ICE Kills Renee Good: Can Minnesota Charge? + Trump’s White-Grievance Politics

<v Speaker 1>Welcome to another episode of The Oath and the Office
<v Speaker 1>featuring Professor Corey Bretschneider. I am John Fugelsang. Professor Bretschneider
<v Speaker 1>is Evil Henchman, and I am so honored to welcome
<v Speaker 1>the star of our show. You know him and love
<v Speaker 1>him from the poly Side apartment at Brown University. Perhaps
<v Speaker 1>you were lucky enough to buy a copy of The
<v Speaker 1>Oath and the Office, A Guide to the Constitution for
<v Speaker 1>Future Presidents. Professor Corey Bretschneider, it's been quite a week.
<v Speaker 1>It's great to see you.
<v Speaker 2>Thanks, John.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, wow, just when you think maybe we've got
<v Speaker 3>one story, which is the fact that the president is
<v Speaker 3>engaging in an imperial colonial quest to take over a
<v Speaker 3>Latin American country, that would be the story. You know,
<v Speaker 3>things just shift so continually, and unfortunately there is a
<v Speaker 3>theme of this self coup, the takeover by the President
<v Speaker 3>of the other branches that both has to do the
<v Speaker 3>war powers abroad and then also domestically the violation of
<v Speaker 3>civil liberties.
<v Speaker 2>So we've got a huge amount to talk about this week.
<v Speaker 1>I think you're talking about the ancient history of America's
<v Speaker 1>illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of Venezuela to loot them
<v Speaker 1>for their natural resources, and oil companies are terrified of
<v Speaker 1>having Iraq all over again, so no one wants to
<v Speaker 1>invest after Trump bought it and broke it for the
<v Speaker 1>rest of us. But that's eight days ago, Corey, that's
<v Speaker 1>really old history. When we last taped an episode, we
<v Speaker 1>had no idea that events in Minneapolis would draw the
<v Speaker 1>attention of the world away from the attention to Venezuela.
<v Speaker 1>And can I just say, if you're a young person
<v Speaker 1>who feels like you missed out on some of the
<v Speaker 1>authoritarian leaders of America's recent past. In one week, Corey,
<v Speaker 1>we got war for oil and Kent State. Of course,
<v Speaker 1>the murder by an ICE agent of Renee Nicole Good.
<v Speaker 1>We know that ICE has a bigger budget than the
<v Speaker 1>militaries of most countries on Earth, and yet, Professor, they're
<v Speaker 1>also petrified of unarmed women sitting in their cars with
<v Speaker 1>the windows down. Now, there's a lot to unpack about this,
<v Speaker 1>and we'll be talking about it for a very long time,
<v Speaker 1>and there's going to be repercussions for this story for many,
<v Speaker 1>many years to come. But I just want to begin
<v Speaker 1>by saying to you, Professor, the amount of lies that
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump and Christy Noan and JD. Vance have already
<v Speaker 1>told about the shooting death of Renanicle Good before any
<v Speaker 1>investigation happens. The amount of demonstrable falsehoods they've put forth
<v Speaker 1>guarantees that this tragedy is going to be recorded by
<v Speaker 1>historians as a government cover up of the murder of
<v Speaker 1>a US citizen. And I just wanted to ask you,
<v Speaker 1>how has your response been, Professor, for the past week
<v Speaker 1>watching these sad events unfold.
<v Speaker 2>Well, just terrific.
<v Speaker 3>Of course, I've seen the video and the multiple angles
<v Speaker 3>and what looks to me like certainly at least some
<v Speaker 3>of the shots were fired from the side of the car.
<v Speaker 3>The response from police to asking, you know, pointing out
<v Speaker 3>that this was in no way a skilled stop or interrogation,
<v Speaker 3>The fact that he was in front of the car
<v Speaker 3>at all, that's one of the first things that evidently
<v Speaker 3>police learn is not to step in the in the
<v Speaker 3>in the path of the vehicle. And then the fact
<v Speaker 3>that she was you know, her last words seemed to
<v Speaker 3>have been to say to him that, you know, words
<v Speaker 3>of compassion, and she wasn't angry with him, and that
<v Speaker 3>you know, clearly she was trying to drive away from
<v Speaker 3>the situation. And there's reports, of course that she was
<v Speaker 3>given multiple instructions, and although she was told to stop
<v Speaker 3>and get out, she was also told to leave.
<v Speaker 2>And so you know, in that moment, it's clear certainly
<v Speaker 2>that she wasn't.
<v Speaker 3>Trying, to my mind, to murder him or run him over,
<v Speaker 3>and experts have verified this wasn't any kind of ramming.
<v Speaker 3>But to go to your point, the fact that in
<v Speaker 3>the midst of all this horror, and there's a lot
<v Speaker 3>to be said about it, that the President of the
<v Speaker 3>United States and Christine nom just attacked this protester that
<v Speaker 3>you know, Christy Noam talking about her in the first
<v Speaker 3>seconds as domestic terrorists without any evidence.
<v Speaker 2>And what I'd add to that is, not only will
<v Speaker 2>it go down in.
<v Speaker 3>History, but one of the topics that we've talked about,
<v Speaker 3>but I think we need to talk about more, is
<v Speaker 3>the idea of fascism, and fascism isn't just an.
<v Speaker 2>Ideology or a set of ideas.
<v Speaker 3>It's a set of tactics that are really against reason,
<v Speaker 3>against truth, and all about demonizing the opposition. So when
<v Speaker 3>you see that instinctual reaction from the president from Christy
<v Speaker 3>Nome to attacking their enemy. That is the tactic of fascism.
<v Speaker 3>That's part of what's going on. And why if you
<v Speaker 3>try to view it through the lens of democracy, of
<v Speaker 3>reasons of truth, none of it makes any sense because
<v Speaker 3>they are just looking at politics in a complete or
<v Speaker 3>in foreign way. And yes, it is a fascistic set
<v Speaker 3>of techniques that they're using.
<v Speaker 1>You know you are so right, professor. The President took
<v Speaker 1>the truth social right away to to talk about the
<v Speaker 1>ICE officer who was viciously run over, and he wasn't.
<v Speaker 1>He was jogging back and forth like had just finished
<v Speaker 1>acrossfit workout. This guy was fine. The President lied and
<v Speaker 1>said he was in the hospital. The President said that
<v Speaker 1>the deceased was an agitator, probably a paid agitator. She
<v Speaker 1>was not normal, and not normal means I guess you
<v Speaker 1>deserve a bullet to the face. Christy Nome called her
<v Speaker 1>a terrorist, domestic terrorist. Before any investigation. Of course, we
<v Speaker 1>know that ICE would not let medical personnel on hand
<v Speaker 1>treat this woman and she was allowed to die in
<v Speaker 1>her vehicle. Christy Nooam declared the agent was blameless before
<v Speaker 1>there was any investigation whatsoever. And then JD. Vance shows
<v Speaker 1>up to run for president and pretty much implies that
<v Speaker 1>she was funded by some shadow network and said that
<v Speaker 1>the agent was protected by something called absolute immunity. He
<v Speaker 1>was just doing his job. Corey, Am I right that
<v Speaker 1>that sentence should terrify every American because if ICE agents
<v Speaker 1>have absolute immunity, doesn't that mean they can never be
<v Speaker 1>prosecuted for any crimes they commit on the job? Not
<v Speaker 1>excessive force, non murder. I mean, it's state violence with
<v Speaker 1>no consequence, is what they're talking about.
<v Speaker 3>That's right, And you know, let me just say it
<v Speaker 3>plain this day. Although the Vice president attended Yale Law
<v Speaker 3>School and evidently was given a degree from them, he
<v Speaker 3>is either completely misinformed about the state of immunity for
<v Speaker 3>ICE agents or outright lying.
<v Speaker 2>And I tend to think he's lying.
<v Speaker 3>And you know, again it's this tactic of I mean,
<v Speaker 3>especially what's supernicious about this is from somebody with a
<v Speaker 3>law degree who's claiming to, you know, from this position
<v Speaker 3>of authority, to tell us what the law is and
<v Speaker 3>as somebody who knows better, you know, I am telling
<v Speaker 3>you in the most straight.
<v Speaker 2>Up way that is simply false.
<v Speaker 3>And so he's either lying or he's really you know,
<v Speaker 3>negligent in the lack of ability.
<v Speaker 2>ICE officers do not have absolute.
<v Speaker 3>Immunity, meaning let me just say what that means, because
<v Speaker 3>it's a phrase you hear a lot, meaning that they
<v Speaker 3>cannot be indicted for crimes.
<v Speaker 2>So they don't have absolute criminal immunity.
<v Speaker 3>They do have some qualified immunity in civil cases, and
<v Speaker 3>there are some limits to the defenses and the kind
<v Speaker 3>of prosecutions that you can bring against them, but there
<v Speaker 3>is not there's what's sometimes called qualified or some degree
<v Speaker 3>of immunity. But the idea that an ICE agent could
<v Speaker 3>go out on the street and just murder somebody you know,
<v Speaker 3>and say they're doing their that is false. And we'll
<v Speaker 3>talk about the ways to overcome the protections, but to
<v Speaker 3>skip to it, I certainly think local prosecutors have the ability,
<v Speaker 3>not only can, but should bring charges here after an
<v Speaker 3>investigation if it shows what we think it does, which
<v Speaker 3>is that this is not just an unjustified killing, but
<v Speaker 3>a crime.
<v Speaker 1>I want to remind everyone to remember that back when
<v Speaker 1>jd Vance was confronted with his outright racist lie about
<v Speaker 1>Haitian immigrants eating dogs in Springfield because Jdvance is a
<v Speaker 1>racist liar, his response was last year it's totally fine
<v Speaker 1>to lie about something as long as it gets the
<v Speaker 1>media talking about it. That's the philosophy, and that philosophy
<v Speaker 1>has a body count now. But Corey, what's interesting to
<v Speaker 1>me is when they released the agent's video footage, which
<v Speaker 1>the agent shot with his cell phone holding it up
<v Speaker 1>until he had a gun in the other hand, and
<v Speaker 1>you can see that this man was humiliated by this woman,
<v Speaker 1>a m Good's partner. And then, of course after he
<v Speaker 1>fires three shots into the head of this unarmed woman
<v Speaker 1>who was trying to drive away. If she wanted to
<v Speaker 1>run him over, she would have run him over. She
<v Speaker 1>was turning to the right to get away. Here's what's
<v Speaker 1>fascinating to me. You hear him on tape why they
<v Speaker 1>released this, Cory, I have no idea say effing bitch
<v Speaker 1>about the woman he just killed, the woman whose child
<v Speaker 1>he just made an orphan. You hear him say, after
<v Speaker 1>he's humiliated by a woman, you can tell he's angry.
<v Speaker 1>He's not scared. He's acting out of rage and swearing
<v Speaker 1>an epithet at women. Right, So we find out yesterday
<v Speaker 1>the Dresses Department, Sybil Rights Office is refusing to investigate
<v Speaker 1>this killing. And to me, it's kind of a huge
<v Speaker 1>deal because that's the specialized unit responsible for investigating and
<v Speaker 1>prosecuting law enforcement misconduct, including excessive force. And wouldn't saying
<v Speaker 1>effing bitch after murdering a woman kind of make it
<v Speaker 1>seem like it could have been a hate crime, could
<v Speaker 1>have been a bias incident. He wasn't scared for his life.
<v Speaker 1>He was mad at a lady, and he expressed.
<v Speaker 2>It exactly, John.
<v Speaker 3>And when you hear that, and I did hear that
<v Speaker 3>on the video, and you contrast it also with her
<v Speaker 3>basically telling him that, you know, she wasn't angry with him,
<v Speaker 3>the sort of act of forgiveness in the middle of
<v Speaker 3>protest and trying to make it clear that you know,
<v Speaker 3>this has nothing to do with him as an individual.
<v Speaker 3>She's protesting Ice that's in the policies of the Trump
<v Speaker 3>administration and trying to protect her neighbors. And then he
<v Speaker 3>with this, really, you know, viciously unprofessional is an most
<v Speaker 3>extreme understatement, with this vicious response showing his well, bigotry,
<v Speaker 3>his misogyny, you know, that really shows you what up against.
<v Speaker 3>And it isn't just about that one utterance. It's of
<v Speaker 3>course about the fact that Ice are horribly untrained. That
<v Speaker 3>in the massive build up of this organization and the
<v Speaker 3>desperation to create a military force for Donald Trump's will,
<v Speaker 3>you know, the idea that there's professional training, the kind
<v Speaker 3>of restraint, crowd control, any of the things that a
<v Speaker 3>normal police force would do, you're not getting from these people.
<v Speaker 2>These are you know, they're not police.
<v Speaker 3>In the sense of, you know, the highly trained individuals
<v Speaker 3>that exist on many police forces. Now, not to say
<v Speaker 3>that police forces don't have their own problems.
<v Speaker 2>But not like this.
<v Speaker 3>And you know, there are reports, for instance, that ICE
<v Speaker 3>agents have been even failing the minimal licensing or not licensing,
<v Speaker 3>but minimal qualification tasks that were usually required because they're
<v Speaker 3>just trying to staff up, and that's what you're seeing here.
<v Speaker 3>You know, this particular agent was on the force in
<v Speaker 3>a longer way, but you know, it's as if and
<v Speaker 3>I'd love to see research of documenting this, but my
<v Speaker 3>sense is that you know, many of the people who
<v Speaker 3>might have gravitated towards the Proud Boys, as there are
<v Speaker 3>massive recruitments going on for ICE, that this is attractive
<v Speaker 3>for white supremacists, for misogynists because you're seeing an act
<v Speaker 3>of this kind of bigotry and you know, violence, and
<v Speaker 3>who's going to be attracted to that. It's people who
<v Speaker 3>really don't have democratic.
<v Speaker 2>Ideas in their heart.
<v Speaker 3>And you know that's why, to continue with my theme,
<v Speaker 3>you know, one of the real there was a real
<v Speaker 3>argument about whether or not Donald Trump was a fascist.
<v Speaker 3>I believed his ideology, his statements is anti not just
<v Speaker 3>constitutional but antipathy to the rule of law, made him
<v Speaker 3>one from the get go. From when we met in
<v Speaker 3>twenty sixteen, I wrote my piece Trump versus the Constitution.
<v Speaker 3>But one of the big counter arguments to people like
<v Speaker 3>me was, well, you know, where are the storm troopers,
<v Speaker 3>where are the troops on the ground, you know, using
<v Speaker 3>violence domestically. And now we have an answer to that,
<v Speaker 3>you know, if it wasn't clear, and Trump point, oh,
<v Speaker 3>it's clear now, and it's eyes and to something received too.
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I've always thought his movement was fascist. But
<v Speaker 1>you have to believe in something to be a fascist,
<v Speaker 1>and he just believes in me, me, me, I want this, this, this, this,
<v Speaker 1>and this that's mine. Give it to me now, which
<v Speaker 1>I don't think qualifies him as fascist. But he makes
<v Speaker 1>a great hood ornament for a fascist car If you
<v Speaker 1>know what I'm saying, and with all these officials, with Nome,
<v Speaker 1>with Vance, with Trump, their essential argument, Professor, since the
<v Speaker 1>death has been it's been this, it's really tragic that
<v Speaker 1>she's dead, but she was also a terrorist, so it's
<v Speaker 1>really good she's dead. That is the line they're trying
<v Speaker 1>to walk, and it's not going to work. So Minnesota
<v Speaker 1>and Illinois have this week filed federal lawsuits challenging the
<v Speaker 1>administration's deployment of thousands of these ICE and DHS officers.
<v Speaker 1>They're alleging constitutional violations of state sovereignty, the Tenth Amendment,
<v Speaker 1>unconstitutionally excessive force, and political retaliation, which is actually quite fascinating.
<v Speaker 1>Illinois asked the judge to block Customs and Border Protection
<v Speaker 1>from conducting civil immigration enforcement on the state without congressional authorization.
<v Speaker 1>The Minnesota lawsuit asks a judge to block the FEDS
<v Speaker 1>from implementing the unprecedented surge in Minnesota. What do you think, Corey,
<v Speaker 1>what are the strongest constitutional foundations for these state lawsuits.
<v Speaker 1>We're looking for people to fight back, and in this
<v Speaker 1>case it's state attorneys general before it's judges or Democrats.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and you know, we've been highlighting the role of
<v Speaker 3>state's attorney's general. Since we began the podcast, and one
<v Speaker 3>of our very early guests I urge people to go
<v Speaker 3>back and listen to him, was Raul Torres, the new
<v Speaker 3>Mexico Attorney General. And what you're seeing in these lawsuits
<v Speaker 3>are exactly what you know. If I had to pick
<v Speaker 3>one of the main ways that we can fight back,
<v Speaker 3>it's through putting pressure on our public officials to say
<v Speaker 3>that in our system, and this is what the lawsuits say.
<v Speaker 3>Delving into what you reference the Tenth Amendment, it's not
<v Speaker 3>that we have one national federal government, and there's a
<v Speaker 3>reason for that. The framers, thankfully of the Constitution realized
<v Speaker 3>that consolidated power was dangerous, specifically to civil liberties, and
<v Speaker 3>that if you just had all powerful federal government, and worse,
<v Speaker 3>an all powerful president that the head of that federal government, they.
<v Speaker 2>Could just squash civil liberties at will.
<v Speaker 3>So among the protections, this is even before the Bill
<v Speaker 3>of Rights, in the structure of the Constitution, is the
<v Speaker 3>idea of dual sovereignty, that there are some powers granted
<v Speaker 3>to the federal government.
<v Speaker 2>And this is what the Tenth Amendment says in plain English.
<v Speaker 3>Those powers not given to the federal government are reserved
<v Speaker 3>to the states and to local government. And so what's
<v Speaker 3>going on here to break down these lawsuits is they're saying,
<v Speaker 3>if ever there was an example of the use of
<v Speaker 3>the federal government to violate state sovereignty, it's states that
<v Speaker 3>are charged. One of the main powers they're charged with
<v Speaker 3>are the police powers, which includes the obligation to provide
<v Speaker 3>for the public safety. That's not the rule of the
<v Speaker 3>federal government. And that is far from them.
<v Speaker 2>By the way.
<v Speaker 3>The excuse that somehow they're coming in and the absence
<v Speaker 3>of public safety protections, or that they're engaged just in
<v Speaker 3>limited immigration removal of undocumented people.
<v Speaker 2>That's false.
<v Speaker 3>You know, they are creating chaos, they are undermining the
<v Speaker 3>public safety. So the Tenth Amendment case here is so strong,
<v Speaker 3>and shout out to the framers. You know, many many
<v Speaker 3>problems with many of them, but one thing they really
<v Speaker 3>got right was that worry about oppress of federal government
<v Speaker 3>that would use something like a federal force to come
<v Speaker 3>in and oppress local government.
<v Speaker 2>And the very I can't emphasize this enough.
<v Speaker 3>It's actually the if either big one foundational structure dual
<v Speaker 3>sovereignty is it and that's what these lawsuits are about.
<v Speaker 2>They're also about, by the way, the idea that.
<v Speaker 3>The federal government acts, it can't act in an arbitrary way,
<v Speaker 3>and yet that's exactly what's going on here, and you know,
<v Speaker 3>it's beyond arbitrary when the President says, you know, he
<v Speaker 3>thought that he said this in a recent interview, that
<v Speaker 3>the victim here was, you know, acting in a disrespectful
<v Speaker 3>way buys.
<v Speaker 2>Anything that's going on.
<v Speaker 3>So you know, that was a little bit of a
<v Speaker 3>wonky law professor kind of discussion. But you know, if
<v Speaker 3>you want to know where your rights come from, the
<v Speaker 3>Tenth Amendment is up there, maybe more important in many
<v Speaker 3>ways than the Bill of Rights. So these attorneys general
<v Speaker 3>are leading the way. They're doing exactly what needs to
<v Speaker 3>be done. By the way, it worked, at least temporarily,
<v Speaker 3>and that's when we were talking about the military and
<v Speaker 3>the federal use of the military. Part of the argument
<v Speaker 3>was about state sovereignty, and you know, those arguments prevailed
<v Speaker 3>in the end, the federal government didn't have the ability
<v Speaker 3>to deploy troops at will, at least in the California
<v Speaker 3>case for instance. And so you know, I think that
<v Speaker 3>strategy is very powerful the ability of states to defend
<v Speaker 3>themselves in this way in court is a real possibility here,
<v Speaker 3>So there's some hope.
<v Speaker 1>It does seem like the Supreme courts weighing in. What
<v Speaker 1>about the federal supremacy claus doctrine? I mean, would that
<v Speaker 1>complicate a state's ability to bring any kind of civil
<v Speaker 1>charges against federal agents who are murdering people if they're
<v Speaker 1>acting under almighty fis authority.
<v Speaker 2>I don't think that will work.
<v Speaker 3>They will say that, and there is an idea that
<v Speaker 3>federal law reigns supreme over state law, but that's subject.
<v Speaker 2>To a lot of caveats.
<v Speaker 3>We're going into my first year constitutional law class, which
<v Speaker 3>you know, I teach it in law schools. I'm going
<v Speaker 3>to teach it at Brown the next semester. It's a
<v Speaker 3>good time for it. But what the supremacy clause actually
<v Speaker 3>says when you break it down is, look, if there
<v Speaker 3>is a specific, authorized, constitutional federal law, then that does
<v Speaker 3>take precedence over some specific state law. But here's the
<v Speaker 3>question with the Tenth Amendment, where at the foundational level,
<v Speaker 3>are there laws that authorize ice to come in and
<v Speaker 3>shut down protesters.
<v Speaker 2>No, of course not. It's lawless action.
<v Speaker 3>And so in the absence of any justified law like that,
<v Speaker 3>or any justified power, which there is not a police
<v Speaker 3>power of the federal government, the state sovereignty idea the
<v Speaker 3>Tenth Amendment takes over.
<v Speaker 2>And so they'll.
<v Speaker 3>Try to say that there's authorization in law, that there's
<v Speaker 3>a supremacy clause, but I don't think that's going to work.
<v Speaker 1>My favorite take so far comes from Congressman Wesley Hunt
<v Speaker 1>of Texas, who you may have seen on newsmaxs sharing
<v Speaker 1>his curiously evil opinions this Congressman Corey. He said that
<v Speaker 1>citizens have to obey ice or risk death. I quote.
<v Speaker 1>The bottom line is this, when a federal officer gives
<v Speaker 1>you instructions, you abide by them, and then you get
<v Speaker 1>to keep your life. That's it freedom, he explained, authoritarianism. Right, Yeah,
<v Speaker 1>freedom's optional. Survival's optional. But Corey, obviously, any any party
<v Speaker 1>that thinks that survival is something the state grants you
<v Speaker 1>has no business calling itself an American. If just obey
<v Speaker 1>and you don't get killed were the law, we wouldn't
<v Speaker 1>need laws or trials or courts. But here's what gets me,
<v Speaker 1>and I want to ask you about this. This whole
<v Speaker 1>thing as you know, happened about four blocks away from
<v Speaker 1>where a different law enforcement officer murdered private citizen George
<v Speaker 1>Floyd in the great City of Minneapolis, about four blosway.
<v Speaker 1>And it's kind of the same exact playlist we saw already.
<v Speaker 1>I mean, defaming the murdered person, you know, and telling
<v Speaker 1>people don't believe the footage you actually saw with your
<v Speaker 1>own eyes. And again, different agency, same arrogance, same lie,
<v Speaker 1>smear the dead, blame the victim, daddy government knows best.
<v Speaker 1>But this is Minnesota where we saw for the first
<v Speaker 1>time ever a chief of police testify against one of
<v Speaker 1>his own cops in the Derek Chovan case. Minnesota put
<v Speaker 1>Derek Chouvan away, and you get the feeling Donald Trump
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't mind pardoning him, but he's not allowed to. So
<v Speaker 1>here's my question for all of this. I mean, under
<v Speaker 1>the current Supreme Court president, let's say that Pam Bondi
<v Speaker 1>says this guy has full immunity whatever blah blah blah.
<v Speaker 1>Could local prosecutors or a state attorney general like Keith
<v Speaker 1>Ellison still successfully bring charges against a federal agent like
<v Speaker 1>an ice officer who you know, murdered people. I mean,
<v Speaker 1>what legal hurdles would exist in that case for a
<v Speaker 1>state charge.
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.
<v Speaker 3>I just say in the most blunt way absolutely that
<v Speaker 3>what follows from the sort of abstract discussion that we're
<v Speaker 3>having about the tenth Amendment is that local government is
<v Speaker 3>charged with enforcing laws like murder.
<v Speaker 2>And that means that.
<v Speaker 3>Even if somebody who you know is a federal officer
<v Speaker 3>engages in murder, it's not just the power and right
<v Speaker 3>of a local prosecutor to bring murder charges.
<v Speaker 2>They are obligated to do so.
<v Speaker 3>They are the people under the constitution that are charged
<v Speaker 3>with protecting the public safety. Now the federal government wanted
<v Speaker 3>to intervene here and police their own, fine, but.
<v Speaker 2>That's not what's happening.
<v Speaker 3>And part of the idea, by the way, federal versus
<v Speaker 3>state authorities, that there are checks and balances. The local
<v Speaker 3>government has the ability to check in some instances, including
<v Speaker 3>this one federal authority, and that means bringing charges. I
<v Speaker 3>have a colleague who teaches criminal law, John Faff, somebody
<v Speaker 3>who I know well, great colleague, and he has a
<v Speaker 3>piece and slate that really he goes through. This is
<v Speaker 3>a you know, true expert in this kind of area.
<v Speaker 3>I recommend that that people will put a link up
<v Speaker 3>to it. But what he's essentially saying is, yes, there
<v Speaker 3>are hurdles, and there are things, of course the federal
<v Speaker 3>government and Trump and BONDI might try to do to
<v Speaker 3>get it out of the hands of local prosecutors.
<v Speaker 2>But in the end, it's common sense that murder, you know.
<v Speaker 3>Is a local crime that can be prosecuted by a
<v Speaker 3>local prosecutor. And from what I understand, there is in
<v Speaker 3>Minnesota an investigation that's ongoing that might result in a
<v Speaker 3>criminal charge. It's so important to do it, not just
<v Speaker 3>for the principle of giving the victim justice here, but
<v Speaker 3>in deterring ice, which seems to believe and they're being encouraged,
<v Speaker 3>of course by the Vice President and the President that
<v Speaker 3>they have some sort of double O seven license to kill,
<v Speaker 3>and they don't.
<v Speaker 2>And so now how are they going to get that message?
<v Speaker 3>How are we going to undo from their brains the
<v Speaker 3>idea that they are these secret agents with mass on
<v Speaker 3>that can kill people. And certainly the people like this
<v Speaker 3>Congressman are just stoking that what, as you said, not
<v Speaker 3>democratic but almost like the quintessential authoritarian belief.
<v Speaker 2>We've got to have pushback.
<v Speaker 3>And now these lawsuits are partly doing it trying to
<v Speaker 3>get ice added there, but it also I think even
<v Speaker 3>if they succeed, we need to see this prosecution, assuming
<v Speaker 3>that the investigation reveals what common sense seems to suggest
<v Speaker 3>happened here.
<v Speaker 1>I think you're exactly right. Let me ask one more
<v Speaker 1>question about this, and then we'll get to the FED
<v Speaker 1>being burned down. Minnesota's complaint and this is here's my
<v Speaker 1>dumb question, Professor. Minnesota's whole complain is about how the
<v Speaker 1>government surge was retaliatory. How significant is it constitutionally to
<v Speaker 1>frame it that way, To frame the federal enforcement as
<v Speaker 1>being just politically motivated rather than pursuing some neutral law
<v Speaker 1>enforcement objective. I mean, it seems like the right way to.
<v Speaker 2>Package this well.
<v Speaker 3>I think that is obviously what's going on, and it
<v Speaker 3>raises a number of issues. We haven't talked at all
<v Speaker 3>about the First Amendment and when the Oregon protests broke
<v Speaker 3>out during Trump's first term, then military was deployed.
<v Speaker 2>One thing I wasn't seeing from a.
<v Speaker 3>Lot of analysts was there was a lot of discussion,
<v Speaker 3>for instance, about if he invoked the Insurrection Act, whether
<v Speaker 3>or not that might overcome the constitutional problems by the way,
<v Speaker 3>you know, in the military case that we're dealing with now,
<v Speaker 3>that also is a question whether the Insurrection Act can
<v Speaker 3>be successfully invoked, and he hasn't done it yet, but
<v Speaker 3>he might. But even if they invoke the Insurrection Act
<v Speaker 3>or no matter what the argument, including the arguments here,
<v Speaker 3>we still have a First Amendment. We have a right
<v Speaker 3>to free speech, We have a right to protest. Despite
<v Speaker 3>what the President said that he was somehow that the
<v Speaker 3>victim was being disrespectful, his good was being disrespectful by
<v Speaker 3>telling this officer, you know, kind words and at the
<v Speaker 3>same time protesting his actions. The First Amendment guarantees that
<v Speaker 3>right to protest. And if the idea, the basis of
<v Speaker 3>the policy is to shut down protests, it's not just
<v Speaker 3>arbitrary and capricious, which is a limit on government action,
<v Speaker 3>cannot have that characteristic. It's a shutdown of the First
<v Speaker 3>Amendment as well. So all these arguments, you know, work
<v Speaker 3>together in constitutional law, the Tenth Amendment, the First Amendment,
<v Speaker 3>because our constitution, thankfully, and this is why I'm a fan,
<v Speaker 3>was designed to protect the individual against an authoritarian state.
<v Speaker 1>And I love that this happened. The day after January sixth,
<v Speaker 1>while they're canonizing Ashley Babbitt. So the message we're getting
<v Speaker 1>is if you're taking part in a violent terrorist attack
<v Speaker 1>to overthrow our election at the US Capitol and you're
<v Speaker 1>beating cops and a cop shoots you to protect others,
<v Speaker 1>that's murder. But not wanting to let a mass government
<v Speaker 1>thug into your car means you deserve to be murdered.
<v Speaker 1>Now I have to ask you about what's going on.
<v Speaker 3>With the fat I just saw something in there or
<v Speaker 3>does I saw Christynoam ask about that on cnnah and
<v Speaker 3>her word salad response. I guess it's no surprise you
<v Speaker 3>got word salad. You know she had no means.
<v Speaker 1>The argument is this, those cops of January six should
<v Speaker 1>have just opened fire on all violent protesters or protesters
<v Speaker 1>they thought might be violent if they turn their wheels
<v Speaker 1>the wrong way.
<v Speaker 2>So anyway, let's say got a pardon's.
<v Speaker 1>Let's bring it to Putin's wet dream. Their own. Powell
<v Speaker 1>Federal Reserve Chair, just did something unthinkable in Trump's administration.
<v Speaker 1>He told the truth. He put out this remarkable video
<v Speaker 1>everyone needs to see where he talked about how Trump
<v Speaker 1>has been pushing him to lower interest rates to hide
<v Speaker 1>the effects of the tariffs because Trump is losing the
<v Speaker 1>war on math. They've already tried to censor the Bureau
<v Speaker 1>of Labor Statistics numbers, so we don't know you can't
<v Speaker 1>rely on any unemployment figures until three months later now
<v Speaker 1>when those figures get revised. They're desperately trying to hide
<v Speaker 1>the reality of Trump's economy from the rest of US
<v Speaker 1>and their own Powell said, I'm not gonna lower interest
<v Speaker 1>rates because this guy's threatening me with criminal prosecution. It
<v Speaker 1>could trigger hyperinflation, it could destroy the economy. We've talked
<v Speaker 1>about this. Trump wants Powell gone. He doesn't seem to
<v Speaker 1>realize it's a board that votes on all these things,
<v Speaker 1>not just one guy. But he wants a new guy,
<v Speaker 1>and he wants the Fed to be an ATM for
<v Speaker 1>billionaires and a slot machine for dictators. We've discussed, Professor,
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Reserve is supposed to be insulated from political pressure,
<v Speaker 1>not explicitly in the Constitution. But why has judicial and
<v Speaker 1>institutional independence been treated as so important to American governance.
<v Speaker 1>It seems like the sort of thing we would take
<v Speaker 1>for granted our whole lives until it was finally threatened.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and I should say, you know, we've been talking
<v Speaker 3>since we launched the podcast about the fact that Trump
<v Speaker 3>has a multifaceted goal to go after the independence of
<v Speaker 3>the FED. And we've seen his attacks on the Federal
<v Speaker 3>Trade Commission and its independence as sort of a precursor
<v Speaker 3>to this. But what I don't think any of us
<v Speaker 3>had on our bingo card when we started, you know,
<v Speaker 3>almost a year ago, is the idea that there would
<v Speaker 3>be a prosecution here and that they would use the
<v Speaker 3>power to not just go after his enemies, but to
<v Speaker 3>go after you know, somebody's just doing his job. So
<v Speaker 3>to take a step back to answer your question, the
<v Speaker 3>Federal Reserve is created by legislation that gives the chair
<v Speaker 3>person of the Federal Reserve independence in a specific form.
<v Speaker 2>You can't fire that.
<v Speaker 3>Person for political reasons or for any reasons not subject
<v Speaker 3>to four cause firing. They don't serve at the pleasure
<v Speaker 3>of the president. They're protected unless they're doing a really
<v Speaker 3>bad job, unless they're fired for cause.
<v Speaker 2>So Trump, of course.
<v Speaker 3>As an authoritarian, sees that and can't stand it. I'm
<v Speaker 3>sure he's asking his lawyers all the time, let's just
<v Speaker 3>fire him, that's it, and they say no, you can't
<v Speaker 3>do that. Not just the Constitution upholds this structure, but
<v Speaker 3>the legislation that even creates the FED.
<v Speaker 2>The reason it exists.
<v Speaker 3>It's embedded with an idea of institutional independence, and.
<v Speaker 2>The reason for that is to protect our economy and
<v Speaker 2>to protect.
<v Speaker 3>Citizens that there are toul worries. There's a dual mandate
<v Speaker 3>of the Federal Reserve. It fights inflation on the one hand,
<v Speaker 3>and it also fights unemployment. That's its purpose, and Jerome Powell,
<v Speaker 3>doing his job, is trying to balance those two things.
<v Speaker 3>One thing that he doesn't have on his agenda is
<v Speaker 3>making Donald Trump rich and making decisions that are going
<v Speaker 3>to juice the economy in a short term way. As
<v Speaker 3>you said, that helps Trump and his billionaire friends. So
<v Speaker 3>when he gets this pressure, he says, you know, I'm independent.
<v Speaker 3>That's the way the law protects me. So what is
<v Speaker 3>Trump going to do rather than try to win in court?
<v Speaker 3>And by the way, the way things are cashing out
<v Speaker 3>is although a lot of independent agencies will disappear, the
<v Speaker 3>court has really indicated that when it comes to the
<v Speaker 3>Federal Reserve, it's going to protect it.
<v Speaker 2>It's not going to go that far.
<v Speaker 1>So you've got to find a way, and.
<v Speaker 2>Here it is the prosecution said ahead.
<v Speaker 1>By the way, Wall Street and the oligarchs and probably
<v Speaker 1>most of the Republican Senate will defend it as well.
<v Speaker 1>I mean, man, Baby's just going too far here and
<v Speaker 1>again he keeps insulting Powell, calling him dumb. Trump hired him,
<v Speaker 1>Trump appointed Powell, right, and so you appoint the guy
<v Speaker 1>and now criminally investigating him. It's like firing your own
<v Speaker 1>doctor for diagnosing you correctly. But when when federal power
<v Speaker 1>is used like this to investigate a public official, and
<v Speaker 1>again it's all bs. The alleged crime is the building
<v Speaker 1>renovation for the new building for the like, like like
<v Speaker 1>Jerome Powell is the ocean eleven of drywall, you know, like, oh,
<v Speaker 1>it's the home depot conspiracy at the Fed. It's all
<v Speaker 1>a lie. But when the federal power is used to
<v Speaker 1>investigate a public official for acting on his economic judgment,
<v Speaker 1>not any criminal behavior, that's not legally defensible, right, that's
<v Speaker 1>a clear constitutional abuse.
<v Speaker 3>I mean it's funny, you know, when you talk about
<v Speaker 3>the drywall, it's like it's so obvious that there's a
<v Speaker 3>political attack and a political investigation and attempt at political
<v Speaker 3>prosecution that the facts are like.
<v Speaker 2>What, you know, what is it that he's going after?
<v Speaker 3>And right, he's going after a supposed fraud of this
<v Speaker 3>FED building. And I saw a kind of amazing exchange
<v Speaker 3>on camera between Drum Powell and Trump where Trump was
<v Speaker 3>trying to accuse.
<v Speaker 2>Him of mismanagement. You know, I guess eventually.
<v Speaker 3>Fraud and Powell had the receipts. This guy is a careful,
<v Speaker 3>educated Berdson who is ready with.
<v Speaker 1>That video is brilliant and everyone should watch the video.
<v Speaker 3>That video of watching him just you know, with their
<v Speaker 3>construction hats on like I'm watching this project there's no
<v Speaker 3>fraud and showing the details of what Trump claimed was
<v Speaker 3>fraud and why it wasn't now, you know, but Trump
<v Speaker 3>doesn't care, you know, and neither, I should say, does
<v Speaker 3>Pambondi in this horrific Justice Department. I mean, when it
<v Speaker 3>comes down to, you know, certainly disbarment of Pambondi.
<v Speaker 2>This is exhibit A.
<v Speaker 3>You can't go after political opponents for no reason. Now
<v Speaker 3>they've done that, of course in the James case, in
<v Speaker 3>the Komi case, but you know, here it seems like
<v Speaker 3>a different level because he's not a political opponent in
<v Speaker 3>the way that the others, you know, might be seen
<v Speaker 3>that way. He's just somebody doing his job, and here
<v Speaker 3>you go, he's going to be subject to a criminal probe.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean Trump attacking Powell for being independent. It's
<v Speaker 1>it's literally like attacking the referee for not letting you win.
<v Speaker 1>That's what we're missing here. And you got Bernanki and
<v Speaker 1>green Span and Yellen, like the FED chair avengers are
<v Speaker 1>uniting against this, not to.
<v Speaker 2>Mention FED chairs around the world.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, let's we talked about checks, you know, and we
<v Speaker 3>haven't really talked about the market as a check because
<v Speaker 3>Trump is trying to you know, he sees the stock
<v Speaker 3>market as the way that he's graded, and so he's
<v Speaker 3>always trying to juice it. But here, you know, part
<v Speaker 3>of the point of the FED is to ensure that
<v Speaker 3>citizens' welfare is protected in the sense of fighting unemployment
<v Speaker 3>and inflation. But markets also look to the independence of
<v Speaker 3>a FED and kind of trust it. And so as
<v Speaker 3>he starts to meddle with it, the idea that Donald
<v Speaker 3>Trump is going to be in charge of the world's
<v Speaker 3>largest economy.
<v Speaker 1>All right, we have to take a break. This has
<v Speaker 1>been a very long first act. But don't worry when
<v Speaker 1>we come back. Wow, Donald Trump says the racist part
<v Speaker 1>out loud again. Corey, every time they take the mask off,
<v Speaker 1>there's a hood underneath. It turns out that Civil Rights
<v Speaker 1>Act and Voting Rights Act were really, really hard on
<v Speaker 1>white people. Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back with
<v Speaker 1>the Oath of the Office. I'm John Fiegelsak, Hey, Al.
<v Speaker 4>Plan Kershner here, So friends, I hope you'll join me
<v Speaker 4>on my audio podcast, Justice Matters.
<v Speaker 1>You care about.
<v Speaker 4>Ethics and government, criminal justice reform, a conflict free federal judiciary.
<v Speaker 1>I thought so.
<v Speaker 4>On Justice Matters, we take on issues involving the need
<v Speaker 4>to reform our government and its institutions, and we talk
<v Speaker 4>about real, achievable reform. I hope you'll join us. Look
<v Speaker 4>for Justice Matters wherever you usually get your podcasts.
<v Speaker 1>Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. I'm John Fiegel,
<v Speaker 1>sang along with Professor Corey Bretschneider and Professor This week,
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump said the quiet part so loud. It echoes
<v Speaker 1>back to nineteen fifty seven. According to the reality show
<v Speaker 1>performer Who's the President of the United States, the civil
<v Speaker 1>rights movement that modest attempt to stop lynching and segregation
<v Speaker 1>and legal humiliation. The civil rights movement, Corey was really
<v Speaker 1>hard on white people. It turns out the real victims
<v Speaker 1>of Jim Crow were the people doing Jim Crow. And
<v Speaker 1>Trump is saying that white people were very badly treated,
<v Speaker 1>which is incredible because, as you know, professor, the Civil
<v Speaker 1>Rights Act, it didn't hurt white people. It just stopped
<v Speaker 1>them from treating other people like garbage. And to a racist,
<v Speaker 1>that feels like persecution. Right. This is white supremacy in
<v Speaker 1>its most pathetic form. Once I couldn't discriminate anymore, I
<v Speaker 1>was discriminated against. And we saw this with marriage equality.
<v Speaker 1>We saw where they were saying, if you let gay
<v Speaker 1>tax bank citizens marry who they love in a free country,
<v Speaker 1>it leads to the breakdown of the family system. Like again,
<v Speaker 1>you getting what I've got means I lose something. To Trump,
<v Speaker 1>equality isn't justice. To Trump and people like him, equality
<v Speaker 1>is theft because when you're used to being handed everything,
<v Speaker 1>fairness feels like robbery. So let me ask some really
<v Speaker 1>dumb questions we shouldn't have to ask in this century.
<v Speaker 1>But how does constitutional egal protection under the fourteenth Amendment
<v Speaker 1>actually work in practice? They have this expression they use
<v Speaker 1>reverse discrimination the stupidest express Does it reverse discrimination mean
<v Speaker 1>be nice to people? I think that's what reverse discrimination means.
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's discrimination these idiots. But how does that
<v Speaker 1>square with the notion of reverse discrimination and these recent
<v Speaker 1>presidential remarks with the equal protection of the fourteenth.
<v Speaker 3>I can't help but go wonky, professor in the setup
<v Speaker 3>to this, because that's.
<v Speaker 1>Why I'm asking this wonky question.
<v Speaker 3>I will say too, you know, citing my mom as
<v Speaker 3>I often do, there are no dumb questions, and this
<v Speaker 3>is definitely I mean, if I had this single out,
<v Speaker 3>one of the smartest, definitely not dumb question, it's.
<v Speaker 2>The one that you're asking right here.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, it's one that all Americans have to ask.
<v Speaker 3>You know, the Constitution is obviously fundamentally important, and after
<v Speaker 3>the Civil War, if I had to pick two words
<v Speaker 3>that are the most important the whole thing, it's equal
<v Speaker 3>protection that idea and trim in the fourteenth Amendment as
<v Speaker 3>a way of reversing not just slavery, but the subordination
<v Speaker 3>that came with it.
<v Speaker 2>Now, you know, that wasn't enough.
<v Speaker 3>We needed legislation in the twentieth century, and the civil
<v Speaker 3>rights movement resulted. During the Johnson administration at the behase
<v Speaker 3>of not just Martin Luther King Junior, but you know,
<v Speaker 3>generations who had fought throughout the twentieth century to make
<v Speaker 3>that equal protection clause real in the nineteen sixty four
<v Speaker 3>Civil Rights Act. It's as important really as the Constitution itself.
<v Speaker 3>And then i'd add to the nineteen sixty five Voting
<v Speaker 3>Rights Act. And what you have in Trump in this
<v Speaker 3>interview is just repudiation of all of those gains and
<v Speaker 3>the suggestion that really white supremacy is the thing that
<v Speaker 3>audit govern America. What it does is it rips the
<v Speaker 3>band aid off the debate that you're referencing. In polite
<v Speaker 3>constitutional circles, there has long been a debate about the
<v Speaker 3>meaning of equal protection and the meaning of discrimination under
<v Speaker 3>the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act. Is it color
<v Speaker 3>conscious in the sense that it's fighting subordination the way
<v Speaker 3>I view it, or as my conservative opponents often put it,
<v Speaker 3>is it color blind? And they cite Justice Harlan's dissent
<v Speaker 3>in the Plus versus Ferguson case from the late, very
<v Speaker 3>late nineteenth century, which used this word colorblind. Harlan, you
<v Speaker 3>know this is a big debate. You know, use that phrase.
<v Speaker 3>That's not what he meant, but at least, you know,
<v Speaker 3>that's their argument that the Constitution in the nineteen sixty
<v Speaker 3>four Civil Rights Actor colorblind, so they banned, for instance,
<v Speaker 3>affirmative action, and the Supreme Court has certainly been moving
<v Speaker 3>in that direction.
<v Speaker 2>But here's the thing about this interview.
<v Speaker 3>You know, long conservatives have been accused you're saying colorblind,
<v Speaker 3>but really you're hiding a kind of white supremacy.
<v Speaker 2>Well, Trump just said, yeah, that's what I believe in.
<v Speaker 2>I don't believe in civil rights.
<v Speaker 3>He's not trying to give you an interpretation of the
<v Speaker 3>Equal Protection Clause.
<v Speaker 2>I don't think he knows what that. I'm sure he
<v Speaker 2>doesn't know what that.
<v Speaker 3>Is, or the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Actor, which
<v Speaker 3>maybe's vaguely aware of. He just disregards them all and says,
<v Speaker 3>you know, really it's about white rights. That's what we
<v Speaker 3>should be concerned with. And that's what this interview with
<v Speaker 3>The New York Times said. I was glad CNN didn't
<v Speaker 3>cut me off today, but I spoke to them about
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court, and that's what I said, that he
<v Speaker 3>really has come out as a white supremacist. So I'm
<v Speaker 3>hoping mainstream media, not just our independent podcast, is covering
<v Speaker 3>it that way, because that's the story that this debate
<v Speaker 3>about the meaning of these clauses. It has just been
<v Speaker 3>ended by a president who embraces white supremacy.
<v Speaker 2>He doesn't like any of them.
<v Speaker 1>They cut me off the other day, by the way
<v Speaker 1>on the way, Oh yeah, oh yeah, they do that
<v Speaker 1>as happened sometimes.
<v Speaker 3>I've been watching it, John, There have been some great
<v Speaker 3>performances there.
<v Speaker 1>You know what, I didn't do cable news for so long,
<v Speaker 1>and now I had a book and I came back
<v Speaker 1>out of the crypt to start doing them again. And huh,
<v Speaker 1>already you don't get to have as much time. You
<v Speaker 1>don't get it as much time with with MAGA people
<v Speaker 1>as I do. But Corey, what is.
<v Speaker 2>The guy you debate on CNN sometimes?
<v Speaker 1>Scott I got Scott Scott Scott Jennings.
<v Speaker 3>Yes, yeah, he seems to be reduced by several inches
<v Speaker 3>after any time he encounters you.
<v Speaker 2>Man, that stuff.
<v Speaker 1>I wish I could tell you. I will say that guy.
<v Speaker 1>That guy's always been very polite to me. I'm always
<v Speaker 1>very polite to him. He's running for Mitch McConnell's Sennes seat.
<v Speaker 1>Every one of his beloe leaf is geared towards will
<v Speaker 1>he get that power? That's his whole shtick. But let
<v Speaker 1>me bring it back to this rhetoric of Trump and
<v Speaker 1>the racism, because yeah, I mean, it's just it's crazy.
<v Speaker 1>And we've heard idiots on the internet say this, and
<v Speaker 1>now idiots in the White House are saying I hate
<v Speaker 1>to ask such a dumb question. This is the dumbest
<v Speaker 1>question I will ever ask you. But I realized I
<v Speaker 1>said this last night on the radio with you. What
<v Speaker 1>are the dangers constitutionally, socially, morally, What are the dangers
<v Speaker 1>of framing civil rights laws as somehow punitive towards a
<v Speaker 1>majority group? This is what they do. Other people get
<v Speaker 1>a quality, and it means we've had something to take
<v Speaker 1>it from us. Why is that dangerous legally and socially.
<v Speaker 3>Well, again, it's a profound question, not a stupid one
<v Speaker 3>in the sense that what you know you're putting her
<v Speaker 3>it feels unreal, I think, is what's happening because we've
<v Speaker 3>so long had a debate about how to interpret these laws,
<v Speaker 3>how to interpret this fundamental constitutional part of the constitution, which,
<v Speaker 3>by the way, the thing that really makes it democratic
<v Speaker 3>is it's aim of explicit equality. Frederick Douglass had said, Look,
<v Speaker 3>those ideas are in the preamble, which says we the people,
<v Speaker 3>not we the white people. But you know, it needed
<v Speaker 3>to be made explicit, and it was so for a
<v Speaker 3>long time. You know, I guess i'd call it polite
<v Speaker 3>or mainstream debate, including what I thought of as extreme right.
<v Speaker 3>Nobody challenged the fact that we need a nineteen.
<v Speaker 2>Sixty four Civil Rights Act.
<v Speaker 3>Actually, Ran Paul did once and you never heard him
<v Speaker 3>mention it again.
<v Speaker 2>It was so outrageous.
<v Speaker 1>Well, yeah, and now he could unpack that for days.
<v Speaker 3>But yeah, but he at least backed off because the
<v Speaker 3>norms were so strong in favor of the fact that
<v Speaker 3>we need these laws. And I don't want to poo
<v Speaker 3>poo them either, in the sense that even in the
<v Speaker 3>hands of conservatives like Justice Gorsuch, they were used, for instance,
<v Speaker 3>the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act to protect transgender
<v Speaker 3>rights in hiring in the Bostock case, So they have power.
<v Speaker 3>But the shift, the seismic shift that you're sensing, is
<v Speaker 3>when the President of the United States comes out for
<v Speaker 3>white supremacy. That's really the opposite of trying to interpret
<v Speaker 3>the laws it's trying to go back to. And well,
<v Speaker 3>I'll say where it goes from the presidents and the people.
<v Speaker 3>In my book five leaders who threatened democracy and the
<v Speaker 3>citizens who fought to defend it. That's Woodrow Wilson, you know,
<v Speaker 3>Woodrow Wilson's idea of a white nationalist society, not just
<v Speaker 3>white supremacist, but white nationalists.
<v Speaker 2>That's really what Trump is in the.
<v Speaker 1>Tradition of Well Corey. Let's shift now to the most
<v Speaker 1>important issue that affects all of our lives more than
<v Speaker 1>anything we've discussed, and that is transgender children playing sports. Clearly,
<v Speaker 1>this is where the nation's future lies, and the Supreme
<v Speaker 1>Court is going to be debating two appeals dealing with
<v Speaker 1>state bands on trans girls playing on women's teams. Now,
<v Speaker 1>it's a delicate balance to talk about this subject because
<v Speaker 1>we need to protect vulnerable, marginalized minorities. I'll also point
<v Speaker 1>out that transgender girls are the only group that take
<v Speaker 1>drugs to be physically weaker. But we have to balance
<v Speaker 1>the care for marginalized groups with respect for the integrity
<v Speaker 1>of girls' sports, with the fact that this issue is
<v Speaker 1>what fascists use to smear the entire anti fascist movement.
<v Speaker 1>Kamala Harris never talked in her entire campaign about transgender
<v Speaker 1>kids playing sports, and it's all they think she talked about.
<v Speaker 1>So every time we actually wade into the arena and
<v Speaker 1>preach compassion to a marginalized group within a marginalized group,
<v Speaker 1>we have to be very aware that this is ground
<v Speaker 1>zero for the disinformation campaign of the right. But the
<v Speaker 1>case is coming forward, and I think even the plaintiffs
<v Speaker 1>understand that this particular six' to Three Supreme court with
<v Speaker 1>the dirty Six, conservatives is not exactly warm to transgender
<v Speaker 1>rights in a society based on, equality, liberty and.
<v Speaker 3>Freedom one thing that's really, interesting and Why i'm not
<v Speaker 3>going to predict what's going to happen here because it's really,
<v Speaker 3>unclear is that when it comes to transgender, rights.
<v Speaker 2>You would think it's a sixty three. Issue but we
<v Speaker 2>have this one.
<v Speaker 3>Case and this is WHAT i was actually foreshadowing and
<v Speaker 3>alluding to before in our previous. Discussion you have this
<v Speaker 3>one case that really perplexed people at the. TIME i
<v Speaker 3>was surprised by. IT i teach, it it's not what
<v Speaker 3>you would. Think and in The bostok, Case Justice, gorsuch
<v Speaker 3>writing for The court took a strong stand in saying
<v Speaker 3>the nineteen sixty Four Civil Rights act in its, text
<v Speaker 3>and For, gorsuch you, know he's always looking for.
<v Speaker 2>WAYS i posed his.
<v Speaker 3>Nomination wrote a number of pieces when he was nominated
<v Speaker 3>In New York times and elsewhere talking about the fact
<v Speaker 3>that when it comes to The, constitution he's going to
<v Speaker 3>try to strip gay rights out of the.
<v Speaker 2>Constitution NOW i still believe.
<v Speaker 3>That but one thing he has to do in, response
<v Speaker 3>because he says it's not written. In but he's got
<v Speaker 3>a show, too his devotion to the text when things
<v Speaker 3>are written.
<v Speaker 2>In and one of the things that's unique about the nineteen.
<v Speaker 3>Sixty Four Civil Rights, act especially titled, six which protects
<v Speaker 3>against discrimination in employment as opposed to the Equal Protection,
<v Speaker 3>clause is it explicitly protects against what the statue calls
<v Speaker 3>with the law calls sex. Discrimination now here's the surprising, Thing,
<v Speaker 3>john What gorsa says in The bostok case is what
<v Speaker 3>is transgender? Discrimination it is literally discrimination based on. Sex
<v Speaker 3>and so he, says, yes the nineteen sixty Four Civil
<v Speaker 3>Rights act prohibits job based discrimination against transgender.
<v Speaker 2>People and in this, case maybe he'll say a similar.
<v Speaker 3>Thing they did more recently in the case a few
<v Speaker 3>months ago uphold a ban on transgender medical care for,
<v Speaker 3>minors so that cuts the other.
<v Speaker 2>Way but there still is this case That i'm, like, Wow,
<v Speaker 2>gorsa you, know has.
<v Speaker 3>This he's sort of the most unlikely hero of transgender.
<v Speaker 3>Rights and, actually WHEN i taught that case At Fordham Law,
<v Speaker 3>school but also WHEN i teach it At, brown a
<v Speaker 3>lot of transgender kids, activists and they're, like, wow this
<v Speaker 3>is not WHAT i, thought and yet they want to
<v Speaker 3>grab on to. It and you, know he's making a
<v Speaker 3>common sense. Point is sex based discrimination discrimination? Apply does
<v Speaker 3>it extend to discrimination against transgender? People is the protection
<v Speaker 3>against it also one against anti?
<v Speaker 2>Transdiscrimination and the answer is. Yeah he says it plain his. Day,
<v Speaker 2>alito of course doesn't like.
<v Speaker 3>It who is a complete, Hack but at least you
<v Speaker 3>know he had enough integrity to see.
<v Speaker 2>That so well they say that here.
<v Speaker 3>Too you know what's that issue is a different Provision title,
<v Speaker 3>nine but also the Equal protection, clause and so he
<v Speaker 3>might he might come. Around we'll, see that's the. Question
<v Speaker 3>i've been. Argued by the time you're hearing.
<v Speaker 1>This this is where we should remind everyone that The
<v Speaker 1>American Medical association and The American Psychiatric association The American
<v Speaker 1>society Of pediatrics all support gender affirming care for transgender,
<v Speaker 1>kids and they all acknowledge that gender, dysphoria which not
<v Speaker 1>all transgender people, have is a real. Thing it's hard
<v Speaker 1>to guess which way this is going to. Go The
<v Speaker 1>idaho law that came out Under Judge david ny five
<v Speaker 1>years ago talked about a dearth of evidence in the
<v Speaker 1>record to show excluding trans women from women's sports supports sex,
<v Speaker 1>equality provides opportunities for, women increases access to college. Scholarships
<v Speaker 1>but A Donald trump judge blocked that a year, later
<v Speaker 1>saying it's. Unconstitutional it seems that this will be The
<v Speaker 1>Supreme court deciding, maybe if not once and for, all
<v Speaker 1>for the time, being until a new challenge pops.
<v Speaker 3>Up, YEAH i, mean AND i you, know in some,
<v Speaker 3>ways even this discussion should be, encouraging because nobody on
<v Speaker 3>The court is, Saying, hey we shouldn't have an equal protection,
<v Speaker 3>clause or we shouldn't have a nineteen sixty Four Civil Rights,
<v Speaker 3>act or let's disregard. It that's What trump is essentially.
<v Speaker 3>Saying they're, Saying, look these are monumental pieces of legislation
<v Speaker 3>and in the nineteen sixty Four act or when it
<v Speaker 3>comes To title, nine The Equal Protection, class and they're trying,
<v Speaker 3>to you, know engage in a debate about how to interpret.
<v Speaker 3>It that's normal constitutional. Law what scares me is that
<v Speaker 3>that's all taking place in the backdrop of the court
<v Speaker 3>allowing this full on white supremacists assault on civil. Rights
<v Speaker 3>and you have a president who in a sense proclaimed
<v Speaker 3>himself the white nationalist leader in.
<v Speaker 1>The, exactly all, right we need to take another. Break
<v Speaker 1>we'll be back in just a. Moment there's much more to.
<v Speaker 5>Cover.
<v Speaker 1>Corey how do you feel about Stealing? Greenland? Huh there against,
<v Speaker 1>boy we don't have the money for healthcare, anymore but
<v Speaker 1>we sure can bribe every person In greenland to steal.
<v Speaker 2>There AND i Think i'm an no one on Attacking.
<v Speaker 1>Greenland that's oh they. Think they seem to think they
<v Speaker 1>can buy it out from under. Them we'll be back
<v Speaker 1>in just a. Moment this is the oath in the.
<v Speaker 6>Office here's what you've been. Missing on The Stephanie Miller
<v Speaker 6>Happy hour, podcast he, Said iran's looking at freedom perhaps
<v Speaker 6>like never, before THE usa stands ready.
<v Speaker 2>To, help meaning bomb.
<v Speaker 6>Them The White house Confirmed trump is waying whether to Bomb.
<v Speaker 6>Iran He's Carolin levitt said he certainly doesn't want to
<v Speaker 6>see people being killed in the streets of r streets Of. Minneapolis,
<v Speaker 6>fine but unfortunately that's something we're seeing right. NOW i
<v Speaker 6>mean this is all. Accensory, yeah it is. Insane he's gonna.
<v Speaker 5>He's gonna Bomb iran because they're killing protesters. Wealth you,
<v Speaker 5>know who do we get to bomb to stop what's
<v Speaker 5>going on in The United states right?
<v Speaker 1>Now this is the.
<v Speaker 5>Difference he's, terrified all. Right, uh he's terrified of The
<v Speaker 5>United states having a color.
<v Speaker 1>REVOLUTION i have people who.
<v Speaker 5>Come on My twitter feed and they, go you're that
<v Speaker 5>guy who's advocating a color. Revolution, yes a people power
<v Speaker 5>revolution where we all rise up and through our. Numbers,
<v Speaker 5>look we got to get some some organizers From france
<v Speaker 5>Or South korea or. Something those guys know how to
<v Speaker 5>do it. Good, yeah they will have a million people
<v Speaker 5>in the. Streets but you know, what now it's starting to.
<v Speaker 5>Move but we shouldn't have to have A boston.
<v Speaker 6>Massacre we bombed the, well a KILLED i don't know eighty,
<v Speaker 6>civilians kidnapped their, president and now the oil executives are, like, no,
<v Speaker 6>thanks we don't want to steal the oil because it's
<v Speaker 6>not even it's. Uninvestable and now he's, talking he's saber,
<v Speaker 6>rattling of course About. Greenland every. Day we've Got germany
<v Speaker 6>for those of us that have read any history, book
<v Speaker 6>trying to help to Protect america the rest of the
<v Speaker 6>world Against. AMERICANS i, mean In World war, three we're
<v Speaker 6>going to be the bad. Guys subscribe to The Stephanie
<v Speaker 6>Miller Happy hour podcast On Apple, Podcasts Stephanie miller dot,
<v Speaker 6>com or wherever you get your favorite.
<v Speaker 1>Podcasts welcome back to The oath in The. Office I'm
<v Speaker 1>john feugelsanglog With Professor Corey. Breschneider let's talk About, greenland
<v Speaker 1>known for a, reindeer being cold and not wanting to
<v Speaker 1>be invaded by The United. States, corey this is once
<v Speaker 1>again resource. Extraction this is the doctor and of. Discovery
<v Speaker 1>this is what our indigenous friends tell us about all the.
<v Speaker 1>Time it's the oldest story in the. Book how did OUR,
<v Speaker 1>X y AND z get under their? Ground? Somehow our
<v Speaker 1>oil is Under venezuela's ground and our natural minerals is
<v Speaker 1>under the ground In. Greenland so this has been going
<v Speaker 1>on for over a, year and our good Friend ted
<v Speaker 1>lu The, congressman has publicly warned that ordering any military
<v Speaker 1>action without congressional authorization like we just saw last week
<v Speaker 1>In venezuela would be illegal and. UNCONSTITUTIONAL i guess that's
<v Speaker 1>Why trump's being impeached right now for In. Venezuela But,
<v Speaker 1>corey from a constitutional, standpoint how clear are the limits
<v Speaker 1>on presidential authority THE us military force without congressional? Authorization
<v Speaker 1>because it seems to be get away with whatever you
<v Speaker 1>can get away. With The democrats aren't going to chase you.
<v Speaker 3>Down, well you, know that's what we talked about in
<v Speaker 3>depth last, week And i'll urge people if you want
<v Speaker 3>to deep dive into all of this to listen to
<v Speaker 3>our episode from last week on war. Powers but the
<v Speaker 3>bottom line is, that, Yes congress is given the power
<v Speaker 3>to initiate, war and the president as commander in chief
<v Speaker 3>is or declare, war and the president's commander in chief
<v Speaker 3>has the ability.
<v Speaker 2>To carry it.
<v Speaker 3>Out but the, reality as we talked about last, week
<v Speaker 3>is If congress stays, quiet that authority is going to.
<v Speaker 3>Disappear courts aren't going to, Intervene they're not going to
<v Speaker 3>stop a presidential attack On. Greenland so really what has
<v Speaker 3>to happen is That congress needs to step. Up it
<v Speaker 3>has to assert and clear its throat and reclaim that.
<v Speaker 3>Power one way to do it is to say there
<v Speaker 3>is no authority to Attack. Greenland And Congressman lou who's
<v Speaker 3>been on this. Podcast if you didn't hear, it go
<v Speaker 3>back and listen to our discussion with him about this
<v Speaker 3>issue about the war, powers about his bill to ban
<v Speaker 3>a first strike use of nuclear, weapons which with this unhinged,
<v Speaker 3>president is a very real, WORRY i. Think but you,
<v Speaker 3>know what he's saying, is first of, all there is no.
<v Speaker 3>Authority he's among the group In congress pushing and they
<v Speaker 3>did have a procedural victory in The senate to get
<v Speaker 3>a vote on war.
<v Speaker 2>Powers and The PRESIDENT.
<v Speaker 3>Jd vance are of course lying and to be saying,
<v Speaker 3>that you, Know article two solves all of, this meaning
<v Speaker 3>the president has complete authority as commander in, chief the
<v Speaker 3>opposite of, what as we explained last, week The constitution.
<v Speaker 3>Says so this is a, movement you, know in doing
<v Speaker 3>what we were calling. For and you, KNOW i feel
<v Speaker 3>great that somebody we've had an extensive. Conversation we'll Have
<v Speaker 3>Congressman Lou back is taking a leadership. Role the other
<v Speaker 3>thing That congressman lou said that was so important was
<v Speaker 3>if you engage in planning an attack that's illegal On,
<v Speaker 3>greenland you are violating the law because this isn't a
<v Speaker 3>legal use of.
<v Speaker 2>POWER i thought that was an amazing thing to be.
<v Speaker 1>Saying you, Know ia saw some wacky video that said
<v Speaker 1>troops are allowed to decline illegal. Orders scoring everything comes
<v Speaker 1>back To Mark, kelly AND i think.
<v Speaker 2>They attack that point.
<v Speaker 1>Exactly but let me ask you, this in one situations
<v Speaker 1>in history of courts Or congress reined in this kind
<v Speaker 1>of an authorized military, action and how could that apply
<v Speaker 1>to hypothetical actions like Stealing?
<v Speaker 3>Greenland, well you, know on the. Court, unfortunately the answer
<v Speaker 3>is almost. Never they really don't want to intervene in this.
<v Speaker 3>Area they have this doctrine they called the political question.
<v Speaker 3>Doctrine when it's come up with a couple of exceptions
<v Speaker 3>Wondering vietnam and one actually that a friend of mine
<v Speaker 3>who's a professor constitutional law professor was able to for
<v Speaker 3>about twenty four, hours stopped The First Gulf war in
<v Speaker 3>The kuway.
<v Speaker 2>Case so presidents don't want to go To.
<v Speaker 3>Congress but at least in the, past what they've, done
<v Speaker 3>AND i think that that case actually helped Pressure. Congress
<v Speaker 3>at least what they've done in the past is that
<v Speaker 3>they've had, votes and even if they've authorized, war they've
<v Speaker 3>taken it upon themselves to. Engage so even in The
<v Speaker 3>Spanish American, war for, instance which was a colonial war
<v Speaker 3>of an explicit, kind although it was horrific that, history
<v Speaker 3>there was a recognition that the responsibility rested With congress
<v Speaker 3>to have that. Debate SO i don't think here that
<v Speaker 3>any debate is going to result in an authorization of
<v Speaker 3>the use of force For. Greenland and unlike any of
<v Speaker 3>these cases where, yes there was a debate but force was,
<v Speaker 3>AUTHORIZED i think what would happen is the. Opposite and you,
<v Speaker 3>know then at least the constitutional lines are.
<v Speaker 2>Clear, no he has no ability to move.
<v Speaker 1>Forward is it even worth talking about how restrictions on
<v Speaker 1>military action And american law intersect with international law obligations
<v Speaker 1>and treaties or as international law just woke at this, point, Professor.
<v Speaker 3>You, KNOW i would hope so that they would both,
<v Speaker 3>matter and we talked about both the last. Time The
<v Speaker 3>nuremberg trials set the precedent and one of the things
<v Speaker 3>that came out and you see, it especially in the
<v Speaker 3>cross examination Of. GOURING i recommend the film that's Out
<v Speaker 3>nuremberg where you see this re enacted with RUSS i
<v Speaker 3>really want to see it in the role Of. Goring
<v Speaker 3>but you, know they were prosecuted for not just crimes
<v Speaker 3>against humanity related to The holocaust and the horrors of
<v Speaker 3>the evil of the, horrorcaust but for the violation and
<v Speaker 3>the setting of precedent that one nation cannot unprovoked attack.
<v Speaker 3>Another you, know, unfortunately that norm is just, disappearing and
<v Speaker 3>the idea that we have the moral authority to criticize
<v Speaker 3>putin About ukraine and still engage in This venezuela adventure
<v Speaker 3>and in the possible attack On greenland that that's even being.
<v Speaker 3>Discussed it's really just so cut into the idea of international.
<v Speaker 2>LAW i do think it still. MATTERS i think it's
<v Speaker 2>important to talk.
<v Speaker 3>About but when we're talking about what we often are,
<v Speaker 3>like where's the hope, Come that's not really Where i'm
<v Speaker 3>finding the hope right. Now i'm finding it more in
<v Speaker 3>THE Us, congress in the constitutional limits on the president's war.
<v Speaker 1>Power, BOY i do hope that's the. Case that's What
<v Speaker 1>i'm hoping for that as. Well BUT i, mean, look
<v Speaker 1>we've discussed. THIS i think That Donald trump And Pete
<v Speaker 1>hegseth have a. Plot my belief is that they HATE.
<v Speaker 1>Jd van so much they want to See Mark kelly
<v Speaker 1>humiliate him for the presidency in twenty twenty, eight BECAUSE
<v Speaker 1>i swear that's the ONLY i, mean they are trying
<v Speaker 1>so hard to Make Mark kelly look presidential and to
<v Speaker 1>Make Mark kelly look like a real leader. Here And
<v Speaker 1>god bless Ted loop getting on board with. THIS i,
<v Speaker 1>mean we have to keep on saying it is accurate
<v Speaker 1>that service members are legally obligated to disobey orders they
<v Speaker 1>believe to be. UNCONSTITUTIONAL i mean pundits, aside how do
<v Speaker 1>legal standards evaluate such a, Choice, COREY i, mean the
<v Speaker 1>law is clear on.
<v Speaker 3>This, YEAH i mean to remind listeners who maybe weren't following,
<v Speaker 3>It But Senator Mark kelly said something that Is it's a.
<v Speaker 2>Truism it's so obviously. True it's not SOMETHING i need to.
<v Speaker 3>Prove it's just a basic of military, law and it's
<v Speaker 3>in all the. Manuals it's what you learn in officer training.
<v Speaker 3>School or In West, point which is that there is
<v Speaker 3>an obligation to not follow an illegal.
<v Speaker 2>Order and if you.
<v Speaker 3>Want an illustration of, that to go back to the
<v Speaker 3>Film nuremberg and The nuremberg. Trials that is exactly what
<v Speaker 3>The nazis on trial tried to, say that they were
<v Speaker 3>just following. Orders and you see that In eikman case as,
<v Speaker 3>well and what all the precedents in international law suggest was,
<v Speaker 3>no that that is no way an. Excuse if it's
<v Speaker 3>an illegal, order you have an obligation not to follow. It,
<v Speaker 3>now you know that's something that's so embedded IN us
<v Speaker 3>law and The Military, code in the norms That Mark
<v Speaker 3>kelly must have. Thought you, know it's not going out
<v Speaker 3>on a limb by just saying this truism that you're
<v Speaker 3>not supposed to follow an illegal. Order And hegsath WHO
<v Speaker 3>i THINK i have it at eighty percent THAT i
<v Speaker 3>was his teaching.
<v Speaker 2>Assistant what was the class at of all? Liberties, yeah
<v Speaker 2>you don't need to brag.
<v Speaker 1>Failure you don't need to spread that, Around. Corey you
<v Speaker 1>really don't need to SPREAD i don't know what your
<v Speaker 1>tenure situation, is but you don't need to be advertising.
<v Speaker 1>That corey just let.
<v Speaker 2>You, Know, OKAY i Think i'm all.
<v Speaker 5>Right.
<v Speaker 1>SITUATION i, mean it kind of you keep. Talking it
<v Speaker 1>kind of seems, like, oh you have the evil powder
<v Speaker 1>one who fell to the dark. Side but keep on
<v Speaker 1>pushing the, story if you.
<v Speaker 2>On if you, KNOW i think he did pretty well
<v Speaker 2>in that. Class you, know but.
<v Speaker 3>In the long, run there's some failure of teaching THAT
<v Speaker 3>i must have engaged, in you, know going After Mark
<v Speaker 3>kelly for saying something that is so obviously.
<v Speaker 2>True what is?
<v Speaker 3>It it's, again all these things look so strange from
<v Speaker 3>the standpoint of. Democracy but to continue with my, theme
<v Speaker 3>from the standpoint of authoritarianism or, Yes i'd go so
<v Speaker 3>far as to say. Fascism you, know that is a
<v Speaker 3>fascistic argument just following orders obey it all like not
<v Speaker 3>that it is The nazi argument In, nuremberg, yes and in.
<v Speaker 2>Trial and you, know this is just what they.
<v Speaker 3>Want and that's why from the lens of, democracy the
<v Speaker 3>lens of the world that we're all want.
<v Speaker 2>To, occupy it looks so.
<v Speaker 3>Strange and yet they're trying to bring about a different
<v Speaker 3>world when in which you do obey in illegal, order which,
<v Speaker 3>well the PRESIDENT i think let's get to what authoritarianism
<v Speaker 3>says if the president says, it that's the.
<v Speaker 1>Law that's. It that's how these fascists. Work AND i
<v Speaker 1>can't wait to see The nuremberg. MOVIE i don't think
<v Speaker 1>it's going to make me forget judgment At, Nurenberg, cory
<v Speaker 1>BUT i have this REAL i have this real thing
<v Speaker 1>for a middle Aged russell row Like brando eating the,
<v Speaker 1>scenery rolls Like Russell crowe In Pope's exorcist or in
<v Speaker 1>Playing zeus in the Fourth thor. Movie just show it.
<v Speaker 1>UP i, mean what's he. Wearing it looks like it
<v Speaker 1>looks Like gerring's wearing a smock in that. Movie my,
<v Speaker 1>god he was the best Fed nazi on the front.
<v Speaker 1>Line it appears just for. Me i'll just be there
<v Speaker 1>to Watch Russell crowe come and over act at this, point.
<v Speaker 2>BUT i is, good he plays.
<v Speaker 1>IT i have no doubt he's. Great i'll watch him
<v Speaker 1>over act in. Anything at this. Point it's to, me
<v Speaker 1>it's that middle Aged brando period where he just shows,
<v Speaker 1>up takes a check and overdoes. It AND i love.
<v Speaker 1>It watch That exorcist. Movie my, god the man's. Hilarious all, Right,
<v Speaker 1>corey we have to bring this thing. Home across these.
<v Speaker 1>Issues we've discussed THE ice deployments and THE fed, independence
<v Speaker 1>and the civil rights, rhetoric and the racism and the
<v Speaker 1>unauthorized military. ACTIONS i, MEAN i ask you this On SIRIUS,
<v Speaker 1>xm but what unifying constitutional principles are at stake or
<v Speaker 1>is it just?
<v Speaker 3>Everything, WELL i mean the way THAT i been summing it,
<v Speaker 3>up and listeners have heard me talk about, This, john
<v Speaker 3>you have BECAUSE i think it's the useful framework for
<v Speaker 3>this period of time that we're living. In we're living
<v Speaker 3>through a historical. Moment it is a threat to. Democracy
<v Speaker 3>so how should we understand? It and often it's by,
<v Speaker 3>analogy and the analogy in particular with what's happened in
<v Speaker 3>Many Latin american countries that also follow our presidential. Systems
<v Speaker 3>systems around the world are based usually on the parliamentary
<v Speaker 3>system of The British parliament or of The United states
<v Speaker 3>and its separation of, powers including its creation of an independent,
<v Speaker 3>president Of congress and. Judiciary but what you've seen in
<v Speaker 3>so many models in which the presidential system has been
<v Speaker 3>used is, that in, fact there's one studies that suggests
<v Speaker 3>in every instance it's collapsed except to The United states
<v Speaker 3>And Costa rica is the consolidation of power within the
<v Speaker 3>presidency that you, know the. Courts if you think about,
<v Speaker 3>it they're often called the least dangerous branch because they
<v Speaker 3>don't control the power of the. Purse they don't have.
<v Speaker 3>Military The congress does have the power of the. Purse
<v Speaker 3>but as we've saw with those that can be, usurped
<v Speaker 3>the president with the control of the, military, now with
<v Speaker 3>the control of this frightening domestic terror force in the,
<v Speaker 3>ice can collapse the other, branches and can collapse even
<v Speaker 3>the other. Tier the power of the states to. Resist
<v Speaker 3>if that, succeeds we no longer live in a. Democracy
<v Speaker 3>we live in a. Dictatorship that's what's being attempted. Here
<v Speaker 3>that's transparently what's, happening because you hear the presidents say
<v Speaker 3>it all the, time every.
<v Speaker 2>Week and that's what ties together all these.
<v Speaker 3>Stories the attack on states' rights that we talked about
<v Speaker 3>in the first, instance and the states trying to fight,
<v Speaker 3>back the attack on the independence of the federal, reserve
<v Speaker 3>the power Of congress to protect the fed. Chair and
<v Speaker 3>then in this adventurism of colonialism and want to be,
<v Speaker 3>imperialism and in the third, act they're all about the
<v Speaker 3>consolidation of power within the presidency and the destruction of.
<v Speaker 2>Democracy that's the.
<v Speaker 3>Attempt but yet we've also talked about the ways in
<v Speaker 3>which the states have fought back The drome power all
<v Speaker 3>himself is fighting back members Of, congress including Some, republicans war.
<v Speaker 2>Powers so it's not.
<v Speaker 3>Over you, know we're in a constitutional, crisis that's for.
<v Speaker 3>Sure but that's a good thing because it means that
<v Speaker 3>it's that we didn't. Lose you want a constitutional crisis
<v Speaker 3>when there's an attempted self, coup not not a successful self.
<v Speaker 2>Coup and, yeah they're not all.
<v Speaker 1>Crises some of them are just constitutional challenges as. Well
<v Speaker 1>some of the crises some are just. Challenges they're not
<v Speaker 1>all hair on. Fire BUT i, Mean i'm listening you
<v Speaker 1>say all, this and you know my job is trying
<v Speaker 1>to keep my head up and encourage. People but let
<v Speaker 1>me just finish the show by asking one last dumb.
<v Speaker 1>QUESTION i, mean all these, controversies do these to you
<v Speaker 1>reveal structural weaknesses in The constitution that the framers just
<v Speaker 1>failed to plan, on or are we instead just witnessing
<v Speaker 1>the existing norms being tested beyond their historical.
<v Speaker 3>Application, well you, know the founders were of two. Minds
<v Speaker 3>they all believed in The declaration of in The pence
<v Speaker 3>at the time The constitution was, written but there was
<v Speaker 3>a real debate that took place between the pro constitutional,
<v Speaker 3>forces the, federalists and the anti constitutional, forces the anti
<v Speaker 3>federalists who said the following, Thing this is a dangerous.
<v Speaker 3>Constitution it pretends to have all these checks and. Balances
<v Speaker 3>congress checks the, president The court Checks congress and the,
<v Speaker 3>president the states check the federal. Government but in the,
<v Speaker 3>end don't sign this. Thing don't ratify this because it's
<v Speaker 3>not going to. Work the checks are so weak it's
<v Speaker 3>going to all collapse into the. Presidency that was the
<v Speaker 3>argument of revolutionary, heroes even Like Patrick.
<v Speaker 2>Henry don't ratify this.
<v Speaker 3>Thing, now those who came back, said, no we have
<v Speaker 3>so many levers. Here we have a separation of, powers
<v Speaker 3>we have the, courts we have the states and their
<v Speaker 3>ability to protect civil. Liberties and Then i'd add to
<v Speaker 3>what you saw that you see Throughout american history is
<v Speaker 3>you have the ability of citizens like our, listeners like
<v Speaker 3>this Hero good who really has become a martyr for
<v Speaker 3>the cause of, democracy taking The constitution into their own
<v Speaker 3>hands and fighting back even when all.
<v Speaker 2>Of the branches have abandoned.
<v Speaker 3>It and you, know that's the period that we're in.
<v Speaker 3>Now we've seen that before the newspaper editors who Fought
<v Speaker 3>John Adams, tyranny Or Frederick douglas who Fought buchanan And
<v Speaker 3>Andrew johnson And trotter And ida B, wells who fought
<v Speaker 3>back against the white, supremacy which now we're seeing reflected
<v Speaker 3>in this president Of Woodrow. Wilson so there are real
<v Speaker 3>checks over. Time, now it's not inevitable that the checks will.
<v Speaker 3>Work it's not what you learned in, civics that's seventh grade,
<v Speaker 3>civics that we have these checks and.
<v Speaker 2>Balances don't worry about, it no.
<v Speaker 3>Worry but, Yeah i'm hopeful in the end that the
<v Speaker 3>anti federalists were wrong and that we will.
<v Speaker 1>Prevail Professor, bretschneider you are the best at what you.
<v Speaker 1>Do what is the best way for our listeners to
<v Speaker 1>keep up with your constitutional brilliance the other six days
<v Speaker 1>of the.
<v Speaker 2>Week, well we have so many reviews out there On.
<v Speaker 2>Spotify oh my, god the.
<v Speaker 1>Reviews thank you, people thank you five.
<v Speaker 3>Stars they're you, know so enthusiastic about, dynamic about you,
<v Speaker 3>know precisely what we're, doing trying to be honest about
<v Speaker 3>what's happening in this, country but also about the hope
<v Speaker 3>of pushing. Back that's what's resonating in our amazing, guests
<v Speaker 3>which will, continue we'll start announcing, them so keep leaving those.
<v Speaker 2>Reviews tell your. Friends we have a.
<v Speaker 3>Substack subscribe to, that a newsletter of what's happening every
<v Speaker 3>week as we, talk with links to the stories that we're.
<v Speaker 2>Referencing so check that.
<v Speaker 3>Out and of course if you want to listen to,
<v Speaker 3>us or you can also watch us on, YouTube you
<v Speaker 3>can do.
<v Speaker 1>Both AND i just want to tell Everyone i'm On
<v Speaker 1>SIRIUS Xm progress every evening nine to Midnight east, coast
<v Speaker 1>six to nine on The. West we're also a free
<v Speaker 1>podcast called The John Fiegel Sang. Podcast if you don't
<v Speaker 1>subscribe To, SERIOUS i got a, substack and my book
<v Speaker 1>is Called separation Of church And, hate on sale right
<v Speaker 1>now at Every Non evil website you buy book. Set,
<v Speaker 1>COREY i want to thank you as always for talking
<v Speaker 1>me off a ledge with just, reason and that's a.
<v Speaker 1>Gift at this, POINT i want to Thank beowulf And
<v Speaker 1>wendy and everyone who keeps this train the, tracks and,
<v Speaker 1>then most of, all thanks to all of our deeply
<v Speaker 1>sexually attractive listeners here for keeping the show. Going and
<v Speaker 1>please write to. Us corey, right we read your. Letters,
<v Speaker 1>please we'll do a whole bunch next. Week but let
<v Speaker 1>us know your, questions your, complaints your, thoughts your, threats
<v Speaker 1>your terrible. Jokes send them all to us and we'll
<v Speaker 1>share them here on the show on behalf of. Everyone
<v Speaker 1>thank you so, much And, corey thank you for doing
<v Speaker 1>what you.
<v Speaker 2>Do thank You, John what a. Pleasure we'll see.
<v Speaker 1>You guys next time on the OTH m The office