Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / America’s litigious society explains why we have more lawyers than doctors

Transcript

America’s litigious society explains why we have more lawyers than doctors · 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
  Many grievances are dealt today in courts.
• 0:34
  So today I want to take a look at a few recent examples.
• 0:37
  Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engle here with the Constitution Study, where we read instead of the Constitution.
• 0:43
  Teacherizing Generation Me Free.
• 0:44
  I'm glad you could join me today.
• 0:46
  You know, it's funny.
• 0:47
  A lot of people talk about the First Amendment, and of course, protected as a Congress cannot make a law that uh prevents you from seek from petitioning the government for a redress of grievance.
• 0:58
  The way most people do that is by lawsuit.
• 1:01
  They are asking the government to resolve a grievance, and that and governance happens to be a court.
• 1:08
  So again, a nation where there are more lawyers than doctors.
• 1:13
  Well, so I've picked a few uh examples of some recent cases that I want to take a little bit of time and look at today.
• 1:22
  We're going to start in California, where a Sacramento County judge has decided that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District violated state privacy laws by sharing detailed smart meter information with law enforcement.
• 1:39
  You see, the court found that uh the utility district's cooperation with police were in a foul of the California Public Utility Code Section 8381, a statute designed to protect the confidentiality of consumers' electrical consumption data.
• 1:54
  What do you know?
• 1:55
  A California law, I think I could get behind.
• 2:08
  Instead, the district is apparently given police wide access to their database, allowing officers to comb through granular records that reveal hour by hour patterns of home energy use.
• 2:21
  According to court filings, uh Sacramento police routinely asked the utility district to identify quote unquote high usage homes that might indicate, well, indoor cannabis uh cultivation.
• 2:34
  Now, the utility district complied going through roughly 650,000 customer records and forwarding over 33,000 names to police for further investigation.
• 2:47
  The court determined that these repeated wide-range searches could not be justified as legitimate investigations.
• 2:55
  Exactly what they were are fishing expeditions.
• 2:58
  Reading from the court's opinion, the process of making regular requests for all customer information in numerous city zip codes in the hopes of identifying evidence that could possibly be evidence of illegal activity without any report or other evidence to suggest that the crime may have occurred, is not an ongoing investigation.
• 3:20
  Exactly.
• 3:20
  In fact, you know what it is?
• 3:22
  It's an unreasonable search.
• 3:24
  It's a search of people's records without a reason for it, other than fishing, looking for something.
• 3:32
  Find me the person, and I'll find you the crime.
• 3:35
  The people who sued, they're there under their filings.
• 3:38
  They claim that the program not only criminalized innocent people, but also led to hostile encounters with law enforcement and a disproportionate targeting of Sacramento's Asian community.
• 3:50
  Not sure why it was the Asian community.
• 3:53
  But it's funny, all the time when people are talking about smart meters and and how helpful they'll be and how useful they'll be.
• 3:59
  Oh no, nothing that ever bad could happen with these.
• 4:02
  Well, these didn't require smart meters, but smart meters were certainly part of the tool because unlike uh um you know, a routine meter reader, smart meters track your energy usage hour by hour, in fact, minute by minute.
• 4:17
  But what's interesting is although the court found this uh this to be a violation of the state privacy laws, they declined to recognize that it was an unconstitutional search under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 13.
• 4:33
  By the way, that'd be the same thing under the United States Constitution.
• 4:37
  Uh uh Fourth Amendment.
• 4:40
  Now, the court reasoned that, well, sharing a customer's monthly energy uses did not amount to an unlawful search.
• 4:47
  Well, it's a question of an unreasonable search.
• 4:51
  And what was the reason behind the search?
• 4:55
  Oh, we're fishing for evidence.
• 4:57
  Do you have any sort of probable cause for a warrant?
• 5:00
  Any reasonable article of suspicion?
• 5:02
  Not yet.
• 5:02
  We need you to scalm this data first.
• 5:05
  Now, our attorneys for the petitioners disagreed.
• 5:07
  They argued that the program depended not on the monthly totals, but on continuous access to high-resolution data mapping the activity inside of people's homes.
• 5:20
  And since we're talking about litigation, I've got one I'm sure is gonna piss a lot of people off.
• 5:24
  So hang on to your hats.
• 5:26
  How many of you remember uh Derek Chauvelin, right?
• 5:29
  The guy that was um convicted of uh what is that?
• 5:34
  Was it police abuse or harassment?
• 5:37
  Because it was claimed that he murdered um George Floyd by the way he held him while taking him into custody.
• 5:46
  Well petition that's been sent to the henpin County District uh court.
• 5:53
  Um petition apparently includes more than 50 signatures from former or current uh Memphis police department officers who made sworn declarations that the technique chauvin used to restrain George Floyd's Floyd was part of the official training they received.
• 6:11
  Now, here's the important thing to understand when you're dealing with George Floyd.
• 6:15
  There are two sets of videos.
• 6:17
  One video, which is the one that was all over the news and all that.
• 6:22
  You're looking under the bumper of the car or beside the bump of the car.
• 6:25
  You see uh George Floyd head on, the officers behind him, and it looks like he has his knee.
• 6:32
  Obviously, he is on is on George Floyd.
• 6:35
  There were claims that it was on his neck and that he's he effectively strangled him.
• 6:39
  However, if you look at the cameras from the other side, the body cams of the officers, you see the Mr.
• 6:46
  Uh Chauvin's knee was actually on Mr.
• 6:50
  Floyd's shoulder.
• 6:51
  He was not impairing his breathing.
• 6:54
  It is a technique that apparently is taught in many law enforcement academies.
• 6:59
  And that brings up an interesting question, because uh uh uh attorney Greg Joseph said the case never made sense.
• 7:08
  Um that that uh uh the the evidence was so thin, he was surprised that prosecutors achieved a conviction.
• 7:17
  Um which again, many people, including myself claim was pure theater.
• 7:24
  Now, remember, this was uh uh George Floyd death was big news, and everybody was pointing fingers and everybody was blaming Mr.
• 7:33
  Chauvin.
• 7:34
  And in fact, during the trial, uh Minneapolis police department denied that the restraint technique Chauvin used was taught uh by their training arm, their police academy.
• 7:49
  Interesting is um this that point really should be moot because again, there's not evidence that the restraint caused George Floyd's death.
• 8:00
  Because there is evidence, police body cam that shows that Mr.
• 8:07
  His knee on Mr.
• 8:09
  Floyd's shoulder, not on his neck.
• 8:14
  So now uh chauvin's trying to uh uh get his conviction vacated and a new trial that uh Mr.
• 8:24
  Must deny he was deprived his right to due process uh under both the 14th Amendment and the U.S.
• 8:30
  Constitution and Article 1 of the Minnesota Constitution.
• 8:34
  Furthermore, uh Dr.
• 8:36
  Andrew Baker, who was the only doctor that actually performed an autopsy on Mr.
• 8:41
  Floyd's body, um, did uh put the blame, his report did the blame, put the blame on the subduing of Mr.
• 8:48
  Floyd as his ultimate cause of death, even though his own autopsy report showed no life-threatening injuries were identified in in the autopsy.
• 9:00
  Not only that, they found uh uh both uh fentanyl and norfentanil in the bloodstream in the toxicology report.
• 9:11
  Um quite sure how that leads him to believe that uh it was the it was the restraint that led to the death.
• 9:19
  Now, again, remember the George Floyd was tried much more in the court of public opinion than it really apparently was in the court of law.
• 9:29
  Um, especially since there was whether I don't know if they were denied the opportunity to have uh uh Mr.
• 9:35
  Floyd's body examined by uh a doctor to have um to have the autopsy um possibly rebutted, to look at this other video.
• 9:50
  Um, with all the riots that were created by the George Floyd by the hype of the narrative that it was the police that killed.
• 10:00
  Mr.
• 10:00
  Floyd, uh, that I would imagine there are people that were trying to rush to an answer to get all the mayhem to stop.
• 10:08
  Now, I'm really kind of curious how this uh this this petition is handled because of all of the the riotous activity.
• 10:19
  I mean, you remember was it the the the they call it the summer love?
• 10:24
  All the George Floyd riots are people actually going to look at the at the justice, you know.
• 10:31
  If what Mr.
• 10:32
  Chauvin did was not criminal, why was he found guilty?
• 10:35
  What were where's justice in that?
• 10:38
  Um but on the other hand, how much injustice was done by people who are destroying property and and and harassing people and in some cases assaulting people because of what they thought had happened.
• 10:52
  This is a situation where I would hope that a court of law would follow the law, and then law enforcement would stand up and protect the people if um let's just say some group gets out of hand because they think it's injustice.
• 11:12
  I mean, I can see it now.
• 11:13
  People on the street shouting, no justice, no peach, which I find really ironic since what we're talking about is justice for everyone.
• 11:22
  I mean, if if George Floyd died because of a uh because of the drugs he had in his system rather than the uh um uh the uh uh quote unquote hold the restraint that Mr.
• 11:37
  Chauvin used.
• 11:38
  Uh, where's the justice in that?
• 11:41
  So uh again, these are a couple of this is a case I'm gonna find interesting.
• 11:45
  I'm also interested in the uh this the Sacramento case because I can't see how you can say people are uh uh you're violating people's privacy without agreeing that well, isn't that by definition an unreasonable search, therefore violating the constitutions of both California and the United States?
• 12:07
  These are some of the litigations that are being looked at.
• 12:10
  Now I've got a few more that I'm gonna take a look at, but uh I I want to stop and for a second and ask yourself are we dealing with courts of law or courts of public opinion?
• 12:22
  To me, that's really the import.
• 12:24
  The court really should be setting aside public opinion and looking at the actual law and the actual evidence and making decisions based on that.
• 12:33
  Now I know we're dealing with humans, judges are human, jurors are human, and we we try very hard to have that have a minimal impact on their decisions.
• 12:45
  But again, we're not perfect.
• 12:46
  We we we make mistakes.
• 12:49
  And um, I'm really rather rather curious is will the court seek a redress of a grievance, or will they pursue a political agenda?
• 13:01
  We'll have to wait and find out.
• 13:04
  But is anybody else struck by the fact that uh, you know, it's almost as if the laws are secondary to the decision of a court.
• 13:13
  The rule of law is secondary decision of court.
• 13:16
  It seems so much it's secondary to the decision of a court, which means well, we're not really a republic anymore.
• 13:22
  See, a republic means that we the people hire representation in the form it by elections, and they make the laws.
• 13:31
  But it appears more and more that well, the judges get to decide what the laws are.
• 13:37
  In the case of um uh of the Sacramento, I think the judge seemed to be following the law, at least partially, although I'm not sure why they went, it wouldn't go as far as pointing out the uh unreasonable search, which um basically wouldn't validate every case based on such unreasonable searches.
• 13:58
  And I I we haven't seen anything go to court yet again about the uh the petition for retrial for Derek Chauvin.
• 14:05
  That again, I'm curious, because I I have an assumption of the way things I expect things to go, but we won't know until it happens.
• 14:15
  I don't want to read too much into it.
• 14:18
  I've got some other examples, some other cases I want to look at, but before I do that, I have to take a break.
• 14:26
  Now, interesting.
• 14:27
  Some studies have shown that as much as 85% of the nutrients we used to get from our food, we don't get from anymore.
• 14:35
  85% of those nutrients are not in our food anymore.
• 14:38
  They've been farmed out, even if you purchase organic.
• 14:42
  So, what can you do?
• 14:44
  Well, a lot of people I know, they take a lot of supplements, they take a lot of pills.
• 14:49
  Well, our friends at the chemical free body have come up with a better solution.
• 14:52
  At least I think it's a better solution.
• 14:54
  It's called green 85.
• 14:55
  It's a juice powder.
• 14:57
  You mix it in with some some water first thing in the morning, and it gives your body the nutrients it used to get from its food without having to take handfuls of pills.
• 15:08
  And don't be worried.
• 15:09
  It doesn't taste like you're eating your front lawn.
• 15:11
  No, it actually, you know, doesn't taste bad at all.
• 15:14
  And with it, you can boost your energy, uh, improve your sleep, and generally have a a better immune system and a better health, more healthy body.
• 15:24
  Just go to AmericaOutloud.shop and look up the uh green 85 panel, and then do your own research.
• 15:31
  See what's included.
• 15:32
  Look at the ingredients, look at the directions, look at the testimonials, look at people that have used this to help improve their lives, and then give it a try.
• 15:42
  When you do, be sure to use the code out loud at checkout to get 20% off of your order.
• 15:47
  Not a bad deal from my standpoint.
• 15:49
  So again, go to AmericaOut Loud.shop, look up the green 85 panel, click on the link, and do your own be that informed consumer.
• 15:59
  And when you decide to buy, don't forget to use the code out loud at checkout to get 20% off of your order.
• 16:05
  And while green 85 will bring nutrition to your body, guess what?
• 16:10
  The Constitution Study Book will bring nutrition to your mind.
• 16:13
  Specifically, the knowledge of what the Supreme Law of the Land actually says.
• 16:17
  See, I sat down after I'd been studying the Constitution for a while.
• 16:20
  I sat down and did a study, clause by clause through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I wrote it all down in plain conversational English, so that anybody can read it and anybody can understand.
• 16:33
  Now you can find it at Amazon or anywhere books are sold, but if you go to constitutionstudy.com/slash shop, you'll find it under the book section.
• 16:41
  You can not only get your copy, you can get a signed copy there if you would like.
• 16:45
  Now, if you know someone who's interested in their rights in the constitution, it makes a great gift for Christmas.
• 16:51
  If you want to make a promise to yourself for New Year's that you're going to read and study the Constitution, makes a good deal as well.
• 16:57
  It's designed for individuals and small groups to read and study the Constitution.
• 17:01
  So give it a try.
• 17:03
  Again, head to Constitution Study.com/slash shop.
• 17:06
  You'll find it under the book section, and you can order it and have it in time to either well stick it in that stocking or wrap it up for a friend who wants to learn more about the Constitution.
• 17:24
  During COVID, we got educated on the power of natural virus protection and immune boosting using vitamins A, C, D, Zinc, and Quircetin.
• 17:34
  The problem?
• 17:34
  Getting them at the right dosage from truly natural sources that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
• 17:40
  Enter the daily V stack using breakthrough cellular absorption technology.
• 17:44
  We put those vitamins together and supercharge them with a complete multi-mineral complex.
• 17:50
  The daily V stack is basically an oral IV of six products all in one at an affordable price.
• 17:57
  Go to Chemicalfree Body.com forward slash out loud today, get the daily V stack, protect yourself, boost your immune system, and save 20% on your first order.
• 18:58
  A serving?
• 18:59
  That's the miracle of sprouting.
• 19:01
  And I want to share that with you.
• 19:03
  Go to the spouting company.com/slash out loud and use the code out loud for a special offer.
• 19:14
  Well, only when the government vows to the people will America become great again.
• 19:19
  This is Malcolm Outlaw here.
• 19:22
  Join me in pushing back against censorship, my fellow Americans.
• 19:26
  Right at the top of America Outlaw Doc News are the words.
• 19:31
  Many voices, one freedom.
• 19:34
  United in the First Amendment.
• 19:39
  Now is our time, my fellow Americans.
• 19:43
  America outlawed dot news.
• 19:45
  Liberty and justice for all.
• 20:00
  About our litigation today, society, you know, it's like think about you know, it's like how many today shows they have.
• 20:06
  Well, we've got today, it's litigation today.
• 20:09
  I'm picking up today with a couple of uh Supreme Court cases that uh I think are important and I think are are really worth our time.
• 20:19
  Uh the first one I want to look at is another question about Donald Trump's ability to well manage personnel in the executive department.
• 20:29
  Now, it's been spun a lot of different ways, you know.
• 20:32
  They said, you know, I've seen a lot of headlines that you know, Supreme Court prevents Donald Trump from firing the director of the U.S.
• 20:39
  copyright office.
• 20:40
  Well, that's not exactly what they said.
• 20:43
  The court has decided they're not going to decide this case until they've decided on a couple of other cases involving the firing of two members of agencies.
• 20:54
  But here's the interesting point.
• 20:56
  Um, to me at least, it's this idea of can Trump fire members of quote unquote independent agencies.
• 21:03
  There is no such thing in the under the Constitution as an independent agency, right?
• 21:10
  The president, all executive power is vested in the present.
• 21:15
  Uh, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1.
• 21:18
  All the power is vested in the president.
• 21:23
  Therefore, every agency that is executing the laws of the United States works for the president.
• 21:29
  You cannot create an entity that exercises the executive power outside of the present United States.
• 21:36
  Now, they've claimed these are independent agents, they're even called independent agencies, but as I've written about before, they're not really independent agencies because you can't create that.
• 21:45
  The Constitution supersedes what Congress does.
• 21:49
  The fact that Congress calls these agencies independent doesn't mean a hella beans, because the Constitution supersedes the laws of the United States made that are not pursuant of the Constitution.
• 22:02
  Congress cannot create a law that violates the Constitution and have it supersede the Constitution.
• 22:07
  It doesn't work that way.
• 22:09
  So I these cases I again I find interesting.
• 22:12
  Um currently, uh, you know, the I guess her name is Shira uh Pearl Mutter is going to remain the register of copyrights um until the court kind of figures this stuff out.
• 22:26
  Uh, that's because Ms.
• 22:28
  Pullmutter sued, claiming that her firing violated federal law, um specifically 17 USC 1701A, where Congress vested the librarian of Congress with the power to remove the register of copyrights and not the president.
• 22:47
  But again, the librarian of Congress as part of the executive branch works for the president.
• 22:53
  So this will be an interesting uh case when the court finally gets around to deciding it.
• 23:00
  But uh again, this is going to be the third case.
• 23:04
  There are already two cases pending uh involving uh firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission and of the Federal Reserve Board.
• 23:16
  Now, the court is due to hear the first case, the the one involving the Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter on December 8th.
• 23:24
  Uh, and then the case involving the Federal Reserve member on January 21st of next year.
• 23:30
  So we still have some time to wait.
• 23:33
  But um again, to me, these are interesting constitutional issues because you have the basic question do we have an executive branch run by a president?
• 23:44
  Are the powers of the executive the executive powers vested in the president?
• 23:49
  Or can Congress create an entity outside of the president, meaning outside of direct oversight of the executive branch, being part of the executive branch, but not overseen by the executive branch.
• 24:01
  That to me is going to be pretty interesting.
• 24:03
  Um, and I'm kind of waiting, I'm curious to see how the court handles it.
• 24:06
  Obviously, when they they hear these cases, I'll probably review them and write an article about them.
• 24:12
  My guess is we probably won't get decisions in these cases until probably uh June, maybe May or June of 2026.
• 24:24
  These that's when you know the court tends to release its most impactful or controversial uh decisions.
• 24:32
  They wait to the end of their terms so they can they can release them and get out of dodge.
• 24:38
  Now, there's another court case that I'm in fact I've got it on my docket to actually um deal with, and that is the case involving um President Trump's tariffs.
• 24:49
  Now, I want to start with a couple of interesting points, at least from from my point of view, uh, and that is understand what is a tariff.
• 24:57
  We use this term a lot, and I hear a lot of people describe it, and it's it's kind of wishy-washy.
• 25:05
  This is become important in a second, because a tariff, according to the free legal dictionary, is a a list of items upon which a duty is imposed when they are imported into the United States, together with the rates at which such articles are taxed.
• 25:22
  Notice I said taxed, right?
• 25:24
  That's that's the it's the duties that are imposed, and they are it is a tax.
• 25:29
  Why is this important?
• 25:31
  Because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
• 25:41
  So Congress has the power to lay and collect both the duties that are part of a tariff and the taxes.
• 25:48
  So a tariff is not simply a tax, as a lot of people put it, it is what is to be what duties are to be imposed and what what rate are they to be taxed?
• 25:58
  Right?
• 25:58
  It's it's a subtle thing, but this may become important because, well, you know, courts sometimes deal with with subtle things.
• 26:06
  So if Congress has the authority to lay these duties, that would be part of the tariff, where does the president get the authority to implement these tariffs?
• 26:17
  Well, Congress passed a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or AIPA, and uh this included giving power to the president to take certain economic actions, and that's really where the the question is the difference between uh you know does this include the ability to create a it does does the ability to regulate the the these economic activities include the power to apply duties to them to tax them?
• 26:50
  Now, Justice Kavanaugh during our arguments had an interesting question.
• 26:54
  He wanted to would the law allow the president to shut down all trade with every other country in the world, or to impose some significant quota on imports for every other country in the world, but would not allow a 1% tariff.
• 27:09
  And it gets down to what does a word regulate mean.
• 27:14
  Now, another interesting discussion came out, and that was the question is does Congress have the constitutional authority to delegate its taxing authority?
• 27:25
  You see, the the Supreme Court has created what they call the non-delegation doctrine.
• 27:30
  No, I said the Supreme Court created, I believe with constitutionally sound authority, you know, there's constitutionally sound that that this non-delegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from delegating its legislative powers to other entities.
• 27:45
  But this doctrine, again, doctrine created by the Supreme Court, does create uh does have some caveats, some uh provisos.
• 27:56
  But again, does that what the constitution says?
• 28:00
  And one other interesting point came up.
• 28:02
  This was brought up, I believe, by Justice Barrett.
• 28:05
  Um, she says, okay, if we invalidate these tariffs, how do we reimburse it?
• 28:11
  How do you take the money that was already been collected?
• 28:14
  And she says it could be a mess.
• 28:17
  Uh, from what I understand, so far the administration's collected nearly 90 billion dollars from these tariffs in 2025.
• 28:26
  And um, okay, it'd be a mess, but to me, that should not be part of the legal question.
• 28:35
  So I've made this point before.
• 28:37
  The purpose of government is not to the purpose of the courts is not to make government's life easier.
• 28:42
  What do we read from the Declaration of Independence?
• 28:45
  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just power to the consent of the governed.
• 28:52
  See, the purpose of government is not to make government's life easier, and the courts are part of government.
• 29:00
  So simply because it would make government's life more difficult is not a valid argument to invalidate a rule or law or to change a decision, right?
• 29:11
  Because that's not the purpose of government, to make their lives easier.
• 29:14
  And it yet too often I see this as part of uh when I'm reviewing oral arguments.
• 29:21
  Well, you know, if we did this, we'd make we'd give ourselves a lot more work.
• 29:25
  We'd give our, you know, we'd put other courts in a lot more work, or we'd cause the police to have a lot more work.
• 29:31
  That's not a legal standing.
• 29:35
  If the federal government in the guise of the president has screwed up and illegally collected taxes, they were not allowed to, how much work it takes to resolve that is not the legal question.
• 29:47
  If it was wrong, it needs to be refunded.
• 29:50
  If it's going to be hard, well, that's kind of the consequences of making bad decisions.
• 29:56
  Sometimes it makes things hard.
• 29:59
  But the
• 30:00
  These cases, right?
• 30:01
  The uh register of copyrights and the other cases that are be that are being, you know, the FTC and the and the Federal Reserve and this case about tariffs really come down to the power of the president.
• 30:15
  Now, the president was never supposed to be a king, even though in today's day and age, we treat the office as if it's an elected king.
• 30:25
  The president can do anything he wants.
• 30:27
  He just has to sign an executive order or or other craziness like that.
• 30:32
  Um, you know, uh and and I look at this saying, all right, from the question of employment.
• 30:39
  If all the constitution says all executive power is vested in a president of the United States, well, that means that all powers vested in a present United States.
• 30:50
  Now, this is interesting because it means Congress cannot create an executive agency that is cannot create an agency that is outside the pre the power of the present United States.
• 31:01
  They cannot.
• 31:16
  Now, as I've said many, many, many, many times before, that doesn't mean the court's going to decide this correctly.
• 31:22
  Why?
• 31:22
  Because we're dealing with human beings.
• 31:24
  Human beings that went to law school where most likely they didn't actually study the language of the Constitution, they studied the opinions of other judges.
• 31:34
  That's why these doctrines become so important, because it you know the courts don't follow the constitution.
• 31:43
  They more likely to follow what a previous judge has said about the constitution.
• 31:49
  It's this uh um starry decisis that the decision stands, even though it may be found unconstitutional, you should leave it unless you know you should leave it, even though it apparently is wrong.
• 32:02
  Uh that's how we ended up with 50 years of Roe v.
• 32:04
  Wade.
• 32:05
  It's how we ended up with uh, I forget how many years of um uh of Dred Scott.
• 32:11
  It's this idea that we are placing the opinion of judges above the supreme law of the land.
• 32:17
  And to me, that's no different than turning the president into a king.
• 32:22
  It's the same scenario.
• 32:23
  You're placing people above the supreme law of the land.
• 32:27
  I believe that's why John Jay said that every member of the state ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, teacherizing generation be free.
• 32:36
  Because when you allow a limited number of people to quote unquote control the interpretation of the document, you've taken power out of the hands of we the people and placed it into a small oligarchy of people who are allowed to question and challenge.
• 32:54
  And uh as we've seen, you know, we now have uh uh more cases, even the very question of a presence's ability to regulate the uh uh the the executive branch that are now being litigated not by the constitution, but by the courts, and where we have quote unquote in inferior courts, they call them lower courts a day.
• 33:20
  The proper term is inferior courts.
• 33:22
  You have inferior courts that seem less interested in following the constitution and more interested in promoting a political agenda.
• 33:32
  And then later courts either overrule them or go along with them.
• 33:38
  But the interesting thing is rarely, and I I mean rarely, in a decision from the Supreme Court, do I see them actually quote the actual language of the Constitution?
• 33:50
  I love it when they do, but it's far too rare for what's to be the last court of appeals in this nation to not spend more time quoting and supporting and following the Supreme Law of the land.
• 34:06
  Now, I have a couple more cases I want to look at, but uh before that, I have to take a break.
• 34:11
  But I want to remind you, it's the holiday season, and I hope you're enjoying this time, because our friends at Patriot Mobile have a deal for you.
• 34:21
  Now, Patriot Mobile's a great company.
• 34:22
  I deal with them, they're America's only Christian conservative wellers provider.
• 34:26
  I became their customer years ago because they donate a portion of everything they make to organizations trying to protect your rights to secure your con the rights protected by the Constitution to support the the freedom of life, our first responders and our veterans.
• 34:45
  And during the holiday season, from now until December 31st, you can get two months of service with Patriot Mobile free by using the code Holiday25 at checkout.
• 34:57
  Just go to Patriot Mobile.com slash holiday25, find a plan that works for you, and then use that code Holiday25 at checkout.
• 35:06
  Now, do me a favor.
• 35:08
  When you check out, there's a little spot where you can say, where did you hear about us?
• 35:13
  Please write in the Constitution Study.
• 35:17
  See, if you do that, then Patriot Mobile A knows that uh that I'm bringing them customers, which is part of our affiliate relationship.
• 35:26
  And they'll by doing that, they help support the work that we're doing here at the Constitution Study.
• 35:30
  So again, go to Patriot Mobile.com/slash holiday25.
• 35:35
  Uh find a plan that works for you, and don't forget to use the code Holiday25 to get two months of free service.
• 35:43
  And please don't forget to tell them that you heard about us from the Constitution study.
• 35:49
  I also hope you'll check out AmericaOut Loud.news each and every day for latest news and information.
• 35:55
  Now I do it.
• 35:56
  And sure, yeah, I've got the radio program, but that's not why I do it.
• 36:00
  Corporate America has been lying to us for so long.
• 36:03
  We're believing it.
• 36:05
  And AmericaOutlaw.
• 36:08
  An alternate source.
• 36:10
  And again, a source you can double check and verify.
• 36:12
  Remember, trust, but verify.
• 36:14
  And while going there for news and information is good, what would be better is if you shared that information.
• 36:20
  Take the stories and articles.
• 36:22
  Take the podcast, the videos, the content that explains something better than you've heard before, that uh tells you something that maybe you hadn't heard or looks at it from a different point of view, and share it.
• 36:34
  Share it with friends, share it with family, share it with neighbors, share it on social media.
• 36:40
  Wherever you do, share this information.
• 36:43
  Let other people know of America source of news and information.
• 36:49
  By doing so, you're not just promoting America out loud, you're not just part of the constitution, but you're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.
• 37:02
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 37:04
  But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar, preservatives and mystery ingredients.
• 37:09
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 37:11
  Bear bars are a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 37:16
  They're plant-based, organic, packed with protein and nutrients, and are low temp dried for a unique crunch.
• 37:21
  Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups and sweeteners.
• 37:25
  But bear bars are a delicious combination of veggies, nuts, and seeds.
• 37:29
  They're a perfect fast snack for hikes, workouts, and busy moms and dads.
• 37:33
  To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud Listeners.
• 37:40
  That's B E A R B A R.com forward slash out loud.
• 37:44
  Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years.
• 37:48
  Brush, floss, repeat.
• 37:50
  We're told to use fluoride, which doesn't really address the acid creating bacteria.
• 37:56
  That is where the dentist recommended spray dental defense system shines.
• 38:00
  Sprite products contain xylitol, a natural sugar, which helps get rid of those nasty, smelly acid-creating bacteria in our mouth.
• 38:10
  The best way to care for your teeth and gums is by using spray.
• 38:13
  The spray dental defense system has a wide variety of products, toothpaste, mouthwash, mints, and chewing gums that are designed to work together to keep your teeth clean and mouth healthy and smelling sweet all day long to get your oral care back on track in an easy, effective, and very tasty way.
• 38:33
  Switch to spray today.
• 38:35
  Ask your dentist about xylitol and the spray products.
• 38:39
  Sprite can be found online and at all fine natural product retailers.
• 38:43
  Hi, I'm Dr.
• 38:43
  James Braggman, board certified DO and internal in geriatric medicine.
• 38:47
  Maintaining nasal hygiene is crucial for good health.
• 38:50
  The nose is where most illnesses start.
• 38:52
  You wash your hands, you brush your teeth.
• 38:55
  Shouldn't we clean our nose?
• 38:56
  Use COFEX ARX nasal cleanse daily with pulvo-done iodine, vitamin D3, and xylitol to cleanse away germs, bacteria, and allergens.
• 39:04
  Every nose knows COFIX arcs keeps you healthy and allows you to breathe with confidence.
• 39:09
  Click on the COFEX RX banner ad in American Outlawed Shop for 20% off your next order of Kofix RF.
• 39:21
  Welcome back, everyday American jury join the Constitution study.
• 39:25
  And uh we've been talking about our litigation society today, and and uh we've looked at a couple things.
• 39:31
  I want to take a look at a couple of cases.
• 39:32
  The first one actually involves appointments.
• 39:37
  It's specifically um Alina Hababah, who's the um was the interim U.S.
• 39:46
  attorney for the state of New Jersey.
• 39:49
  And a recent court uh decision by the Court of Appeals says she's not she's been disqualified.
• 39:57
  And it sounds it is technical.
• 40:00
  So let me see if I can flesh this out.
• 40:02
  Because I did look at the at the decision and the law and see if I can understand this.
• 40:07
  So most of us know that many of the offices in the United States require not just an appointment by the president, but be done with the advice and consent of the Senate.
• 40:20
  One of those offices are U.S.
• 40:22
  attorneys.
• 40:23
  So become a U.S.
• 40:24
  attorney, you're nominated by the president.
• 40:26
  You get to confirm by the Senate, and then you're appointed by the president to be U.S.
• 40:31
  attorney.
• 40:32
  Now, what happens when someone resigns?
• 40:37
  Right?
• 40:38
  Because that's the situation we have.
• 40:39
  On January 8th of 2025, the U.S.
• 40:44
  attorney for the district of New Jersey, a Philip Selinger resigned.
• 40:49
  At which point uh the first assistant, according to federal law, the assistant can fill the position.
• 40:55
  The president can also choose someone to fill the position.
• 40:58
  But uh the first assistant um assumed the duties of the office under federal law.
• 41:05
  Uh he became the acting U.S.
• 41:07
  uh.
• 41:07
  attorney for New Jersey.
• 41:09
  Now on March 3rd, now we're into the Trump administration, January 8th.
• 41:13
  That's the Biden administration.
• 41:15
  March 3rd, we're now in the Trump administration.
• 41:18
  And uh Attorney General Bondi appointed uh John Giordino as interim U.S.
• 41:25
  attorney for New Jersey.
• 41:26
  Uh, but he resigned three weeks later.
• 41:30
  So then she appointed uh Alina Haba as the interim U.S.
• 41:34
  attorney under the law, all right.
• 41:37
  Uh was it I think it's five USC 546 was was the actual law.
• 41:42
  Here's the problem.
• 41:44
  There, these interim appointments have a time limit of 120 days.
• 41:51
  Now, as that deadline approached, the district court for the district of New Jersey issued quote unquote a standing order uh under uh you know 546 D, providing that Desiree Grace, the first assistant U.S.
• 42:07
  attorney at the time would be the interim U.S.
• 42:09
  attorney effective upon the expiration of HABA's 120-day term on as as interim.
• 42:17
  Now, to me, I have a couple of problems with this.
• 42:19
  First of all, the law they're referring to, 28 uh title 28, section 546 says that uh if an appointment expires under subsection C2, the the one we're talking about, the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.
• 42:38
  The problem is the court ordered this, issued this standing order before the the appointment expired.
• 42:48
  Therefore, they couldn't legally enact subsection D, right?
• 42:52
  A little technical detail, but they kind of they jumped the gun.
• 42:55
  They would have to have waited until HABA's term expired, then they could have said, okay, we're gonna appoint a temporary uh one to fill in.
• 43:04
  But again, I kind of have a problem with that as well, because you're basically saying the court in a situation like this has the authority to um to create uh to appoint a person to a temporary office that's controlled by the president of the United States.
• 43:22
  This seems to be a bit of a usurpation of power.
• 43:24
  Now, I can understand the situation.
• 43:27
  Let's say you have a a U.S.
• 43:29
  attorney, uh imagine that HABA's term expired and there's no U.S.
• 43:35
  attorney, and the court has it has a what are you gonna do?
• 43:40
  Who's going to decide?
• 43:41
  Well, that's up to the president to me still.
• 43:44
  Um, I mean, I can kind of see a scenario where, well, if there's no U.S.
• 43:48
  attorney, then we can appoint one, but there's already a law that says, wait a second, if someone's uh uh I I guess if the term expires, it should still be up to the president, the executive branch to nominate a or to to appoint an interim.
• 44:06
  Uh and I don't see how giving that power to the courts is legitimate, it's constitutional.
• 44:13
  And and that to me is is um I'm looking at this going something.
• 44:20
  I understand the appeals court.
• 44:22
  The appeal court, by the way, is five it does appear to be be following the letter of the law.
• 44:29
  If if uh HABA was appointed as interim back in March, March 28th.
• 44:34
  By the way, on June 30th, um President Trump nominated her for the permanent role, but the Senate has never acted on it.
• 44:43
  So here you have a scenario where you have the president appointing somebody, the Senate's not going to bother.
• 44:51
  The interim's going to expire.
• 44:53
  Uh, again, I guess it's politics as usual in Washington, D.C.
• 44:57
  today.
• 44:58
  But it does create this unique situation where the interim U.S.
• 45:03
  attorney's term expires.
• 45:06
  Um, and even though that person's been nominated to take the role permanently, the Senate has no of it, you've kind of got a mess.
• 45:13
  So what they what what the Trump administration did, well, to me, um little bit of of a shell game, a slot of hand.
• 45:22
  The president withdrew HABA's nomination for U.S.
• 45:25
  attorney.
• 45:25
  She resigned as interim and U.S.
• 45:28
  attorney.
• 45:29
  The attorney general then um issued an order appointing HABA as the special attorney to the attorney general with a letter authorizing HABA to conduct any kind of legal proceedings, which United States attorneys are authorized to conduct.
• 45:44
  So basically, she said, you don't have to be a U.S.
• 45:47
  attorney.
• 45:47
  We're going to create a special attorney that does what a U.S.
• 45:50
  attorney does.
• 45:53
  Anyone else lost in this morass yet?
• 45:56
  Well, to add to that, uh A.G.
• 45:59
  Bondy designated Ms.
• 46:00
  Haba as the first assistant U.S.
• 46:03
  attorney, which means under the law, she would be acting as interim U.S.
• 46:07
  attorney since there's now no longer a U.S.
• 46:10
  attorney in in office.
• 46:14
  Again, it's it's it is a tangled web we weave when first you practice to deceive.
• 46:19
  Now to boil this down, the court said, listen, HABA is not the acting U.S.
• 46:24
  attorney for the digital New Jersey by virtue of her appointment as first assistant U.S.
• 46:30
  attorney, because only the first assistant in place at the time of the vacancy automatically arise, uh automatically assumes the functions and duties of the uh uh uh U.S.
• 46:42
  attorney for the district.
• 46:44
  But here's the twist.
• 46:45
  See, I'm looking at it, uh is it uh uh title five section 3345, which talks about acting officer that says, you know, if an executive agency officer um resigns or whatever, it says the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346.
• 47:09
  It says nothing about the first assistant at the time of, because what if there's no first assistant at the time of?
• 47:18
  So I'm one, I'm looking at this, and uh yeah, it is beginning to make a head hurt.
• 47:24
  Um, I think the uh I think that the the court's reasoning I think it's flawed, because they've basically written in that says um that it has to be the the first assistants at the time of the vacancy.
• 47:44
  That's not in the text of the of the federal law.
• 47:48
  Um I'm not sure how this is almost certainly going to go to the Supreme Court.
• 47:55
  Um I have uh I'm not quite sure how they're going to do this.
• 47:59
  I guess I'll wait and listen to oral arguments and see what that you know, see what that shows me.
• 48:05
  But again, it shows the litigious nature of this of the nation.
• 48:11
  It shows that uh the Senate apparently is not keeping up with its base job, one of its base jobs being um you know uh approving nominations, whether or not, you know, or at least advising and consenting consenting on nominations.
• 48:28
  Um I would think a U.S.
• 48:30
  attorney's office would rank high enough to get a little bit of of Senate attention, but I'm not really sure how the courts are going to decide because again, it appears the circuit court added language to the law that doesn't really exist.
• 48:44
  And that to me, that to me is a problem.
• 48:48
  So it's twisted, but when people talk about uh uh uh Alina Haba and whether or not she's qualified for U.S.
• 48:56
  attorney in New Jersey, I think I want you to think back to it's a complicated issue, and the real question is for my standpoint is do the courts get to make up the law?
• 49:08
  Because that's apparently what happened in the I think it was a third circuit that that heard this, uh at least a panel of the third circuit that heard this case.
• 49:18
  Now, I have one more, and and I want to spend a little time on this one for a bit of a different reason, because it it goes back to um the Americans with Disabilities Act, which in most cases I believe is unconstitutional, but here we're dealing with federal offices.
• 49:38
  So a judge decided that the White House must provide American sign language interpretation during their press briefings um held by the president and his uh his press secretary uh Caroline Carolyn Levitt.
• 49:54
  Now, let me start.
• 49:55
  I said in most cases the American Disabilities Act's unconstitutional, because again,
• 50:00
  Where's the federal government given authority to dictate how businesses make themselves accessible, even if they have to make themselves accessible to people with disabilities.
• 50:09
  Now understand, my wife is in a wheelchair.
• 50:11
  We deal with this fairly regularly.
• 50:13
  And there are a lot of things that make a lot of sense.
• 50:16
  Then again, a lot of the rules sound good, but don't work in the real world.
• 50:20
  But let's get back here.
• 50:21
  We're talking about the president and again, Congress has the authority to make laws for all laws for New York for Washington, DC, because it's a federal district.
• 50:34
  And this, so I do not think this would violate the constitution.
• 50:38
  But again, it it's to me it's interesting.
• 50:41
  See, um, it's the idea that uh even if you're deaf, um, you should be able to follow real time um the presidential briefing.
• 50:56
  Now they base this on title of the 29 section 794a, which says no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 70520 of this title shall solely by reason of his or her disability be excluded from the participation in and denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program or activity excluded uh conducted by an executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.
• 51:30
  Now, again, I have a problem with hey, if you receive federal money, you gotta follow this.
• 51:34
  There's an issue there, but that deals with bribery.
• 51:36
  But here's the question.
• 51:37
  Okay, so the United States uh let me start out here.
• 51:41
  I agree that the deaf should be able to follow a press briefing.
• 51:46
  Uh, if it's a federal government, if it's a government briefing, I agree.
• 51:50
  The you just because you're deaf shouldn't mean you can't participate.
• 51:54
  What I find interesting in my point of view is how the court decided to solve this particular dilemma.
• 52:02
  In other words, they didn't simply decide that yes, the White House press briefings must include uh uh uh uh uh something for the deaf so that the deaf can participate real time.
• 52:16
  They went a step farther.
• 52:19
  Uh the they they issued a uh an i guess it's a temporary injunction or whatever, where they say that the executive office of the president, white house, white house chief of staff, and white house press secretary shall immediately begin providing a simultaneous and publicly accessible feed with visible American Sign Language interpretation by a qualified interpreter for all publicly announced White House press briefings conducted by the president or White House press secretary that are captured by the White House communication channels.
• 52:49
  Basically, they said, listen, you have to have uh an ASL interpretation feed.
• 52:56
  Why choose American Sign Language?
• 53:00
  Why not uh uh subtext subtitles?
• 53:05
  Um that that to me is the curious part.
• 53:07
  It'd be one thing that said, listen, you have to provide provision where deaf people can follow this, and the problem to me is the court decided how to do that.
• 53:20
  All right.
• 53:20
  Again, I don't have a scenario, I don't have a problem with saying, listen, yes, the deaf people should be able to follow the press briefings.
• 53:27
  I really don't have a problem with that.
• 53:28
  It's a federal government.
• 53:30
  It's you know, we the people uh are the sovereign of this country, we should be able to know what's going on.
• 53:36
  I just find it interesting the court decide to pick out how to do this.
• 53:40
  What if someone doesn't speak American Sign Language?
• 53:43
  What if somebody learns sign language overseas and they know a different version of sign language?
• 53:48
  What if they, you know, I'm I just maybe it's by inherent and inherent distrust of courts that leads me to say maybe there's a better solution.
• 53:58
  Um I don't disagree that deaf people should have access.
• 54:03
  I just question the court's authority to determine how that is provided.
• 54:10
  Um that's my opinion.
• 54:14
  Before I go, though, you know, we it's funny, we get into these debates, we get into these studies very often in the Patriots program.
• 54:21
  Now, my patriots program is designed to take people who take who want to read and study, but take it to the next level.
• 54:28
  There are three pillars to this.
• 54:32
  Um, the educational pillar where we read and study.
• 54:35
  There's a communication pillar where we are working out ways of communicating that are protected from censorship and that encourage different patriot groups to talk to each other, to communicate.
• 54:49
  So you know what other people are going into.
• 54:51
  You know the problems they're having, you know, the events they're putting on.
• 54:54
  We can learn from each other.
• 54:56
  And then the third, my personal favorite, I call them the minute men.
• 55:01
  These are the people that are prepared at a moment's notice to come to the aid of others, whether it's you know, speaking at a at a committee hearing or at a at a press conference, or just being there as a show of unity.
• 55:15
  Now, this is an invitation only.
• 55:16
  This isn't for everybody.
• 55:18
  If you want a chance, go to constitutionstudy.com/slash patriots and read up on the program.
• 55:25
  If you're interested, well, there's a boot camp you have to go through.
• 55:29
  You can sign up there, it's absolutely free.
• 55:32
  And when you pass the boot camp and you pass the test and you take the oath, well, then you'll get an invitation to join us.
• 55:39
  So if you'd like to take your study of the constitution to the next level with other people that are interested in taking their study to the next level, go to Constitution Study.com/slash Patriots and take the boot camp.
• 55:52
  Just like the military.
• 55:53
  If you make it through the boot camp, you get a chance to join us.
• 55:55
  The few, the proud, the constitutional patriots.
• 55:59
  Now, I also hope you come back and join us here for the constitution study every weekday at 4 p.m.
• 56:03
  Eastern time on America Out Loud Talk Radio heard on the iHeartRadio Network.
• 56:08
  Now you can listen on our media player.
• 56:10
  We also have apps or Apple Android and Alexa.
• 56:13
  You can also listen via podcast.
• 56:15
  Now it takes a day or two for the episodes to go from talk radio to podcast, but you can listen in your favorite podcast app whenever you desire.
• 56:25
  Do me a favor though, subscribe to the show, rate the show, especially an Apple Podcast.
• 56:31
  It helps the algorithm show us to more people.
• 56:34
  They look at the number of subscribers, the number of four-star and five-star reviews, which means if someone's searching, we end up higher in the list.
• 56:40
  If someone's browsing, they're more likely to see us.
• 56:43
  Hopefully, they will click the link and join us here at the Constitution Study.
• 56:48
  Now you can find all the links that you need at the homepage at AmericaOut Loud.news.
• 56:54
  That has everything else.
• 56:55
  You know, word of mouth is the best advertising.
• 56:57
  So please share those links, share the story, share the program.
• 57:03
  And by doing so, help share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation home.