Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Attorneys and judges vs the Constitution

Transcript

Attorneys and judges vs the Constitution · 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.
• 0:30
  Our legal system seems to have devolved into attorneys and judges arguing about what they think the Constitution says rather than the actual language.
• 0:42
  Sometimes the Constitution wins, sometimes not.
• 0:45
  So today, I want to look at some recent examples and see if our rights survived this legal turmoil.
• 0:52
  Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution study, where we read and study the Constitution, teacherizing generation be free.
• 0:59
  I'm glad you could join me today.
• 1:01
  As I point out, I do it frequently.
• 1:03
  It's in my writing, it's in it seems like attorneys and judges kind of have given up on the actual language of laws and well seem to focus on a judge's opinion.
• 1:14
  The problem is, and I was just having this conversation with some people this morning at breakfast.
• 1:18
  An expert opinion is only an opinion until there's proof.
• 1:25
  This comes from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
• 1:28
  So not the Supreme Court in the United States, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
• 1:31
  And it involves a case with some, well, not great facts.
• 1:35
  It involves a case.
• 1:36
  The question that I want to focus on is the question that uh a statement made by the Supreme Court, and that is um do you have an expectation of privacy when you're doing internet searches?
• 1:52
  In other words, when you go in this case, it was Google, right?
• 1:55
  The the suspect was convicted in part because the Pennsylvania State Police searched his Google search history and used that as evidence against him, and he requested that the evidence be suppressed.
• 2:08
  And of course, this eventually went up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
• 2:12
  Uh the court explained that such demonstration requires an actual subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
• 2:38
  Now, again, this goes back to the Supreme Court, the third party doctrine.
• 2:44
  And the third party doctrine is simple.
• 2:46
  It says, listen, you have a Fourth Amendment protection of your persons, houses, papers, and effects.
• 2:51
  But as soon as you place that voluntarily in the hand of a third party, you have no Fourth Amendment expectation for uh uh Fourth Amendment rights.
• 3:00
  That's basically effectively what the court said.
• 3:02
  And I've argued against this on multiple situations.
• 3:06
  In fact, it is one of my recommendations as a an amendment to the constitution that um I would love to see, especially considered, is to extend Fourth Amendment protections to um information you create or is about you.
• 3:24
  Meaning if you create uh a document, that document is considered your papers, even if you were to put a copy in the hands of a third party.
• 3:33
  Information about you has to do with like medical records and uh bank records and stuff like that.
• 3:39
  So the court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court basically followed the United States Supreme Court in believing that once you start typing something into a an internet system, you have no expectation of privacy for that the information you put in.
• 3:55
  So you go to Google and you do a Google search, you have no expectation of privacy.
• 4:00
  The good the in other words, the police do not need probable cause, they don't need a warrant, they merely need to ask Google to hand over these records.
• 4:10
  Something that, by the way, large service providers tend to hand over routinely because the last thing they want is to get into a pissing match with the government.
• 4:20
  In fact, the court explained that by typing in his search query and pressing in to enter, the person affirmly turned over the contents of his search to Google, a third party and voluntarily relinquished relinquished his privacy interest in the search.
• 4:37
  Now, I find this interesting because if we go back a little bit, that uh you know, the the court, the the court's explanation that um requires an actual subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
• 4:53
  I ask you, if you were to ask a thousand people who use Google search, do they expect that information to be private or not?
• 5:01
  In other words, is society prepared to recognize that there you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content you type into internet companies.
• 5:13
  Yes or no.
• 5:15
  Now, I'm not talking about what the company can do with it, I'm talking about a requirement of a warrant in order to search a probable cause, having something legitimate to prevent the police from simply going on fishing expeditions.
• 5:29
  Was this a fishing expedition?
• 5:31
  Not sure, right?
• 5:33
  It did the what I read is fairly brief, and the facts that are stated seem to say that if the if the police had a reasonable, a good reason, right, to uh probable cause to believe that the search history uh would reveal information in a case.
• 5:53
  Uh, why couldn't they get a warrant?
• 5:55
  Not sure, right?
• 5:56
  That's what I said.
• 5:56
  I'm not entirely sure.
• 5:58
  But I want you to notice this has nothing to do with the actual language of the Fourth Amendment.
• 6:05
  This is a court interpreting a group of judges on a court interpreting what another group of judges on the court said the Constitution meant.
• 6:13
  Not what it actually says, not the actual definitions.
• 6:17
  They simply made it up.
• 6:19
  This third-party doctrine.
• 6:21
  It's not based, there's not a clause in the Constitution that says, yeah, your Fourth Amendment, your persons, houses, papers, and effects, as long as you don't lend them to somebody else.
• 6:30
  As long as you don't uh allow someone else to help you store them or use them.
• 6:35
  And I want you to consider this.
• 6:36
  Every one of you that uses Gmail, everyone that uses Google Docs, for that matter, iCloud download or you know, Dropbox or any of these online services, according to the courts, whatever you put in there, you have no Fourth Amendment protections for.
• 6:53
  Any government actor can search any of that with any without any reason at all.
• 6:57
  That doesn't need to be reasonable, they can do it because according to the courts, you have no Fourth Amendment expectation.
• 7:06
  Now let's look at it at the other side.
• 7:08
  Now, again, we're going to look at at Google and others because um a New York Times reporter and an author have filed a lawsuit in the California federal court uh with others, right?
• 7:22
  There's a group of them complaining that these artificial intelligence companies of is pirating their books and feeding them into their AI chatbots.
• 7:33
  So back up a second, remember AI, which is a misnomer, it's actually II and uh in imitation intelligence, but they call it AI.
• 7:42
  The way it works is you build an AI system, uh, you expose it to information, you tell it what you want it to do, you show correct answers, you then allow it to um to find for itself, and you correct them when they're wrong, and this feedback loop is supposed to eventually create a um a system that is able to perform the function you want it to.
• 8:07
  Now, when you're dealing with a large language model, uh, one of the things it does is once it's learned to respond to your queries, it has to have a set of data to search to find the information to respond to your query.
• 8:22
  Now, according to these authors, uh Chatbot, uh Google, uh XAI, uh OpenAI, Meta AI, all of these systems have used copyrighted information without permission in order to train their artificial intelligence.
• 8:42
  Now again, this to me is interesting because it's not a question about the functionality or the efficacy of these large language models, but where they're getting their source material.
• 8:55
  In other words, I'm an author, right?
• 8:57
  I've written several books.
• 8:58
  I hold copyright on several books.
• 9:01
  Um, the AI models have the authority to come in and use my books to train their systems without getting my permission or paying me for it.
• 9:12
  By the way, my family business, which I've recently inherited, has uh hundreds, if not a couple thousand copyrights of books that that have been produced by them, where we hold the copyrights.
• 9:24
  Should someone be able to go through that library and use it to train a model, which is again, they're they're trying to build a system without my permission.
• 9:35
  It's a very interesting actually, my sister and I, we both we co-own, we co-own the business.
• 9:40
  To me, that's interesting from not just from a personal standpoint, but from a technological standpoint, you know, you think about it.
• 9:47
  If it's something that could be found on the internet, that's one thing.
• 9:52
  If it's something that um uh uh they did they purchase the book in order to you.
• 10:00
  Gain access to the text.
• 10:01
  How did they get the text?
• 10:03
  I guess is the question I really think is going to be key to this is how did they get the text?
• 10:10
  And an interesting question.
• 10:13
  When you buy a book, you're not allowed to reproduce the book.
• 10:18
  Right?
• 10:19
  You can't, you're not legally allowed to photocopy the book and sell it.
• 10:24
  Um is that effectively what they're doing is they've gotten a copy and they're effectively photocopying it by feeding it into a machine, which can then use it over and over and over.
• 10:34
  I I kind of want to follow this and see where this goes.
• 10:36
  I find it interesting, and I put it in for two reasons.
• 10:39
  One, again, we're dealing with Google, and uh remember, Google's motto is do no harm, which they pretty much just fail to do in a lot of cases.
• 10:48
  But it's also looking at saying, well, is Google and not just Google, but these other platforms are they using content that they don't have the legal right to do?
• 10:59
  And that again, interesting question for me.
• 11:03
  Uh let's see, I got one more I want to look at here before I start going down another topic, and that is a Supreme Court case.
• 11:10
  Now, remember, um the president back in October called up 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to both protect uh federal agents and to help enforce the laws of the United States in and around Chicago.
• 11:27
  Uh the next day brought in members from the Texas National Guard and sent them to Chicago.
• 11:33
  Now, this is where life gets a little interesting.
• 11:36
  So a district court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order barring the federalization and deploy deployment of the Illinois National Guard.
• 11:46
  Uh, this went to the circuit court, which said, no, we're not going to touch that.
• 11:50
  This eventually goes to the Supreme Court with a request by the government to stay this district court order.
• 11:56
  Um here's life gets interesting.
• 11:59
  The court said we conclude that the term quote unquote regular forces in section uh 124063 likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military.
• 12:11
  Okay, back up just a second.
• 12:13
  Let's look at this.
• 12:13
  So we're looking at it's Title 10, Section 12406 of the United States Code.
• 12:19
  Uh, it's entitled National Guard in Federal Service.
• 12:22
  And it says, whenever the the United States or any of the Commonwealth's or possessions is invaded or in danger of being an invasion by a foreign nation, there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.
• 12:33
  The president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
• 12:39
  Then the president may call into federal service units of the National Guard of any state.
• 12:44
  So here's that question.
• 12:45
  The third item.
• 12:50
  Now, the justices of the Supreme Court says, well, that obviously we believe it likely refers to military forces, which makes no sense.
• 13:02
  Again, back up a little bit.
• 13:05
  Have you heard of Possi Comitatis?
• 13:08
  It's a law passed by Congress that says, except for rare exceptions, it is illegal to use the regular military, the regular forces of the military of the United States to enforce federal law.
• 13:21
  Right?
• 13:22
  This comes, you know, the Constitution does not give the military the authority to enforce regular law.
• 13:29
  And the Congress has specifically said, listen, you're not able to.
• 13:33
  Military force, there's certain unique exceptions, but for the most part, military forces, regular military forces are prohibited from enforcing the laws of the United States.
• 13:44
  So how in heaven's name could the Congress have meant that under this item that when they talk about regular forces, how could they mean the military is unable to execute the laws of the United States when they're legally prohibited from executing the laws of the United States.
• 14:00
  It makes no sense.
• 14:02
  Again, it defies the logic of you know that now the Constitution specifically says that the militia can be used to enforce the laws of the United States.
• 14:13
  But if the regular military is not allowed to, where'd the court come up with this nonsense?
• 14:20
  I'm not entirely sure, but uh I I certainly wish someone, I haven't read all the documentation, but I'd love someone to actually, oh, I don't know, read the Constitution and read the law.
• 14:33
  Because there's no logical way that 124063 means the military, because they're legally prohibited from enforcing the law.
• 14:42
  So there's no way it's it's it's never possible for the regular forces of the military to execute the laws of the United States.
• 14:49
  It's not legal for them to do so.
• 14:53
  That's what I mean by experts.
• 14:56
  Just because an expert says it doesn't mean it's right.
• 14:59
  Experts are frequently wrong.
• 15:01
  That doesn't mean that experts aren't useful.
• 15:03
  It doesn't mean that experts aren't helpful.
• 15:06
  It just means that experts are human, and because of that, they make mistakes.
• 15:12
  That's that's why power is not centralized in an individual or even in a single group because people make mistakes.
• 15:23
  I I don't know.
• 15:24
  I guess we'll have to take a look at this later.
• 15:26
  Basically, it's just another example of the courts making up a meaning that doesn't really logically fit with the language of the law and pretending that it's real because they say so.
• 15:40
  Anyway, I've got some other things I want to look at.
• 15:42
  Some fewer court cases.
• 15:44
  I want to go down a couple different roads.
• 15:46
  Um, before I go, though, I want to remind you, you know, America Out Loud is celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the 10-year anniversary of America Out Loud Talk Radio.
• 15:59
  They're gonna be we're gonna be in Nashville July 2nd through 4th of this coming year.
• 16:03
  And I'd love it if you can join us.
• 16:06
  We're gonna have some great keynote speakers, some expert panels.
• 16:09
  There'll be workshops and breakout sessions, celebrations, and your chance to meet your favorite America out loud speakers and authors.
• 16:17
  So again, it you go to America Outloud.
• 16:29
  Celebrate 250 years of our most famous document, the Declaration of Independence, and 10 years of America Out Loud.
• 16:39
  I think we're gonna have a great time.
• 16:41
  I hope to meet you there.
• 16:42
  And please, if you listen to the program, find me out, come up, say hello.
• 16:46
  I'd love to shake your hand.
• 16:47
  I'd love to hear what you have to say about the program.
• 16:49
  I learn when you tell me what you think.
• 16:52
  And I think this will be a great time.
• 16:54
  And a feeding celebration of the semi-quincentennial of the publication of the Declaration of Independence.
• 17:10
  Well, get ready, my fellow Americans, July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
• 17:15
  America Outloud.news in partnership with Clear and the Wellness Company invites you to Nashville, Tennessee for our red, white, and blue celebration.
• 17:25
  You'll never forget.
• 17:26
  We're saluting 250 years of America and 10 incredible years of America Out Loud News.
• 17:33
  Standing strong for truth, justice, and the nation we all love.
• 17:37
  Three days of high impact speakers, powerhouse voices, delivering dynamic, unforgettable insights that will fire up your patriot spirit.
• 17:47
  And on July 4th, brace yourself because you'll experience America's most explosive fireworks show, lighten up downtown Nashville in pure patriotic glory.
• 17:57
  You can reserve your spot with early bird cryson right now at America Outloud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 18:06
  It's America Outloud News 25010 Nashville be there.
• 18:10
  You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.
• 18:14
  What about washing your nose?
• 18:16
  I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants.
• 18:21
  Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.
• 18:24
  No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
• 18:27
  Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.
• 18:34
  Available in stores and online at clear.com.
• 18:37
  That is XLEAR.com.
• 18:40
  Is there MRNA technology in your grocery store beef?
• 18:42
  You won't see it on the label, but it's there.
• 18:44
  100% grass-fed, grass-finished, mRNA-free, hormone-free, and vaccine-free.
• 18:49
  Wellness farms, order now at TWC.health backslash out loud and use code out loud to get your exclusive 20% off for AOL listeners.
• 19:01
  Well, did you see Google quietly updated its AI principles removing its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance?
• 19:11
  A promise they agreed to in 2018.
• 19:14
  Well, the American people have seen Google's track record.
• 19:16
  Prompt in the question is Google an untrustworthy player in the AI race.
• 19:26
  Now is our time, my fellow Americans.
• 19:30
  America outlawed.
• 19:32
  Liberty and justice for all.
• 20:00
  Play you a clip.
• 20:00
  This is from Nancy Pelosi during an interview.
• 20:05
  And well, let's start out with what she has to say.
• 20:09
  What's been your biggest disappointment?
• 20:11
  My disappointment always have it and I'll never give up on it is uh guns, a four-letter word, guns, guns, that children would be dying in a classroom that families just the saddest thing.
• 20:27
  But it's about two things that politicians should think that their political survival is more important than the survival of children and families in our country.
• 20:37
  And that the gun industry, I'm not talking about lobbyists here.
• 20:43
  I'm talking about the gun industry with endless big money, just deciding that they are going to have it their way at the cost of lives in our country, so they can make a profit.
• 20:57
  Well, I would maybe believe Ms.
• 20:59
  Pelosi that she was really concerned about guns if she voluntarily forgave up uh her armed security.
• 21:08
  Remember, when she was a member of the house, she had uh the capital police, uh, they were armed.
• 21:13
  Uh you had, you know, when she was speaker of the house, she got, I believe, a secret service detail.
• 21:18
  They were armed.
• 21:19
  So she's more than happy to have guns protecting her.
• 21:22
  She does apparently doesn't want you to have a gun to protect yourself.
• 21:26
  Now, yes, it's terrible when children are killed, but it's not the gun's fault.
• 21:30
  It's the idiot, the crazy person that used it.
• 21:33
  And let's face it, kids have been killed with knives and and baseball bats and cars and bombs.
• 21:39
  There's lots of ways that this has happened.
• 21:41
  But I want to focus on the the this myth, this lie she perpetuates.
• 21:46
  Oh, you said the problem is it's all the gun industry is just buying politicians left and right.
• 21:53
  Well, let's take a look at some numbers.
• 21:55
  Um I think it was last year, gun control groups spent just shy of 80 million dollars in lobbying um for gun control.
• 22:07
  While the gun industry spent 1.7 million.
• 22:13
  1.7 versus 80.
• 22:15
  Hmm.
• 22:16
  If it was just the money that got spent that made the difference.
• 22:19
  Now, yeah, I admit the gun can the gun industry is spending money to oppose gun legislation, but it's not the quantity of the money because let's face it, if they didn't spend money to oppose this legislation, where would be the opposition?
• 22:33
  And I find it that the politicians are more worried about keeping in in their and you mean actually representing the people they claim to represent.
• 22:42
  You mean upholding their oath to support the constitution of the United States, which says the people have a right to keep in bearing arms, that it shall not be infringed.
• 22:53
  I mean, look at this.
• 22:54
  Uh every town, you know, Bloomberg's, they spent um 45 million.
• 23:00
  Um, they denoted, uh donated another 8 million to uh a the uh the every town demand uh seat pack.
• 23:08
  Um 19 million to future forward.
• 23:13
  That's one man.
• 23:16
  These are all Bloomberg.
• 23:17
  His every time for gun safety, he donated to uh uh every town demand pack and a future forward.
• 23:24
  72 million dollars from one individual.
• 23:29
  And there's more.
• 23:31
  So just because listen, Ms.
• 23:32
  Pelosi has a right to her opinion, doesn't mean that it's true.
• 23:37
  You're disappointed that other people are not allowed to have guns while there are guns protecting you.
• 23:42
  It tells me everything I need to know about Ms.
• 23:44
  Pelosi's position on gun control.
• 23:48
  Speaking of gun control, um the Supreme Court has shown interest in a couple of Second Amendment cases.
• 23:56
  Now, one of them is apparently it has to do with the uh um uh Chicago's um uh gun ban on public transportation.
• 24:07
  I believe that's one of those looking at basically the the Supreme Court asked the Chicago police department um to uh and on public transit to reply to a petition for rid of search sector that they had received regarding a case.
• 24:23
  And in response to that, I find it very interesting that both the CTA, the Chicago Transit Authority, and the Chicago Police Department uh said they will surge officers into this quote unquote gun-free zone.
• 24:40
  Now, I thought gun-free zones meant there were no guns.
• 24:42
  There's no need to have more police.
• 24:44
  You put up a sign, gun-free zone, guns never show up, nothing bad ever happens in a gun-free zone.
• 24:53
  Of course, bad things happen.
• 24:55
  Because you know, those criminals, they go, they love gun-free zones because they're less likely to find somebody who can defend themselves with a gun.
• 25:04
  And there's a certain amount of irony that says, well, we're worried about this gun-free zone, so we're gonna send people with guns.
• 25:12
  See, this to me is always the interesting thing.
• 25:14
  When you look at so many of these, it's not about controlling guns.
• 25:18
  It's about controlling guns outside of government control.
• 25:22
  Government can have all the guns they want.
• 25:24
  You never see a bill saying we're going to ban certain firearms from use by law enforcement.
• 25:31
  Never happens.
• 25:32
  You never see, you know, a 30, a 10-day waiting period um for uh an officer to get a gun.
• 25:40
  You never see that.
• 25:41
  It's only the rest of us, the ones that aren't government employees, they apparently don't want to have guns, which I find really interesting because everybody that supports uh controlling guns.
• 25:54
  There's a certain piece of fact that seems to get lost in that in that, and that is you know, they focus on the the times that guns are used illegally to hurt someone.
• 26:07
  They seem to ignore when guns are used legally to protect someone.
• 26:14
  See, while we tend to focus on on the mass shootings and and and all this, uh the the people at the crime research center did a study and they found that in March of 2025 alone, there were 26 cases of people legally carrying a firearm and using it to defend themselves or others.
• 26:38
  Now, I think some of the FBI, I uh uh I haven't checked it in recently, but a couple of years ago is checking the according to FDI crime, FBI crime statistics.
• 26:48
  Firearms are used to defend an innocent.
• 26:51
  And by use, I don't mean fired, sometimes just displaying guns.
• 26:55
  They're used 10 times as often as they're used to kill someone.
• 26:59
  So if you're going to control guns, you're not simply controlling people who use them for evil, they're also controlling people who use them for good for the defense of themselves or others.
• 27:12
  People that are breaking into a person's house or or jacking their car or mugging them on the street or or whatever.
• 27:19
  They're used for defenses.
• 27:20
  So if you're limiting the act accessibility to guns, you're not simply limiting criminals' access to guns.
• 27:25
  You're limiting law-abiding citizens' access to guns.
• 27:29
  And you're saying that uh in an attempt to stop crime, we're going to stop the thing that stopped 10 times more crime.
• 27:36
  It seems to be a bit odd.
• 27:38
  And again, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
• 27:42
  But the problem is when you start bringing in facts, and when those facts say, you know what, yeah, it's it's terrible when someone uses a gun to harm someone else.
• 27:52
  What's even more terrible is when the person's been denied their right to defend themselves.
• 27:59
  At least defend themselves with the the most appropriate uh and and one of the best tools for doing so.
• 28:06
  Uh, I can't remember the lady's name.
• 28:08
  She wrote a book, uh, but she was a legal gun carrier, and she was having uh I think it was having lunch with her husband, and uh people illegally brought firearms.
• 28:20
  She was not allowed to carry.
• 28:21
  It was a you know gun-free zone, and uh people illegal that have been stalking her came in and shot her husband.
• 28:30
  A dude who'd been stalking her, even though she had restraining orders, came in illegally brought a gun and killed her husband.
• 28:39
  Her best defense was right there in the car, but she wasn't allowed to bring it in.
• 28:44
  That's a scenario where gun control maybe costs a life.
• 28:48
  And again, people don't most gun control people I talk to, they don't think about that.
• 28:53
  They don't talk about because it's an inconvenient fact that guns are used for much more things than crime.
• 29:01
  They're used quite frequently in their own defense.
• 29:06
  And let's drift away from guns for a second.
• 29:09
  Just recognizing the ability to defend your rights.
• 29:11
  Because remember, John Jay said every member of the state ought diligently to read and study the constitution, teacherizing generation be free by knowing their rights, they'll better perceive when they're violated and be the better prepared to uh sooner receive perceived when they're violated, be better prepared to defend and assert them.
• 29:28
  I'm dealing with a controversy in, well, it's the western part of Middle Tennessee, where a former Tennessee law enforcement officer uh commented on a post promoting a candlelight vigil uh for Charlie Kirk.
• 29:43
  Uh, he shared a meme using a photograph of Donald Trump with the quote quote, we have to get over it.
• 29:51
  This is a line that the former president used in reaction to the 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa.
• 29:58
  That'll become important just a
• 30:00
  Second.
• 30:01
  Now, the the officer, Mr.
• 30:02
  Bushart added a brief remark saying this seems relevant today.
• 30:07
  Well, apparently that triggered uh Sheriff Weems of Perry County that this could be a threat toward the Perry County High School.
• 30:18
  He argued that the reference to Perry, well, it might alarm locals.
• 30:23
  Now, I want to make an interesting point.
• 30:25
  Um there's no law against alarming people.
• 30:30
  There's a law against threatening people, but how people react to your constitutional activities is not your fault.
• 30:37
  But that didn't seem to stop the sheriff.
• 30:48
  Telling that the sheriff's office had concerned where they were concerned about something he had posted online.
• 30:54
  Um he said, I really have no idea what you're talking about.
• 30:58
  And uh they'd say, Well, this this could insinuate violence.
• 31:02
  Wait a second.
• 31:03
  We have to get over it.
• 31:05
  And that from 2024, and he turns around and says, Well, this seems to be relevant today, and that's supposed to insinuate violence.
• 31:15
  No.
• 31:16
  And that was Mr.
• 31:17
  Bushard's response is no, it wasn't.
• 31:19
  I'm not going to take it down.
• 31:21
  I have he has a right to publish what he wishes.
• 31:24
  Um, and uh under the Tennessee Constitution.
• 31:28
  By the way, this is not at this point a First Amendment issue, although it's being argued that way.
• 31:32
  Remember, the first amendment says Congress shall make no law.
• 31:35
  Congress had nothing to do with this.
• 31:36
  This is a county sheriff trying to intimidate somebody because he didn't like a post.
• 31:42
  Just after 11 that evening, officers returned with an arrest warrant, accusing him of threatening mass violence at a school.
• 31:51
  Now, the only place this appears to exist is in the sheriff's head, because from what I've seen and what I've read, nothing expresses any insinuation of violence at all.
• 32:02
  Remember, the picture was a picture of Donald Trump quoting him, saying we have to get over it, and that this seems relevant today.
• 32:12
  And the only link to Perry County is the fact that Donald Trump's the original photograph was a statement from Donald Trump involving a shooting in Perry, Iowa, hundreds of miles away.
• 32:26
  This seems like a made up controversy by the sheriff's deputy, by the sheriff, I should say.
• 32:33
  Now, interesting body cam footage shows at one point a Mr.
• 32:37
  Bushart uh said, I have been in uh an a-hole, although he used the entire word.
• 32:43
  Um the officer replied, that's not illegal.
• 32:46
  Exactly.
• 32:48
  Mr.
• 32:48
  Bushart was arrested.
• 32:50
  He spent 37 days in jail, lost his job, missed several family milestones, including his wedding anniversary and the birth of a grandchild.
• 33:00
  And the arrest affidavit omitted key details, including the fact that the meme originated elsewhere, clearly referenced another state.
• 33:11
  Now, the the sheriff later admitted in an interview that he knew the post was unrelated to the Tennessee schools at the time of arrest.
• 33:20
  Now, after Mr.
• 33:22
  Bushart was released, uh it drew some some national attention.
• 33:27
  And um, even though the sheriff defended his action by claiming the post triggered mass hysteria, there are no public records showing any evidence of any community panic.
• 33:39
  And again, even if that was true, that doesn't make what Mr.
• 33:43
  Bouchard said criminal, doesn't make his actions criminal.
• 33:48
  So our friends at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have filed a lawsuit.
• 33:52
  Uh they are claiming a violation of the First Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment.
• 33:59
  Uh being, you know, the claim of First Amendment because it's free to press, which again, it's not the first amendment, it's the Tennessee Constitution, because Congress didn't make this law.
• 34:08
  It was an illegal seizure, which led to illegal searches.
• 34:12
  It was also uh, you know, he was held for 37 days for something that the sheriff admitted was not a crime.
• 34:20
  So what we actually have beyond that is we have perjury.
• 34:25
  Remember, to get the rest warrant, there had to be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
• 34:31
  The person who gave that information for the arrest warrant had to be under oath.
• 34:37
  If they intentionally let out left out a sculpatory information, is that not perjury?
• 34:44
  Did he not effectively lie under oath?
• 34:47
  Did the sheriff not uh uh commit deprivation of rights under color of law?
• 34:53
  There's a lot more that should be.
• 34:55
  I'm gonna reach out to fire, maybe we'll have a discussion about that later.
• 34:58
  But again, this is you know the the former officer, Mr.
• 35:03
  Bouchard didn't need a firearm, but he certainly needed to defend himself from an out-of-control government actor.
• 35:10
  In this case, the uh the sheriff of Perry County, Tennessee.
• 35:16
  Now, I've got some state items I want to look at before we call it a day, but I do have to uh take a break.
• 35:22
  I want to remind you though, you know, defending your rights is important.
• 35:27
  And you know, our rights are under attack.
• 35:29
  We just looked at one where a man's rights are under attack because the sheriff didn't like his post.
• 35:33
  Um, let's stop funding those organizations that are attacking our rights because it's not just government.
• 35:38
  There are plenty of organizations that are after our rights, and there are plenty of companies that support them.
• 35:45
  Me, I joined the only Christian conservative wireless provider this nation has, Patriot Mobile.
• 35:50
  Why?
• 35:51
  Well, I think you should join me because we can use our cell phones to defend our rights, including the rights of our family, our neighbors, and our friends.
• 36:00
  These include our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• 36:04
  Squish to Patriot Mobile today, get free activation with the offer code constitution.
• 36:08
  Just head to Patriot Mobile.com slash constitution, find a plan that works for you.
• 36:12
  See if you're eligible for a discount.
• 36:15
  Everyone from NRA members and first responders to families with multiple lines are eligible for discounts.
• 36:21
  And then when you check out, use the code constitution to get your line activated absolutely free.
• 36:26
  Once again, head to Patriot Mobile.com/slash Constitution to find a plan that works for you.
• 36:31
  See if you're eligible for a discount, and don't forget to use the promo code Constitution at checkout to get free activation.
• 36:39
  Also, I recommend you head to America Outloud.news each and every day for the latest news and information.
• 36:45
  I do, and not just for the radio program, but because corporate media has been lying to us for decades.
• 36:51
  I want to go to a place that I can trust, yet still verify what I'm being told there.
• 36:56
  So it's more important than ever that I'm not be alone, that we all do our part.
• 37:01
  Don't just read the stories, don't just listen to the podcast and watch the videos, but share them.
• 37:08
  Share those articles that say something special that teach you something you didn't know.
• 37:12
  The podcasts and videos that are both entertaining and educational.
• 37:15
  Share them with others.
• 37:17
  That's ladies and gentlemen, how we secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.
• 37:26
  In just two minutes per day, you can reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.
• 37:33
  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.
• 37:45
  Go to Chemicalfree Body.com forward slash out loud today.
• 37:49
  Get nature's super multivitamin Green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 37:58
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 38:00
  But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar preservatives and mystery ingredients.
• 38:05
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 38:07
  Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients made with veggies, nuts, and seeds.
• 38:14
  Bear bars are plant-based, organic, gluten-free, contained six grams of protein, and are low-temp dried for a unique crunch.
• 38:21
  To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud listeners.
• 38:28
  That's B E A R B A R.com forward slash out loud.
• 38:32
  Hi, I'm Dr.
• 38:33
  James Bragman, board certified DO in internal in geriatric medicine.
• 38:36
  Whether you're flying on a cruise, driving or exploring, use Kofix RX nasal cleanse daily to help protect yourself from viruses, bacteria, and allergens.
• 38:45
  COFEXRX is easy to use, safe and effective.
• 38:48
  If it's perfectly in your pocket or purse, travel with confidence and stay healthy with Kofix RX nasal cleanse.
• 38:54
  Click on the Kofix Rx banner ad in the American Outlawed Shop for 20% off your next order of Kofix Rx.
• 39:01
  In a world of rising prices, you can still grow abundance.
• 39:05
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the national bestseller, The Sprout Book.
• 39:09
  Sprouts grow in three to five days without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer on your kitchen countertop for under a dollar serving.
• 39:18
  Take control of your food and your future.
• 39:20
  Visit the sprouting company.com slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.
• 39:28
  Grow food, not fear.
• 39:34
  Welcome back, everyday American Juvry join the Constitution study.
• 39:39
  And uh, well, we've been talking about attorneys and judges versus the Constitution.
• 39:44
  And uh we talk about it several different topics.
• 39:46
  I want to close up with some state issues, and we're gonna start in California.
• 39:50
  There's a uh a suit, I believe it's a class action suit that was in U.S.
• 39:54
  district court uh where, well, a judge gave uh well, I'd say good if so.
• 40:00
  Somewhat quite flawed opinion.
• 40:02
  It involves California school teachers hiding their attempts to gender manipulate their children, their students, and hiding that information from parents.
• 40:15
  All right, scenarios where in school that they you know they refer to a child by a different name or a different pronoun or whatever, and they hide this from the parent.
• 40:25
  So the suit was filed uh against the uh California Department of Education and a court, the district court, uh Judge uh Roger Benitez issued a I believe a permanent injunction preventing schools from doing this.
• 40:42
  And what they looked at is that the court said that they they looked at these matters of law and they had four points.
• 40:49
  First, whether the 14th Amendment substantive due process clause provides parents a right to access information about their child's gender identity.
• 40:58
  Well, that's close.
• 40:59
  It's not a substantive due.
• 41:00
  The 14th Amendment has a due process clause that says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• 41:07
  And since it is the parents' responsibility to they both created the child and are involved with the raising the child, they have a right to control the child's uh uh to be informed about the identity.
• 41:19
  Point two is whether the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause does the same.
• 41:24
  Well, it does, except not for California law, because the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law.
• 41:30
  It's actually the believe the Constitution of California says that they have a right to the free exercise of religion.
• 41:36
  Uh, point number three, whether the First Amendment provides religious teachers a right to provide gender information to parents based on free exercise protections.
• 41:44
  Again, not a First Amendment problem because Congress didn't make this law.
• 41:47
  It's an issue with the state um a constitution, which would make this a deprivation of uh liberty and property without due process of law to the 14th Amendment.
• 41:58
  The fourth is whether the First Amendment provides public school teachers a right to communicate accurate gender information to their parents based on free speech protections.
• 42:05
  You see what's going on.
• 42:06
  It's like there's this misunderstanding, an inability to read the First Amendment.
• 42:13
  Now, again, those protections exist.
• 42:16
  They exist in the California Constitution.
• 42:18
  They also exist in the in the 14th Amendment, where you have both of the equal protection clause.
• 42:25
  You can't treat uh uh religious parents differently than non-religious parents, and uh parents, the due process and the understanding that parents have a right to control the upbringing of their children.
• 42:36
  Yet this this uh this judge Benita said, in each case, this court concludes that as a matter of law, the answer is yes, which just goes to prove that apparently neither Judge Benitez nor the justice of the Supreme Court who set up these standards can actually read the Constitution because the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, Congress didn't make these laws, and again, again, this is not a new problem.
• 43:02
  This is a problem I've been discussing since long before I started this radio program.
• 43:07
  Now, I I see the point the judge is trying to get to.
• 43:10
  He says, although, as stated previously, the state's desire to protect vulnerable children from harassment and discrimination is laudable, the parents' exclusion policies creates a trifecta of harm.
• 43:20
  They harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is a result of bullying, peer pressure, or fleeting impulse.
• 43:31
  The harm the parents but they harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized 14th Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burden many parents' first amendment rights to train their children in the searely sincerely held religious beliefs.
• 43:46
  Again, not a First Amendment issue, a California constitutional issue, a 14th amendment issue, the liberty of parents to teach their children.
• 43:55
  But again, this comes down to judges and attorneys who they don't study the constitution.
• 44:01
  I've I've done this for years.
• 44:02
  Every attorney I talked to, everybody's gone to law school.
• 44:04
  I ask them, while they were in law school, did they study constitutional law or the actual language of the constitution?
• 44:12
  And in all the years I've been doing this, I've had one man said he studied the constitution in law school.
• 44:17
  Everyone else usually gets this kind of funny look.
• 44:19
  Well, I it was constitutional law, but I studied it outside of law school.
• 44:24
  Well, isn't that the problem?
• 44:26
  How in heaven's name do you get a degree in American law without studying the Supreme Law of the land?
• 44:32
  That's the problem.
• 44:33
  That's the issue where you have attorneys and judges versus the Constitution.
• 44:36
  I'm not saying these people didn't have a case.
• 44:38
  They had a very good case.
• 44:40
  It just wasn't a First Amendment case.
• 44:42
  Let's take another look.
• 44:44
  So still out in California.
• 44:46
  Do you remember when the federal government threatened California because they issued what they refer to as non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses?
• 44:54
  Well, yeah, the they they they went through, they revoked those licenses under quote unquote federal pressure.
• 45:01
  Well, as I pointed out then, and I'll remind you now, the federal government has no legal authority to regulate driver's licenses.
• 45:08
  That is a state power.
• 45:10
  The closest they could get is they could regulate interstate commerce, but that would only involve if the driver's license was used across state lines.
• 45:20
  Now, California's turn around and says, you know what, we're going to reissue those licenses, even though federal pressure is against it.
• 45:28
  Now, again, I think California's stupid for issuing these non-domicile driver's licenses.
• 45:35
  If someone's not even, if not, if someone's not a resident of the United States, at least a legal resident, why you're doing it, that just shows that California is stupid, but that's nothing new.
• 45:44
  Referring to California as Marxist and stupid is pretty much redundant nowadays.
• 45:48
  It did the they just the way they do things.
• 45:51
  But I also agree with California saying federal government, you have no authority over how we issue our driver's licenses.
• 45:58
  That's a state issue.
• 46:00
  Now, the the California is pointing to a November 13th emergency stay issued by the uh U.S.
• 46:07
  Court of Appeals for the district of D for the DC circuit blocking the enforcement of this interim rule uh about eligibility for non-domiciled uh commercial driver's license.
• 46:20
  Um, so they they at least have some, you know, the legal opinion that of course that was a circuit court, we have to wait to see it's gonna go to the Supreme Court, what's going on, but it comes all back to this with the federal motor carrier safety administration as an entity that doesn't legally exist because again, Congress cannot regulate motor carrier safety, only interstate commerce, and it has to be interstate commerce.
• 46:46
  And even I'd even question the ability uh uh for uh regulating driver's licenses for interstate commerce, because again, they don't have the power to regulate that.
• 46:55
  What power they do have is for Congress to say, okay, you don't have to recognize a CDL from California.
• 47:05
  But that throws in a whole bunch of others, because if it's a CDL, what about all sorts of driver's licenses?
• 47:10
  It pretty much is a mess, but it's a mess of Congress's own making.
• 47:16
  So uh I'm not gonna shed a tear for the the trouble that uh you know Congress has made for itself.
• 47:23
  They made it.
• 47:24
  In fact, the closest I think I get to shedding a key uh a tear is the fact that we the people hire the members of Congress that have made this mess for us.
• 47:33
  Thank you very much.
• 47:35
  And the last news item for the day is actually I saved it for last because it's a very controversial topic.
• 47:41
  Uh New York Governor Hochel said that when she returns to Albany, or I guess when uh when she in in January, she plans on signing the Medical Aid in Dying Act.
• 47:53
  Now she's waiting for the legislature, apparently because she had some tweaks, some changes that she wanted to the legislation that were the sponsors and the legislative leaders agreed to.
• 48:05
  So I guess that's got to be rolled in and voted on, and then she'll sign it.
• 48:10
  Now, the bill, as so many of these are uh uh claim to allow the terminally ill, uh, those who have less than six months to live to ask for assistance in dying.
• 48:20
  And um faith and religious affiliated healthcare organizations and religious doctors would not be required to provide the service.
• 48:30
  Now, let's start with a couple things.
• 48:32
  So um, yeah, my let's start with I I have a I have a legal and a philosophical moral issue with these from a legal standpoint.
• 48:44
  Um if someone wishes to commit suicide, if they wish to um deprive themselves of life, if they wish to destroy their own body, legally, I don't see a case against it.
• 49:00
  I think it's morally wrong, but I don't see a case against it.
• 49:04
  You have the right, you have the liberty to do with your body as your property, whatever it is you want.
• 49:09
  And if you decide you've had enough, well, again, I think it's morally incorrect.
• 49:15
  I think it's legally, I don't see the legal basis for laws against suicide.
• 49:21
  Assisted suicide is where I have a problem because assistance means I need someone else to help me with my suicide.
• 49:32
  Now, uh uh again uh legal issues, moral issues from a legal standpoint.
• 49:39
  If a physician in good faith prescribes medication for a person who then abuses it and overdoses, I don't think the physician should be held accountable as long as he was, you know, he wasn't it wasn't his quote unquote intention to bring about the death, it was the
• 50:00
  Person who acted, he simply provided medication in good faith at the person abused.
• 50:06
  But when you start having doctors saying, I'm going to prescribe you medication specifically to kill you.
• 50:12
  Well, uh, first of all, that seems to be a very close to violating the Hippocratic Oath, which starts out with first do no harm.
• 50:20
  I have so that that brings, and again, I have I have moral issues with this.
• 50:25
  The concern I have, or the the legal concern I have is you're basically now a legalizing homicide.
• 50:34
  Not for self-defense, not for defense of others, but because someone wants to have somebody killed them.
• 50:44
  And uh, you know, it's it's funny because they say, well, first of all, they have to be terminally ill and have less than six months to live.
• 50:52
  Well, part of me looks at this going, wait a second.
• 50:55
  Um, okay, terminally ill, meaning we have no treatment that will save your life at this point.
• 51:03
  Um, but the less than six months to live, that ladies and gentlemen is a guess.
• 51:09
  See, but most people don't know.
• 51:10
  Doctors guess an awful lot, and they they they hedge their statements with, well, likely, probably, and I don't I don't have a problem with that.
• 51:19
  I understand.
• 51:20
  You know, I recently dealt with the death of my father, and while he was ill, and um decided for himself, along with my sister and I, we talked about it.
• 51:30
  It was his decision.
• 51:32
  Uh, he did not want to continue treatment for his cancer.
• 51:35
  He wanted to be made comfortable while he went through the natural process of dying.
• 51:40
  He didn't want someone to help him to die.
• 51:42
  He just wanted to be made comfortable while he died.
• 51:46
  And I find it interesting because the doctor said he would have about six months to live, and he died in two weeks.
• 51:52
  Less than two weeks.
• 51:54
  It's a guess.
• 51:57
  And so that that that's the other the scenario.
• 51:59
  Now, okay, uh, religious affiliated healthcare systems, religious doctors.
• 52:04
  Um, why must it be religious?
• 52:07
  What if a person is not a quote unquote religious doctor, but has an ethical issue with prescribing or assisting in the suicide of an assisting in homicide.
• 52:18
  When you're talking about assisting in the suicide, you're talking about homicide.
• 52:22
  It may not be murder, but it is a homicide.
• 52:25
  What if the doctor has an ethical reason regardless of religion?
• 52:29
  Are you saying that they will be compelled to provide these services?
• 52:34
  Isn't that a violation of a person's liberty to say you're not free to say no to something you find morally wrong simply because you don't have a religious basis for that?
• 52:46
  See, there's a lot of problems I have with these things.
• 52:49
  And again, my position is while it's morally wrong to take your own life.
• 52:54
  I don't think it should be legally wrong to take your own life.
• 52:58
  It's the assistance in dying that always concerns me.
• 53:04
  Because how quickly do you go from, well, you know, they're dying and they've got less than six months to live.
• 53:11
  And we the get the doctors guess less than six months to live.
• 53:15
  Um, I want help in dying, to you must provide help for me in dying.
• 53:21
  You must commit homicide because I want it.
• 53:25
  See, that's claiming a right to control someone else.
• 53:29
  To override their position, their liberty, their desires, their understanding of ethics.
• 53:36
  Forget the religious part.
• 53:38
  The religious is to me is a is a red herring.
• 53:41
  It's the question of you're telling me, are you going to compel doctors to provide prescribe this?
• 53:46
  Are you going to tell insurance companies they must pay for this?
• 53:52
  There's a lot of compunction in here.
• 53:54
  Again, I've watched my father die.
• 53:57
  It was not easy.
• 53:59
  And it was it was probably some of the most painful time in my life was the the watching the end.
• 54:07
  And it wasn't simply the dying, it was all the nonsense that goes around.
• 54:11
  It's the nursing homes and it's the care.
• 54:13
  It was very difficult on my sister and I.
• 54:16
  And um, you know, but I understand the desire to say, I just want it to be over with.
• 54:23
  I've seen I saw that happen with my grandfather.
• 54:26
  Uh, you know, you just you want it to be over with, but does that give you the ability to say, okay, um, I don't want to die, I don't want to live anymore.
• 54:37
  Even scarier.
• 54:38
  My sister and I were medical proxies for my father.
• 54:42
  When my father was no longer able to make medical decisions, did that give my sister and I the legal authority to demand assistance in his suicide.
• 54:52
  There's a lot of legal issues in there that I don't think are being discussed.
• 54:56
  It's something I think we should think about.
• 54:59
  So when we talk about attorneys and judges and their direct opposition to the constitution, I'm not being hyperbolic.
• 55:08
  But it is something that we should take very, very seriously.
• 55:11
  And again, it's why John J said, every member of the state ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, teacher I can generation be free.
• 55:19
  Because we need to recognize when our rights are being violated and be prepared to defend and assert them.
• 55:25
  Because if you're waiting for the judges and the attorneys to do it, it's likely not going to happen.
• 55:31
  Now, I want to remind you, we are coming up on the semi-quincentenna, the 250th anniversary of the publication of the Declaration of Independence.
• 55:39
  And it's a great time to celebrate.
• 55:40
  I also think it's a great time to, well, decide you want to learn more.
• 55:44
  Maybe you want to study more about the Declaration.
• 55:47
  Maybe you've never read the entire document.
• 55:49
  Maybe you've never read the Constitution.
• 55:51
  Consider this as a perfect opportunity to take up that challenge.
• 55:55
  I took up the challenge of reading and studying the Constitution.
• 55:58
  Oh, God, 50, 15, maybe 20 years ago.
• 56:01
  It's been quite a while.
• 56:02
  But the point is, it's a good reason to start.
• 56:06
  There's a lot of resources.
• 56:07
  You can think the Constitution, the Declaration, absolutely free online.
• 56:11
  It's it's everywhere.
• 56:13
  If you want to go a little deeper, though, I've got books on my website, constitutionstudy.com/slash shop.
• 56:18
  I wrote a book on the Declaration of Independence.
• 56:21
  I cover it in my book, uh, the Constitution Study, returning the Constitution to We the People.
• 56:26
  I start out by looking at the Declaration of Independence, what started all of this.
• 56:31
  So take this as a good incentive.
• 56:34
  You know, we're approaching the end of the year.
• 56:35
  People make New Year's resolutions as we're approaching the 250th anniversary.
• 56:40
  Maybe make a resolution if that's your thing that you're going to read and study the declaration and understand what was said some 250 years ago.
• 56:49
  I also hope you come by and join us here for the Constitution Study on America Out Loud Talk Radio Heard on the IHeart Radio Network every weekday at 4 p.m.
• 56:57
  Eastern time.
• 56:58
  You can listen on our media player.
• 56:59
  We've also got apps for Apple, Android, and Alexa.
• 57:02
  And of course, all my episodes go to podcasts, generally a day or two after the Herd on Talk Radio.
• 57:08
  So you can listen in your favorite podcast app.
• 57:10
  But do me a favor, subscribe to the show, rate the show, especially on Apple Podcasts.
• 57:15
  It helps the algorithm show us to more people.
• 57:18
  So when people click, more people join us here at the Constitution Study.
• 57:22
  You can find all the links you need at the homepage at AmericaOut Loud.news.
• 57:26
  But please share them.
• 57:28
  By doing so, you're helping to share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation home.