta get showed in our history from the you know, either the they point to the the bill of rights or the 14th Amendment, the 14th Amendment because of this stupid lie that somehow the 14th Amendment is that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment, which is again flat out wrong, but that you're talking about judges, right?
• 31:16
  The problem is a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals said, nope.
• 31:21
  Uh we are overturned that preliminary injunction because, well, listen, being denied the right to purchase an arm for a period of time doesn't actually implicate your right to keep arms.
• 31:33
  Doesn't implicate the second amendment at all.
• 31:36
  Yeah, that's the crazy logic being used in in the first circuit court that again, it's not just there.
• 31:43
  Judges across the nation have said, well, you know, you can still keep an arm.
• 31:48
  You just can't buy one and and you have to wait 72 hours.
• 31:53
  Now, I'm not sure, and again, I'm not sure if you know how broad, I'm not an expert in Maine Law.
• 31:58
  Um, if you have a carry permit, do you still have to wait 72 hours?
• 32:02
  Do they have a firearm identification cards?
• 32:05
  Um, you know, does that change it?
• 32:07
  I mean, there's there may be a lot of new ones because they do say most gun sales.
• 32:11
  So I'm not that familiar with with main law, but I do look at this saying here you have judges, and one simply says, Well, yeah, your right to keep arms has to be including the ability to get a firearm.
• 32:24
  And then you have another group of judges that no, no, no, no.
• 32:27
  Your right to keep arms has nothing to do with actually acquiring a firearm.
• 32:31
  You just get to keep it after you've acquired it.
• 32:34
  And that delay, even though that delay can cause more harm than good, right?
• 32:41
  Because remember, you're talking about a person's right and due process.
• 32:45
  Could someone who's a hothead buy a gun and commit a crime with it within 72 hours?
• 32:51
  Possibly.
• 32:53
  But if that's the case, do you think that 72 hours is really going to make a difference?
• 32:56
  They're really going to cool off.
• 32:58
  If you're mad enough to be willing to, oh, I don't know, commit a crime with a gun, do you really gonna cool off?
• 33:04
  Think you're gonna cool off in three days.
• 33:07
  And again, what about the flip side?
• 33:09
  What about the person that's looking for that for their own safety, for their own protection or those of the that are their family?
• 33:16
  Should they be denied the right, protected by the second amendment to their own security because judges can't make up their mind whether or not keeping includes acquiring?
• 33:30
  Uh, you know, this is the type of craziness we end up when we live by the courts, which means if you're in Maine and you're happening and you've been threatened and you wish a gun to defend yourself, well, you better hope they don't decide to do so within three days because then you're out of luck.
• 33:50
  Whereas down here in Tennessee, I can walk into any gun store, fill out my 4473, get the instant background check, and walk out in an hour.
• 34:01
  And you know, most of that most of that time is probably spent picking out the gun.
• 34:07
  It's crazy.
• 34:09
  But again, this is what happens when we're dealing with with the whims of judges.
• 34:14
  Because very often, most they didn't say that, well, uh, the first circuit didn't say that that acquiring a firearm is not part of this.
• 34:23
  They they they didn't say that that it didn't violate.
• 34:25
  They said, listen, you know, acquiring a firearm, that's not part of the second amendment.
• 34:30
  It doesn't say buy, keep and bear arms.
• 34:33
  It says keep and bear arms.
• 34:34
  Buy is obviously something different, which to me doesn't make a lot of sense, but I guess it makes sense more sense than some of the decisions I've seen out of these districts and certain courts.
• 34:45
  So again, we'll have to wait and see.
• 34:47
  Does this end up at um uh at the Supreme Court?
• 34:51
  Because some circuits say their waiting periods are legal, some say they're not.
• 34:57
  I guess we'll have to wait and see.
• 35:00
  Now, I want you to remember that that very often the entities bringing these cases are um, well, they're organizations that well, don't think you should have the rights that you have.
• 35:12
  Whether it's, you know, the the group that wants to preserve the White House or that don't want you to carry a firearm where they might be in the same place because their firearms are scary and dangerous, and and you might suddenly become a lunatic.
• 35:25
  There are a lot of organizations that are anti-gun, anti-second amendment, and they're trying to promote their agenda through legal means through through uh the the courts.
• 35:35
  It's one of the reasons why uh Congress passed a lawful commerce and arms act to say you can't sue a manufacturer for the criminal use of what they manufacture.
• 35:46
  If what they manufactured was legal and they didn't commit crimes in its manufacturer advertising, then you can't sue them because someone did something criminal with one of their products.
• 35:58
  Because a lot of people do.
• 36:00
  And I'm wondering, are you supporting these organizations bringing these lawsuits, both the nuisance lawsuits and and some others, by who you do business with?
• 36:10
  See, there are a lot of companies I won't do business with, I won't buy their products, I won't use their services.
• 36:15
  I don't do it because they're supporting organizations that are well trying to deprive me of my rights.
• 36:22
  I want to do business with companies that believe what I believe.
• 36:25
  Hopefully, you want to do the same thing.
• 36:27
  How can we do that?
• 36:28
  Well, one example is Patriot Mobile.
• 36:31
  Yes, they're America's only Christian conservative wildlife provider.
• 36:34
  That's not why I joined them.
• 36:36
  They've got great 4G and 5G coverage and all the same networks and towers as a major carriers.
• 36:41
  That's not why I joined them.
• 36:42
  They even have 100% U.S.-based customer support.
• 36:45
  That's not why I joined them.
• 36:48
  I joined them because I support organizations that are fighting for our rights, to protect our rights protected by the Constitution, our freedom of religion, speech, press, to be secured from unreasonable searches and seizures, to not be deprived of due process.
• 37:02
  They also support the sanctity of life, our veterans and our first responders.
• 37:06
  They take a portion of every dollar to support those types of organizations, now including the Constitution study.
• 37:12
  So join me at Patriot Mobile switch today and get free activation with the offer code constitution.
• 37:18
  Just go to Patriot Mobile.com/slash constitution, find a plan that works for you, see if you're eligible for a discount, and then use the code constitution and checkout to get your line activated absolutely free.
• 37:30
  Support organizations that are helping to defend your rights by using your cell phone and paying your cell phone bill.
• 37:36
  That includes the constitution study, by the way.
• 37:38
  Just go to Patriot Mobile.comslash constitution, find a plan and discount that works for you.
• 37:43
  Don't forget to use the code constitution checkout to get your new line activated absolutely free, and uh join me in protecting our rights simply by using my cell phone.
• 37:57
  I cannot tell a lie.
• 37:58
  My sinuses are blocked.
• 38:00
  George, you crossed the Delaware.
• 38:03
  You can cross congestion.
• 38:05
  Here, try clear.
• 38:08
  Freedom smells like victory.
• 38:11
  Come celebrate 250 years of American independence, but the America out loud.
• 38:18
  25010 Independence Day celebration in Nashville on July 2nd through 4th.
• 38:24
  Go to America 250 Nashville.com.
• 38:28
  Use code XLEAR for 20% off admission.
• 38:32
  Clear.
• 38:33
  Breathe in the independence.
• 38:35
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 38:39
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 38:43
  Bear bars or a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 38:50
  Bear bars or plant-based, organic gluten-free, contain six grams of protein and are low temperature dry for unique crunch.
• 38:59
  Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups or sweeteners.
• 39:06
  To learn more, just visit barebar.com slash out loud.
• 39:16
  Welcome back, everyday Americans.
• 39:17
  You rejoin the Constitution study, and today we're talking about live by the court.
• 39:21
  Die by the court.
• 39:22
  And you know, again, we've become a litigious society.
• 39:25
  Sometimes courts are, well, they're used to abuse your rights rather than protect your rights.
• 39:30
  And I've got an interesting example.
• 39:32
  It goes back to the Steve Bannon.
• 39:34
  He was convicted by a federal jury in DC on two counts of contempt of Congress for not providing documents or testimony to a House committee that was looking into the January 6th security breach at the Capitol.
• 39:50
  Now, to me, this has all sorts of red flags.
• 39:54
  All right.
• 39:54
  Problem number one Congress is not part of the executive branch.
• 40:00
  Their job is to make the law, not enforce the law.
• 40:04
  They're not part of the judicial branch.
• 40:05
  Their job is not to decide controversies.
• 40:08
  Their job is to make the law.
• 40:11
  So I question where Congress gets the authority to deprive someone of their liberty without due process of law.
• 40:19
  See, they just simply get together and say, okay, we're going to issue a subpoena.
• 40:23
  I don't Congress doesn't have the subpoena.
• 40:25
  First of all, I've received a federal subpoena, not from Congress from a U.S.
• 40:29
  attorney's office.
• 40:30
  And that compelled my attendance at a at a uh a court because I was they wanted me to give testimony.
• 40:38
  Now, that one I looked at and said that's legitimate because if the defense can call can compel witnesses to attend, the prosecution should be able to compel witnesses to attend.
• 40:49
  I went that's a whole nother story how that one went.
• 40:54
  But where does Congress get the authority to deprive someone of their liberty without due process of law to simply compel either their attendance or to provide documents?
• 41:04
  In other words, that simply violate the Fourth Amendment by making an unreasonable search and seizure, but the Fifth Amendment by compelling that someone uh, well, you know, short of the Fifth Amendment, right?
• 41:15
  When it comes to compelling testimony.
• 41:18
  Because under the Fifth Amendment, you cannot be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against yourself.
• 41:23
  And what Congress is doing is not a criminal case, but they don't have the authority to deprive you of your liberty, right?
• 41:29
  That that's that violates the the the uh uh Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• 41:34
  They deprived Mr.
• 41:36
  Dannen of his liberty and his property and his documentations without due process of law.
• 41:42
  They didn't have a a thing, uh uh uh the legal power to do so.
• 41:47
  So when the courts found him guilty, so they claimed contempt of Congress.
• 41:52
  Where does Congress get the authority to say you can't deny us?
• 41:57
  There's no constitution, nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to say you must do what we say or you go to jail, right?
• 42:06
  Again, a deprivation of liberty, a deprivation of of his property in his body without due process of law.
• 42:14
  This whole congressional subpoena nonsense is a constitutional dumpster fire.
• 42:20
  But he was uh, you know, Congress uh filed the referral, they said, Oh, uh again, a law not pursuant to the Constitution.
• 42:29
  Contempt of Congress is a law not pursuant to the to the Constitution, it's not the Supreme Law of the land, but the judges followed anyway because well, their government sycophants as well.
• 42:38
  And he was Mr.
• 42:39
  Banner was convicted on two counts.
• 42:42
  Now, here's where life gets interesting.
• 42:45
  You see, Mr.
• 42:46
  Bannon claims that the charges were politically motivated, not legally motivated.
• 42:51
  In fact, the prosecutor said Bannon had thumbed his nose at Congress and was not above the law, and that's what makes this case important.
• 43:00
  Well, yes, because he can legally thumb his nose at Congress.
• 43:03
  Congress the Congress are public servants, right?
• 43:07
  I'm gonna reinforce this.
• 43:09
  Congress, like any political office, are public servants, not public masters.
• 43:15
  And without the constitutional authority to deprive someone of their liberty without due process of law, right?
• 43:21
  They don't have the authority to do that.
• 43:23
  That means what Congress did was thumb their nose at the Constitution.
• 43:29
  That it is Congress that is acting above the law.
• 43:33
  But again, that you know, where we don't deal with courts of law, we deal with courts of political opinion.
• 43:40
  Now, Mr.
• 43:41
  Bannon filed a petition with the Supreme Court saying that uh the problem is the law that he was convicted of, Title II, Section 192 of the United States Code requires someone to willfully uh uh what they call default on on a subpoena.
• 43:58
  Now, here's the interesting thing, willfully, which uh he talks about a wimple mensreo, a guilty mind.
• 44:04
  It's it's a legal term that that uh the question is does it require intentional conduct?
• 44:09
  Were you willfully uh dealing with a legally authorized congressional subpoena?
• 44:14
  My question is I don't think that's a legally authorized congressional subpoena, because I don't think Congress has a legal authority to issue subpoenas, but that's a whole other question.
• 44:22
  So all this ended up going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said, you know what?
• 44:28
  I think they he may have a point.
• 44:30
  The Supreme Court vacated the decision and then remanded it back to the Court of Appeals.
• 44:36
  So again, Mr.
• 44:37
  Bannon issued a writ uh request a registerciari, a question to be healed, to be heard, and the court simply said, you know what?
• 44:45
  Yes, your decision is is vacated.
• 44:48
  It's the the writ is granted, the judgment is vacated, the cases remanded to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia to further consider in light of the this motion.
• 45:00
  So he gets another bite at the apple.
• 45:03
  And I find this very interesting because I still haven't seen anything that says Congress has the authority to deprive you of your liberty without due process of law.
• 45:14
  When a court subpoenas you to offer testimony, that's following the Constitution, right?
• 45:20
  You've got under uh uh uh the amendment six, you have a right to compel witnesses in your uh to compel witnesses against you to have witnesses in your favor, that is following the constitution.
• 45:32
  There's nothing in the constitution that gives Congress the authority to deprive you of your liberty without due process of law.
• 45:40
  And they cannot protect, you know, this is a violation of a person's rights, not protecting their rights.
• 45:47
  So are we um am I holding first of all?
• 45:50
  I doubt anybody's actually going to look at that question of does Congress even have the legal authority to issue this is to USC Section 192 Constitution.
• 45:59
  I say it is not because it's based on the assumption that Congress has the illegal authority to deprive people of their liberty simply because they say so.
• 46:09
  And uh that's not gonna be the question asked.
• 46:11
  The question is really gonna probably come down to that question of willful.
• 46:15
  Was Mr.
• 46:16
  Banion Bannon willful when he refused to fail to follow the subpoena, and um I think he was, but we'll have to see because you're playing you know, legal legals and all that fun and games.
• 46:29
  All right, one more, and this actually deals with the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a Mr.
• 46:34
  Powell, uh Jerome Powell.
• 46:37
  Now, the DOJ has been investigating Mr.
• 46:41
  Powell uh for uh potential fraud from uh uh based on testimony he gave to a congressional committee.
• 46:51
  And it involves the the uh renovation of the uh Fed building.
• 46:58
  It was originally budgeted at 1.9 billion dollars.
• 47:03
  It was raised to two and a half billion dollars.
• 47:06
  And uh he said, well, yeah, this is just rising labor and material cost, uh, and that they discovered asbestos and other contaminants that had to be had to be dealt with.
• 47:17
  Now, Mr.
• 47:18
  Powell said, well, he's being is his investigation is just a pretext because Trump doesn't like him.
• 47:25
  And uh uh he you know that Donald Trump wants uh greater influence over the Fed and its monetary policies.
• 47:31
  That's a whole other uh a whole other kettle of fish we we'd have to dive into.
• 47:37
  But um the judge, a James Bolzberg, I've talked about him a lot here, he uh issued a stay on the subpoena of Mr.
• 47:48
  Powell.
• 47:50
  You see, U.S.
• 47:51
  attorney uh Janine Piero issued the subpoena looking for information about the cost overruns on the renovation project.
• 47:59
  Uh back in uh March, um, Mr.
• 48:02
  Bozebird found that the subpoenas were intended to harass and pressure the central bank chief into lowing interest rates or to drive him from office, so a more compliant successor could be installed.
• 48:14
  I'm not entirely sure where he found that uh um where he found that specific evidence.
• 48:19
  I mean, yes, there was a disagreement about interest rates, and Trump wanted the interest rates lower, and and Mr.
• 48:24
  Powell did not, and uh there's a whole discussion, but that would be uh if that were true, that would be uh that'd be a problem.
• 48:34
  That would be an improper use of his position, abuse of his position as president.
• 48:40
  But when he said, did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose, the court finds they did not.
• 48:47
  Well, did you was that finding based on a proper purpose, a proper reading of the law?
• 48:53
  Or was it based on the bias that Mr.
• 48:56
  Bozeburg has already shown against Donald Trump?
• 48:59
  You see the kind of circular logic where we have here.
• 49:03
  Now, the Trump administration did ask uh Mr.
• 49:06
  Bo Judge Bozberg to reconsider his prior decision blocking the subpoena.
• 49:12
  Um he did not.
• 49:14
  And uh again, we'll have to see, because uh again, I haven't dug into all the evidence and details, but the evidence that that Donald Trump was using this to uh pressure Mr.
• 49:26
  Powell is matched only by the evidence of Mr.
• 49:29
  Bose, the Judge Boseburg has used his position to pressure Donald Trump to do things as well.
• 49:36
  So yeah.
• 49:39
  You know, when when Judge Bobber says that the government's argument did not come close to convincing the court that the a different outcome is warranted, how much of that is the bias that Mr.
• 49:50
  Bulbsberg has already shown against Mr.
• 49:53
  Trump.
• 49:54
  Um, you know, that's if you don't like somebody, it takes more evidence to do to decide.
• 50:00
  Give them something that they want.
• 50:01
  Will this go to a circuit court?
• 50:04
  Possibly, but this is going to be the DC circuit.
• 50:07
  So who knows if that's going to be any good?
• 50:09
  We'll have to see.
• 50:10
  Listen, if if the problem is a government agent, i.e.
• 50:16
  Mr.
• 50:17
  Powell, wasted federal money.
• 50:19
  Well, if that's not going to be criminal, then pretty much every department head, every uh uh agency head could go to jail for for you know wasting money on their project for for you know cost overruns and whatnot.
• 50:35
  Yeah, pretty much everyone could be investigated for that because it happens everywhere in government cost overruns.
• 50:42
  So I don't know.
• 50:44
  Um does the Trump administration trying to pressure the Fed chair?
• 50:50
  Yeah, quite possibly you know, but then again, the Fed chair, they keep talking about it being an independent agency, except it cannot be because Article 2 of the Constitution says all executive power is vested in the president, not in the executive branch, not in the agencies, in the president, individual.
• 51:09
  So you cannot extra exercise any law.
• 51:12
  Okay, you can't execute any law of Congress without the president.
• 51:17
  And those agencies are there to support the president, not to overrule the president.
• 51:22
  But again, we end up with a lot of this mess because people don't understand the constitution.
• 51:26
  Most of them appear to a lot of them are those that are sitting in black robes in judgment when they don't even know the document they sworn or they swore an oath to support.
• 51:37
  And of course, this is the kind of catch-22 of our way of litigating.
• 51:44
  This is our whole society.
• 51:47
  Yes, you have a right to seek a readers of grievance.
• 51:49
  The most common way is a lawsuit.
• 51:52
  You want to petition a government, you petition a court.
• 51:54
  I have a grievance, I want the government to hear it.
• 51:57
  I sue the government in the form of a court hears it.
• 52:00
  And that's not just theirs, protected.
• 52:02
  Congress can't stop that because of the First Amendment.
• 52:06
  But when we become dependent on the courts, more importantly, when our elected representatives in Congress don't do their job to make sure that the courts are beh the judges in the courts are behaving well.
• 52:22
  Well, then we end up with rule by court rather than rule of law.
• 52:28
  Remember, Article 3 of the Constitution says the judges of both the Supreme and Inferior Courts serve during their good behavior.
• 52:36
  That's Congress's job to oversee that.
• 52:39
  Maybe if they spent less time issuing subpoenas to do investigations and not legally authorized to do, and actually spend time looking at the judges, they're actually supposed to oversee.
• 52:49
  Well, maybe we'd have less of this.
• 52:54
  But the the we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
• 52:59
  So, yeah, we need to know our rights.
• 53:02
  We need to know the constitution because the lawyers, judges, and politicians, they don't.
• 53:08
  We need to inform them.
• 53:09
  We need to advise them that they serve us, not the other way around.
• 53:16
  And that is a lesson, I think needs to be learned well by about 330 million Americans to begin with, because no one in Congress is going to serve the people until they fear for their job if they don't.
• 53:29
  And no one's going to fear for their job as long as we the people will continue to let them act like our masters rather than our servants.
• 53:38
  And the same goes with the with courts, you know, a judge is just a judge.
• 53:42
  They're just making a decision.
• 53:44
  And like any other human being, they can be and often are wrong.
• 53:50
  It may not be malicious, it may be uh ignorance, it may be biased, it may simply be a bad donut.
• 53:58
  But it happens.
• 54:00
  And if you don't have the tools, the evidence to show that it's wrong, how are you gonna make your case?
• 54:07
  It's one of the reasons why I wrote my book, The Constitution Study, returning the constitution to we the people.
• 54:13
  That was its purpose to return the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land into our hands so that we understand it, we control it.
• 54:21
  It is my clause-by-clause study of the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, written in plain conversational English so that everybody can understand it.
• 54:31
  If an 18th-century farmer can understand the constitution, a 21st century American should as well.
• 54:36
  Give it a try, find it at constitutionstudy.com slash shop.
• 54:39
  You can get it wherever books are sold.
• 54:41
  But if you go to the website, constitutionstudy.com slash shop under the book section, you'll find it in other books that I've written.
• 54:47
  Of course, not only can you get the print copies mailed to you, but um you can get them signed if you'd so if you would like.
• 54:55
  Now, if you happen to be in and around Lake County, Florida this May, I'm gonna be speaking at the Lake County chapter of the Constitution Party of Florida on May 16th in Eustace, Florida.
• 55:08
  Yes, I'll have books for sale.
• 55:10
  Yes, I will sign your books you've already got them, or you can just come and listen to me talk and shake my hand and we can just talk, answer questions, do all that.
• 55:18
  That will be um uh May 16th in in Eustace, Florida.
• 55:23
  I don't have a website for it yet, but I will let you know as soon as I do.
• 55:26
  But you can find it, just look up the uh Lake County chapter of the Constitution Party of Florida.
• 55:32
  And you know what?
• 55:33
  I if you're there, again, I I look forward to talking with you and and getting to see to know you because you know, very often it's just me, myself, and I behind this microphone.
• 55:43
  It's really nice when I get to go out and meet people.
• 55:46
  I enjoy being behind this microphone.
• 55:48
  I hope you enjoy the program enough to come back every weekday at 4 p.m.
• 55:53
  Eastern time to listen to the Constitution study on America Out Loud Talk Radio heard in the iHeart Radio Network.
• 55:58
  Plenty of ways to listen.
• 56:00
  We've got our media player, we have apps for Apple, Android, and Alexa, and of course, you can always listen via podcast.
• 56:06
  No, it does take a day or two for an episode to go from talk radio to podcast, but you get to listen to your favorite podcast app.
• 56:14
  But do me a favor, subscribe to the show, leave us a rating, especially on Apple Podcasts.
• 56:19
  It helps the algorithm show us to more people.
• 56:22
  The more people see us, the more people click the link.
• 56:24
  They can join us here and learn all the great content that we're providing here at the Constitution Study.
• 56:30
  Speaking of links, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at AmericaOutloud.news.
• 56:36
  But please share those links, share the episodes, share the program by doing so.
• 56:41
  You're helping to share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation.