Summary
➡ The text discusses the importance of respectful debates and civil discourse, using the author’s conversations with his sister-in-law as an example. It also delves into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 10, which restricts states from imposing certain taxes without Congress’s consent. The author emphasizes the need for states to have their own inspection laws for imported goods, but these should not interfere with federal operations.
➡ States can inspect goods entering their territory and charge a fee for it, but they can’t profit from this fee. If they make more money than the inspection costs, the extra goes to the U.S. Treasury. This rule prevents states from interfering with trade, which is crucial for the economy. The federal government oversees this process to ensure states don’t negatively impact trade with other countries.
➡ The text discusses two compacts that allegedly violate a clause in the U.S. Constitution. The first is the National Popular Vote bill, which aims to allocate electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The second is an organization of states resisting the Trump administration. The text argues that these compacts violate Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits states from entering into agreements or compacts with each other without congressional approval. The text also discusses the concept of states engaging in war in response to invasions, such as illegal immigration.
➡ The text discusses the role of federal and state authorities in law enforcement, using the analogy of a school principal and teachers. It suggests that just as teachers can take action within their classrooms, states can also take measures to protect themselves, even if the ultimate authority lies with the federal government. The text also touches on various topics like sanctuary laws, border security, and the interaction between states and federal government.
➡ The discussion revolves around the constitutional rights of states to control what enters their territory, including products and people. The speakers argue that while states should have the authority to regulate what comes in and out, there are complexities when it comes to items crossing state lines. They also touch on the topic of judicial review, questioning its constitutionality and suggesting that the people and the states should be the ones to determine what’s constitutional.
➡ The text discusses the role of a president in vetoing bills, emphasizing that vetoes should be based on constitutionality, not personal beliefs. It also mentions a radio show called “Mr. Constitution Hour” by Douglas V. Gibbs, which explores various topics including Trump and God’s plan. The text ends with a discussion about the upcoming episodes and a critique of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency.
Transcript
So what we’ve done is we have recorded. Well, actually, we just got done recording the show for Christmas Eve and then we’re going to record the New Year’s Eve show a little bit later just so that we have those ready to go and. And Mr. Gibbs can spend time with his family. Yeah. That way you still get the show, but I get to hang out with my wife and. Absolutely. So, yeah, so it’s a win because we open presidents on Christmas Eve. Yeah. But then you get your big Santa gift on Christmas. And I’m not going to tell you what we talked about because you’re gonna have to wait till next week, but it is definitely a.
A combination of a Christmas and patriotism event. I’ll leave it at that because I want you guys to go see it. All right. I’m a historian. Yeah, as am I. This is the Untold History Channel. Yeah. We do spend a little time on some history next week. So there you go. And I still say that we need to do a series on the Mexican American War down the road. We will. So anyhow, all that said, it is, like I said, it is the 17th of December. Welcome. We only have two weeks left of 2024. And our, our Dear Leader.
Do I dare call it. I’m not a leader, I’m just drawn that way. No, I, I was, I was poking fun at North. Oh, you mean the other leader. I thought you meant me. I’m like, wait a second, Dear Leader. Oh, in the Constitution class. Yeah, I was talking about. I was talking about Dear Leader in terms of like, Trump. But I was, I was, I was. You’re not talking about Joe. No, no, no, no. I’m talking about. I’m talking about Trump. And you know, because he’s. If everything goes off according to. According to plan, we are, what, 33, 33 days away? 34 days away.
It’s going to be, it’s coming fast and it’s going to be interesting. We are up against a group that they’re not, they don’t care. No, I, I’m not making any predictions, but there’s, I, I, I see things that could be happening on the horizon. Well, let’s, let’s, they’re going to attempt, let’s actually talk about that just for a second. Just, I mean, just because, you know, I’m, I, I, I’m looking at things that are transpiring and, you know, talking about the Marxists and the communists and, and these people, I mean, they have spent the better part of 100 years laying the foundations within this country for its destruction and takeover, you know, and, and cultivation into, and it’s so close they can taste it.
Oh, it is extraordinarily close. And, but as one of my most favorite lines of any movie ever was Princess Leah in the movie Star wars when she said, the more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems are going to slip through your fingers. I thought she said that to Darth Vader. Nope, she said that she, she said that to Tarkin right before they blew up Alderaan. Okay. Yeah, yeah. You’re not going to get that past me. I, I know that. So anyway, Vader was there with them, but she said that to Tarkin anyway. And I feel like the, you know, and I, I have used the analogy in the past about the movie Miracle, with which, which pitted the American hockey team versus the Soviet hockey team and at Lake Placid and the movie, the movie depicts it, that the Russians didn’t pull the goalie and that Herb Brooks was like, he doesn’t know what to do.
He doesn’t know that he needs to pull the goalie when he’s down by a goal with a minute left because they hadn’t been, they had never been down. They literally won every game they played in almost 20 years. And so, and when you’re not, when you don’t practice for contingencies and you don’t practice for things or you don’t take into consideration, oh, well, this actually might backfire on us. What, what are we going to do, you know, if that occurs? Well, you, if you look at what has happened, the people are rejecting all of this stuff and they’re, and all they’re doing is re, using, using retreads of the old playbook.
And they’re making it worse for themselves, and they’re making it worse for themselves because the people have figured, figured out their game. Yeah. Say, hey, idiots, this is why we voted against you. Yeah. And my, my favorite real quick, if you don’t mind, is they, they decided that Trump is no longer fascist. That didn’t work, but they didn’t understand that the name calling isn’t, is what wasn’t working. So now he’s, I don’t know if you’ve heard this. Now he’s a mobster. I had not heard that. Oh yeah, I have not heard that. But the former mobster franchise.
I can’t remember his first name off top of my head. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he’s got that YouTube channel. Yeah, well, I met him. I’ve got an autographed copy of his book. I met him in Orange county years ago and he’s an awesome dude. Accepted Christ. He’s just, oh, 100 awesome. No, I knew. Yeah, I know. I’m, I’m very well aware of him. So Fox brings him on, says, hey, they’re calling a mobster. Is Trump a mobster? And he says, well, for first of all, when a mobster is shot at, a mobster, you know, leader is shot at, he doesn’t raise his fist and scream, fight, fight, fight.
And I thought that was great. That was beautiful. But anyway, I, I found, last night I did a show and it was all about, at the beginning, I kind of talked about how showing some of the video clips out there of people that are rejecting the left and they are, they are rejecting the left. And even Van Jones was like, you know, you know, we got it wrong and they got it right and you know that we basically have been voted out and we need to reorganize basically Charlemagne, the God is another one who’s been really, you know.
Well, they’re not necessarily embracing conservative principles, but what they are doing is they’re rejecting all of this Marxist woke garbage and recognizing that’s the flaw. And I’ll be, and I’ll be honest with you, I actually want there to be differences of opinions. You know, I mean, there’s a reason that you have the, that God designed it to be a man and a woman because you bring the man and the woman together, they unify and you, then you have, when, when you’re raising children or you’re together, what you’re doing is you are bringing the feminine and the masculine together so that you can get, you can, you can bring both of those together as one because you, they, they act as counterbalances to each other.
If you just had nothing but men or nothing but women, you know, you’re going to get the worst of what those of, of what they bring. Whereas when you bring two together that it’s, it know the opposites attract the counterbalance thing. So I, it’s like it was like the old saying, two heads are better than one doesn’t mean two of the exact same head. Right. You know, debate creates liberty. And I want there, I want there to be people who, I mean, I don’t want there to be people who are, are, you know, lobbying for, you know, government subsidy from cradle to grave.
You know, I don’t, I don’t agree with that but, but I do want there to be people that like, are, that offer solutions. And you know, even if it’s in the private sector, which I should, which, which I believe it should be, you know, but you just, you need to have discussions of people who are, who have differences of opinion because they can have, they have, they, they bring a perspective that you may not have thought about yourself because you’re so s, because you’re kind of lazy. It also, it also sharpens your blades in the sense that you may not realize that other.
And so, you know. Yeah, absolutely. And that’s probably the best point of all because what if you have people that disagree with you, then it makes you have to articulate your point and to. Yeah. And you know, I love, I don’t remember where the quote came from, but it’s talking about when you’re debating other people, you may be debating one individual, but the audience that you’re catering to is everybody around who’s listening to you. And that is, and that’s another thing. So when, when they’re debating on the House floor or they’re, you know, people are debating in the, in the, you know, the court of public opinion, you know, it’s good to have those debates where people come together and they’re, you know, they, they’re respectful with each other, but they, they articulate their arguments and well, well, that’s a lot.
Just don’t know how to debate anymore. No, because they, they go to name calling and, and you know that I think the, again, I don’t remember where the code came from, but basically it says that the first, the first person to, to, to the first person in a debate to go to call to name calling is the, is the loser. Right. And what, what we want, what we had when we were younger was civil discourse, political discourse. And you know, I get that with one of my sister in laws, my wife’s sister Marcy, and she’s the second Youngest of the seven girls.
As a matter of fact, I was talking to her the other night and, and she, while she has leftist belief stuff, she’s willing to listen and at least consider what I have to say and I’ll hear what she has to say. And often we actually come to agreements because while she, because she doesn’t think politically, she tries to think at least common sense wise. And we had a discussion the other day and she says, well, because I told her I had put in my application and resume for being Constitution czar. Haven’t heard back from Trump yet.
People keep feeding Doug needs to be your Constitution. But anyway. And she says, oh, when you can advise him that he’s violating the Constitution if he tries to get rid of birthright citizenship. I said really? You mean you can’t do that? And she’s like, well, can’t he or can he not? You know, and it’s like, and then we had that discussion, you know, that the citizenship clause does not, does not have birthright citizenship. It’s, you know, born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There’s a second requirement and that is, has to do with allegiance.
That’s the reason why when you be, when someone naturalizes the, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof means allegiance. That’s the reason why new citizens when they give the oath have to renounce their own citizenship to, to satisfy and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And so, and we had that discussion and, and she’s like, oh, I had never thought about that. You mind if I look it up? Do you have any sources for me? It’s absolutely here. Here’s the Congressional Globe link. Those Democrats don’t exist for the most part anymore. There’s a handful of them like my sister in law, but for the most part you’re not going to get that far in the conversation.
They’re screaming, they’re yelling, we need to get back to this political discourse. And that’s the reason why they’re leaving the Democratic Party. They’re not necessarily becoming conservatives or, or constitutionalists or whatever, but they know that what they were wasn’t right. That’s right. And that’s a big distinction. All right, so where we left off last week, and it’s funny because I am down in Southern California right now. I visiting family, kids, grandkids, all that jazz. And my classes, old classes were getting, having get togethers here in Southern California. And so the, the pocket constitution I mark, I left at home.
So I actually had to listen to the tail end of the last show. So I could figure out where we left off. And, like, the last 10 or 15 minutes, we’re, like, talking about other stuff. So I keep backing up till I found it. But we are in this. For those of you who have your constitution in front of you, we are in the. We are beginning the second paragraph of Article 1, Section 10. And we should get through these paragraphs today, which means after the Christmas episode and the New Year’s Eve episode, we will begin with Article 2, which is all about the President, right around.
Oh, like right after or. Or no, right on January 6th. Right. How interesting is that? Yep, January 6th. January 6th. Article two will still be in article two when we get to January 20th. I just think that’s hilarious. But anyway, so. So for those of you who have your pocket constitutions, maybe like this one, maybe like a different one, and you’re following along or you’re on your computer and every once in a while also, and I know Ron’s looking for it right now, he puts it on the screen here for you, too. So follow along. Article one, section 10, real quick, is this.
These are legislative prohibitions to the states for those of you who’ve missed past classes, so understand, the states sent their delegates to the Constitutional Convention to write this Constitution. The states wrote the Constitution to create the federal government. States existed before the federal government. That’s why the states are the parents of the federal government. Okay, so, and. And they wanted to create this federal government to handle the issues that could not be handled properly by a bunch of different states. We needed a unified government to handle certain issues, external issues, disputes between the states, postal service, things like that.
All right, so. So that’s why they wrote this Constitution to create the federal government. When we say external issues like trade with other countries, treaties with other countries, could you imagine today if we were like, oh, we want to make a treaty with that country. All right, 50ambassadors and negotiators from the 50 states. Go ahead and go do it. It wouldn’t make sense. So you have a single government to handle those things. But because the states were sovereign and took care of their own business and saw themselves as individual entities, the internal stuff, the stuff that the federal government should have no business dealing with, they left for themselves.
Now, understanding that’s what they’re creating, they realized if we want the United States government to properly operate, we need to make sure the states don’t interfere. That’s what this section is really all about. So Article 1, Section 10, all three paragraphs begin. No state shall. And so PB P. Brockman, I’ve got your book, A Promise of True Self evident, the history of the United States, so I’m using it to follow along. I actually have the Constitution at the rear of a lot of my books. Thank. Thank you, B.B. brock. P. Brockman. Or is it P.B. rockman? Yes, either P.
Brockman or P.B. rockman, but whatever. Thank you for mentioning the book. Be a good Christmas present if you’re quick about it, you know. But anyway, part two should be coming out real soon. I’m working feverishly on it, as always. It’s written just a matter of putting it together. Part three should be out hopefully by the end of the spring, and then part four should be done by the end of 2025. Okay, which, that’s four parts of u. S. History for those of you all right now, article 1, section 10, second paragraph. No state shall without the consent of the Congress.
Now this is a change from the first paragraph. It’s P. Brockman. Thank you, P. Brockman. So in our, in the first paragraph it says no state shall. That’s it. Here it’s saying no, say shout without the consent of Congress. In other words, it’s possible for what’s getting ready to be listed for the states to do it, but they have to get permission from Congress. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any impost or duties on imports or exports. Well, trade, import, export, that is a federal issue that’s up the federal government. You don’t want the states confusing the issue with all their own different rules and fees and all sort of stuff.
However, there may be reasons sometimes for the states, especially if they have like a, a port or something and goods are coming in through their port to have certain fees. And this is going to address that in a second. So no state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposter duties. Those are taxes, taxes, fees, kind of the same gamut on imports or exports, except. So there is an exception to this, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws. If you’re a state and an import is coming in and the federal government says, well, we brought that in, it’s an import, go ahead, just bring it in.
Well, wait a second. This is going to go through our state, this is, go through our harbor. We want to make sure that we inspect this. Not only that, it is what it says it is, but there’s not things that don’t need to be in there, so on and so forth. The, the, the fruit don’t have fruit flies in it. Whatever. And so the state is going to have their own inspection laws for imported goods or goods coming into their state. And that’s totally constitutional. But here’s the real kicker and if we keep reading, first of all, it says accept what may be absolutely necessary.
So in other words, don’t just come up with some lame brain stuff, this needs to be necessary stuff for executing its inspection laws. And the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States. So what it’s saying is if a state has its rules, say well, you know, if that’s going to come into the LA port and we’ve got, you know, real concern about bugs that we don’t want in our state getting in the state, be it a, be it a fruit fly or a boll weevil or fire ants, we’re going to inspect things that come into our state.
We’re going to have inspectors look or at least ask you if you have any fruits or vegetables in your car. Of course, you know, it’s kind of funny at California is more worried about fruits and vegetables than they are illegal aliens. But that’s beside the point. Land of fruits and nuts. Well, that’s why I tell people that California is a, it’s a giant granola bar, fruits, flakes and nuts. But anyway, so they, they can do that. But what it says here is if they do that, they charge a fee. That fee, that tax on that import to handle their inspections cannot be, be, cannot exceed what it costs.
They cannot be making revenue off of it. And if they do, and I’ll read it again so that. Now you hear that you understand this and I’ll read it again. You’ll get it. If it does have a net revenue above the cost, then it. That goes to the federal treasury, the state doesn’t get to keep it. And that’s a way to keep the states from getting ridic. Ridiculous with their inspection fees and things like that because import export is a very important part of our economy and we don’t. And the, and the founding fathers didn’t want the states interfering with that lifeblood of our economy when it comes to the rest of the world and, and the federal government’s handling of it.
So now I’m going to read it again now that I’ve explained it, I’m going to read it again for, so that you understand for context. No state shall, without the consent of Congress lay any impost or duties on imports, exports, except where may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States. Then it adds here at the end, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
Now, this is an interesting way to word that very final part, because anytime in the Constitution during the Constitutional Convention, Congress was given authority to kind of oversee what the states did on something. It was a big debate. None of the federal government’s business. We’re gonna do what we do. We’re the state’s attitudes. But because this had something to do with import, export, trade with other countries, they believed it was important for Congress to have some say over the way the states handle their inspection laws and all that, and that the Congress would have to approve of the way the states were doing it.
Because once again, you’re opening up the opportunity for, for the states to interfere with trade with other countries, an issue that belongs to the federal government. And they wanted to make sure the states weren’t interfering negatively with the federal government’s ability to handle that particular power that belonged to the federal government. So hopefully that makes sense to you. Do you have any questions, Ron? Nope. And, and notice, for those of you who are new, I try to explain this in a way that a, you fully get it, and B, you understand the context of the time, because remember when they wrote this, their trading partners were Europe at the time and some Caribbean colonies and things like that.
But largely it was Europe. And they’re dealing with mercantilistic systems, systems that, where the government is playing this game with the companies that you’re. They were trading with. It was for the betterment of the government when it came to these, these powers in Europe. And so the federal government realized that there couldn’t be any bickering with the states. There couldn’t be any questions going on. This had to be something that the United States government handled and knew how to handle with these other countries. But at the same time, the United States couldn’t play this total isolationist game and be like, well, we just won’t trade with those jerks, because, you know, the, the United States was producing a lot of things, but they also needed a lot of things.
And you also have to remember this, and I hate to say it this way, and this, and this might open the door into getting into the banking systems. I don’t want to get into that discussion, but in the world at that time, most of the gold and silver, that known gold and silver was in the hands of the European powers. And so if you’re. So your trading partners also had basically what was considered hard money. And so you needed also to trade with them because of that gold, silver dynamic going on, or at least that was the belief.
Unfortunately, Hamilton believed it to be so powerful of a. Of a. Of a factor that he pushed for a centralized bank so that we could tie into the banking system there in Europe when it came to that gold and silver, interestingly enough, America had not figured out yet that as it moved westward and it did things like the Louisiana Purchase, there was a lot of gold and silver out west. But we’re talking the time of the founding of this country, the early years. Right. All right. So I had a feeling if I mentioned banks, you might have something.
But you know, I’m not Warhamster. Not Warhammester. All right, that said, everybody with us, Right? All right, you good here? So we have one more paragraph, and I’m going to break this down quite a bit because there are some modern issues that ties into this final paragraph in Article 1, Section 10. Real quick review. Article 1, Section 10 is a section prohibiting state legislatures from making certain laws. And if you go to. And you don’t have to change the screen, Ron, but I’ll. I want to mention this to everybody. If you go to the 10th Amendment.
There’s a section in the 10th Amendment. Well, let me read the whole thing and you’ll see what I mean. It says the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people that. Nor prohibited by it to the states. That. That is referring to this section. We’re going through Article 1, Section 10. These are prohibitions to the state governments. Understand that the way the Constitution is designed, if a power is listed in the Constitution for the federal government, that power belongs to the federal government.
States can’t do it. If a power is not listed as an authority of the federal government, but it is prohibited to the states, such as in this section, states can’t do it. Everything else they can do. So the Constitution is designed. Interesting. It basically is designed that if the federal government’s going to have the authority, it’s got to be in the Constitution. If the state’s going to have the authority, it’s got to not be in the Constitution because they had all the power beforehand. So they’re retaining everything except what is given to the federal government. So it’s so.
So basically the way to look at political powers. People say, well, where does it say the states can do that? By not saying it because the Fed. Because basically states get all the powers except what’s given to the federal government or they’re told they can’t have. And, and remember, they are telling themselves. Remember they’re the ones that wrote this. So they’re telling themselves, oh, by the way, states, we don’t want us to be able to do these things because it will interfere with the federal government operating as it should. So Article 1, Section 10 is the states in the Constitutional Convention dictating to themselves things they cannot do.
So they don’t. So that states don’t interfere. All right, now this is where it gets very interesting. Once again, there’s some modern correlations here. No state shall, without the consent of Congress. Once again, we have that little, a little extra bit there. No, say shout without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage. Duty of tonnage. That’s like ship cargo. So Laney, duty on tonnage, you can’t tax cargo coming in. Which kind of goes back to that last clause a little bit. Keep troops so they can keep troops. If Congress says it’s okay. They cannot keep troops.
Otherwise the militias are allowed by Congress Keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state and stop there for a second. We talked about this a little bit last week. I want to reiterate it. There’s two compacts that are going on right now that violates this clause. One of them is the National Popular Vote bill. What it is, is it’s agreement among the states because they’re trying to get rid of the Electoral College. They hate the Electoral College because they believe only Democrats can win the popular vote.
That’s the reason why this last election. Hate the Electoral College. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And that’s why this last election kind of shocked them because they figured no Republican could ever win the, you know, popular vote. But anyway, so they want to get rid of it because it’s not very Democratic. Well, that was actually the point because we’re not supposed to be very Democratic. We’re supposed to be a republic. There are democratic principles, provisions in our system. But we are not a pure democracy. We are Republicans. And so, so these states have band together and, and I can’t remember how many states it is at the moment.
It’s in the teens and, and they’re not quite to the 270 electoral votes. It’s 200 and something that’s the low 200s. But once they get enough states that are a part of this compact that would reach 270 or more electoral votes, then what the compact plans to do, this National Popular Vote Bill plans to do, is then apply those electoral votes from those states to the national popular Vote winner. Well, if that was the case in this last election, Trump would have wound up with 520 electoral votes. They may not necessarily be so fond of this idea at the moment, but nonetheless, this is a violation of this clause because the states have entered an agreement or compact with other states to, to send their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.
It violates this clause. You, the states cannot enter into a compact like that, an agreement like that, an organization of states that are going to team up together to make sure something happens can’t do it. Says so right there in Article 1, Section 10 and the other one. And, and I don’t have the link. I’ve, I’ve talked about this before. I have the link off top of my head. But the governors, attorney generals, and a lot of the mayors around the country have decided they’re going to resist this administration. And there’s actually an organization, they have a website and agree.
And it is a compact, they call it a compact, an organization on their website of states that are going to band together to resist Trump. Once again, what does it say right here in Article 1, Section 10? No State shall enter into any agreement or compact with another state. It is a violation of this clause. Well, yeah, but Doug, this is different. It’s, you know, we’re trying to preserve democracy. I don’t care. I don’t care if you think it’s an emergency. You cannot violate the clauses. States cannot violate the clauses in Article 1, Section 10. And in fact, the courts recently decided the, the Supreme Court.
Not that, not that I’m a big fan of the courts interpreting the Constitution, but they got it right for once. And they said, hey, emergencies don’t give the authority to violate the Constitution. There are no emergency powers in the Constitution. Exactly. And so I don’t care if it’s an emergency. I don’t care if it’s not very democratic. States cannot enter into any agreement or compact with each other, period. So Safira says, well, they obviously don’t give a rat’s butt. Well, because you gotta remember, to a lot of those people, this isn’t the Constitution. The Constitution is how they’ve interpreted or how some judge someday interpreted.
Even if there’s a bunch of judges that disagree with him. If they can find one judge that agrees with them. That’s the interpretation. That’s the reason why they’re freaking out over this birthright citizenship thing I talked about at the beginning of today’s program. Well, yeah, but it’s constitutional if you’re born murder, so you’re all right. No, it’s not. Constitution doesn’t say that. Well, yeah, but we’ve decided it says that. Well, what about Wong, Kim, Mark, 1898. Read the ruling. It doesn’t say that either. Born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and full allegiance. So now Melvin asks, would states such as Texas, Arizona, New Mexico enter into any agreement to fix border issue be illegal? If it’s not a compact, they can work together.
Cooperation and a compact are two different things. If Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico want to cooperate with each other to work on fixing the border, that’s one thing. But if they have an actual official agreement, it’s not just cooperation. It’s not just saying, hey, are you gonna do that? I like the idea. I’m gonna help you. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking an actual agreement, a compact, and that a written organizational agreement or something of that nature. Unconstitutional. All right, so, Warhammester, please address the popular vote pact among the states. I did you. You’re late.
Can the states enter into such a pact? Would it require congressional approval? If Congress were to approve that, they could get away with it because it does begin without the. That they know, say shall without the consent of Congress. But Congress wouldn’t consent to something like that unless it was completely lib tar. But no, that. What they’ve done, it’s already unconstitutional. It’s already an illegal act. Compact. So that tackle Bear asks, would it violate the clause if Congress gave their consent? No. Then it wouldn’t violate the clause because it begins, no state shall without the consent of Congress.
But Congress has not given their consent. They did it anyway. So. And it’s not like, oh, well, now you could give consent. You. You can’t do it until they give you your consent. You got to go to Congress first before you create such a compact. So, Melvin, don’t. Don’t apologize. You’re ahead of most Americans. Melvin says, thank you. Doug was still a bit dense on a lot of constitutional issues. You’re ahead of 98% of Americans, buddy. So. Absolutely, Absolutely. So Warhamson says. I argue the first paragraph says nothing about congressional approval. That’s because the things listed in the first paragraph don’t need.
They. You can’t do it, period. There is no opportunity for congressional approval. But the things listed in the second and third paragraphs can be done if you get congressional approval. But the thing is, congressional approval is not. Is, is supposed to be granted. And then you do it. You don’t do it and say, oh, is it? Okay, that’s not how it works. All right, let’s continue through this clause. The NOSTAT shall, without consent of Congress, lay any duty on of tonnage, that’s tax on cargo, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace into any agreement or compact within the state or with a foreign power.
How many agreements as gruesome made with China and other. Too many. Absolutely. He’s entering into agreements with foreign powers, violating the Constitution. Or engage in war unless. Okay, so once you think about the language here, engage in war. What does engage in war mean to you, Ron? Engage in war is when you are actually in contact shooting, firing, or if you’re in contact with the enemy. So kinetic action. Kinetic action is okay? Yes. All right, so. So I want you to think about this as I’m talking about this. What it means. Engage in war unless actually, let’s see.
So no state shall engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Now, I have argued that the illegal alien invasion is an invasion. So if it is an invasion, then this clause belongs to the states. States cannot have, you know, engage in war unless they’re being invaded or they think they are. Well, if they are being invaded, then they can engage in war. What does that mean? What I’m saying is the states have every authority to send personnel to their border and shoot the illegal aliens. I know that sounds terrible.
Let’s do it. You’re being invaded. You got cartels walking into this country and the states are being invaded by Chinese nationals, Muslim terrorists. The list goes on and on. I’m not saying just go indiscriminately start shooting people. That’s not what I’m saying. But a state, if they believe they’re being invaded, they have the authority to engage in war. Yes, There is such thing as non kinetic wars. Because that’s correct. Nobody. But I don’t think cyber security and cyber war was in on the minds of the founding fathers at the time. We are in. We are engaged in a non kinetic information war right now.
Oh, absolutely. We’re in World War Four right now. In my opinion. World War III was the Cold War. So. So we have a known enemy that is invading our country and the States are told that they can’t do anything about it. Now, the. The example I like to use, getting back to, you know, can the states do something about this? Because, remember, immigration is a federal issue. They’re the ones that are supposed to be protecting the border. They’re the ones who are supposed to be apprehending these people and deporting them after they determine that they have broken the law and they’re convicted or whatever they want to do to go through that process.
That’s the federal government’s job. But does that mean that the states have no authority whatsoever? So let me ask you this. If on a school ground, the principal’s job is to make sure that the school grounds are secure, and if somebody breaks into the school grounds, they are to be apprehended and removed from the campus by the principal, does that mean that this. That the teachers cannot lock their doors? Nope. Of course they can lock their doors. And if one of those invaders on the school campus gets into one on one of their classrooms, of course they can detain that person, communicate with the principal’s office, coordinate with the principal’s office, and get that sucker out of their classroom and off the campus.
That’s the way it’s supposed to operate. That’s the reason why the sanctuary laws are designed the way they are. The sanctuary laws are designed to disallow local law enforcement from communicating and cooperating with federal authorities because they know if there’s no communication, then because the authority belongs to the federal government. That’s like saying, hey, teacher, you’re not allowed to lock your door, and you can’t call the principal’s office. Well, that’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous. The states have every authority to stand firm and protect themselves if they need to lock the door. In other words, put up razor wire along the border or something like that.
They can do that if they need to put troops on the border. If they need to engage in war because they’re being evaded, they can do that constitutionally. All right. By the way, Warhammer, good to have you here. It is good to see you, Warhammester, even though you’re a little late. But we’ll. We’ll. We’ll punish you later for your. Your target. He’s always late or unavailable, at least for me. Well, I thought that was the Padres. Never mind. No, never mind. All right. Maybe that was a little over the line. Well, maybe not. Well, I’m sorry that the.
I mean, the. The pot. The Padres did everything they could to win for Seidler when he was still alive, but now they’re in deep financial problems. Yeah, well, I, I guarantee you after this last World Series, you share the same hate for the Yankees I do. I’m an Angels fan, by the way. Angels and Yankees don’t get along very well either. But anyway. All right, so I was busy arguing this topic on Twitter. You should have been here to make sure you loaded your gun before you went to Twitter. Your, Your political gun with, with, you know, educational ammo.
So I’m arming you guys. I’m making you dangerous individuals by arming you with all of this ammunition. All right, so any questions? Comments? Because we actually finished Article 1, Section 10, quicker than I thought we would, and here we are. We got about 18 minutes left. We don’t have to go the full 18, but, but if you have any questions or if you want to discuss what we just talked about, if you want to go back to the first paragraph, I want to stay away from Article 2 just yet because it’s for January 6th when we come back after, you know, our Christmas episode and our New Year’s episode.
I have, by the way, warhammester. Let me say this real quick because I need to plug. Especially since more hamster showed up and, you know, it would look good in his eyes if I did. So. That’s not the reason, though. It’s good for me, too. I not only come here to do videos, I also perform videos with warhamster, rumble.com warhamster, the refedralist report videos. Almost always. I’m with him on those videos. I think it was one or two you did without me. But, but there are some ambiguity over the popular vote pack. No, there isn’t. There’s no, there’s no ambiguity because they have a website.
They call it a pact. They call it a compact. Should I say? And, And Congress never approved of it. It is. And, And. Yeah. All right. So. All right. Anything you want to add there? No, I’m, I’m kind of a. I’m, I’m. I’m a little. I’m a man of little word. A few words today. I have actually, I, I, I have a. I kind of have a toothache coming on, so it hurts to talk a little bit. So I’m just trying to keep it on the DL, a toothache coming on. You know, in. I’ve heard stories that the number one cause of suicide in Africa is toothaches.
Really? I didn’t know that. Yeah, right. When I came across, I was like, huh. Well, you know, they don’t have the same dental care, the same medical opportunities. And man, if you’ve had a really bad toothache, you just want to die. So it kind of makes sense. All right, so, okay, here’s a question, a couple questions. Tackleberry, who determined that out of state gun purchases are legal and states collectively? That. That was that. States collectively or the federal government? I believe that it’s. Some of the states do that on their own. Federal government. They ultimately did it using commerce clauses.
We, we have a, We. We have a participant or Warhamster. Okay. Hey, buddy, let me, let me finish answering Checkerberry’s question here. And, and, and get into a couple of these other questions real quick, and then we’ll get there. So full faith and credit means that first of all, the states are supposed to work together when it comes to these laws. So if, if a permit, for example, to carry a gun, I know we have a constitutional carrying house going on, but you have a gun permit that’s, that is issued in one state, is supposed to be recognized in all states.
For example, Article 4. This idea that states can’t cross state lines is ridiculous because the commerce clause does not say if it crosses state lines. Federal government has authority. If you, if you read the original argument, if you read the definitions of the word regulate, and you get into the debates during the Constitutional Convention, what they meant by commerce clause was let things cross state lines all they want. It doesn’t become a federal issue until there’s a dispute. Then federal government will come in. First Congress, then the courts, if necessary, to mediate that dispute. And Congress used to read petitions and mediate disputes.
And if you read back then, Congress was the next level up from the Supreme Court. You could actually appeal to Congress from the Supreme Court back then. Just saying. So they’re ridiculous laws, like I said, some of the states and then federal government, and it’s a misuse of the commerce clause. Doug, in your part one book, page 23, you touch on common law. Can you elaborate on that? There’s two common laws. There is common law. That is understood by everybody. Then there’s British common law. The idea of the Constitution was to get away from British common law.
British common law changes with the whims of society and with rulings by the courts. You know, living and breathing like they’re trying to do the Constitution. We were trying to get away from that. That’s why we wrote a contract. But then there’s common law, which is mentioned in article in the seventh Amendment, which is the Common law that everybody understands. And it’s local understanding, local law. And, and that is still intact or supposed to be. Doug, is it legal for states to deny other states to ship produce or certain foods into their state? Oh, oh, warhammers.
You want to answer that? That’s a topic that came up in the last day or two with me. Okay. And they’re talking about, can the federal government actually. Does the federal government actually have the right to outlaw, see, drugs from outside of the country? And the argument that came up against that is, well, no, the federal government does not have that ability. Well, this question, though, is the state, for example. Well, no, no, no, let me finish the thought because it’s going to, it’s going to just give you this. It’s going to tie into this. Okay? Because the 18th Amendment proves this.
For them to be able to outlaw the sale of alcohol and the trafficking of alcohol, they had to create an amendment because they knew that the federal government did not have that power. They knew that that power relied to the states. It was a state power. It was not a federal power. Now they’ve since in the 20th century because they don’t, they don’t pay attention to the Constitution anymore. Federal government decided they can address, you know, that kind of trade, but they knew even in the progressive era that it required an amendment. Now I’ll pass it back to you.
Well, and what this is referring to, I believe is Texas has sued, I think it’s New York, because abortion pills are being ordered by persons in Texas where the abortion pill is illegal and they’re being shipped into Texas. Texas saying, hey, it’s illegal in our state. You can’t ship them in the state. And the, and the manufacturer is saying, no, we have every right to send our product anywhere in the country because of full faith and credit, Article 4. Now, from a constitutional standpoint, that’s a tough one because a state does have the authority to determine what goes on inside their state.
But at the same time, when it comes to full faith and credit, what’s good in one state, you know, it’s supposed to, you know, go across. And I’m not sure how to answer it, but I do know this. I hope that the abortion pill producer wins the case. Why? Because that means if they win the case, that a state cannot stop a product from being shipped into the state, even though they don’t want it to be. And then I’ll say, okay, so why doesn’t it apply to ammo? I get that. From a constitutional standpoint, I actually think I want them to lose that case because I think a state should have.
In fact, I know the state has absolute authority to control what comes in and out in terms of banned substances. 10th amendment makes it crystal clear. Well, yes and no, because they’re. They’re not supposed to have any regulations regarding import and export between states. Doesn’t matter. They can also determine what can be bought and sold in their state. They can. Each state can. But what crosses state lines, Especially with alcohol. Especially with alcohol. Well, yeah, that goes back to the 18th amendment. Wrong. Be the arbiter here because this is an interesting conversation. It’s an interesting question.
Who asked that? I. Melvin. Yeah. Okay, so ask the question again so that I make sure that I’m answering that. I get the. Is it legal for states to deny other states from shipping produce or certain foods into their state? Now, I took it as relating to the abortion pill, but he’s talking food in or produce or whatever. Do you, do you guys remember in California back in the 80s when they were trying to combat the food, the fruit flies? Because it was, it was, it was, it was negatively impacting the, the, the agriculture right here.
That’s. And that’s why we have these ag. If, if you drive into California, there are agricultural checkpoints at every place where you try to come into this to, to this state. And those are both checkpoints. And from. You couldn’t even get from San Diego to Orange county without a checkpoint. Well, that’s a different checkpoint. That’s a different checkpoint. Those are, those are border patrol checkpoints. Ron. They were back when I was doing that drive all the time in college. They were checking for. The first question they asked was about the agriculture. They were checking. Well, the Article 110 here is.
Basically says that a state can inspect what comes into its state. So I would say yes, a state can limit what comes into the state from a constitutional standpoint, just based on what we’ve already talked about. Well, does that include people? No, because citizens. Well, if you’re talking about citizens, non citizens, because citizens can travel between the United States. But if you’re talking non citizens, that goes back to my, you know, Yes, a, a, the classroom can lock their door kind of thing. Shouldn’t that carry. Absolutely. A state can protect themselves when it comes to people coming to the state.
So that should carry over to what Ron’s talking about. I’m. Okay. So as long as it doesn’t violate the state constitution, then I, then I don’t, you know, because the state has the ability to make Its own laws. Right. And if the state looks. So, I mean, let’s just use marijuana, for example. Okay, well, California has marijuana here, but maybe. And I don’t know the laws in Nevada. So if I’m getting it wrong, I’m just using. I’m using a hypothetical example. If, let’s say Nevada doesn’t allow marijuana in their state. Okay, well, can you take marijuana into.
Into Nevada? No, not. Not if their law does prevention. So, so my. So, so the answer to your question, Doug, in, you know, specifically about the abortion pill, I believe the state should have the right to refuse entry of that. Now, constitutionally, I agree, but if the courts wind up ruling the other way, I want to use it against them. Well, then they’ll. Then they’ll change the ruling. Well, I’ll bring up a real. Ron, let me bring up a real world scenario because, you know, one of our. We’re involved in a business that ships durable medical equipment in 41 out of 50 states.
Nine of the states we don’t have a license with, and we cannot ship there. We can’t solicit business. We cannot. And that’s their prerogative, 100%. Now, it doesn’t matter. These are good, you know, medical equipment. Nothing nefarious about it. But the same should apply, whether it be to ammo, illicit drugs, or to baseball cards. It doesn’t matter. Every state, every sovereign state has the ability to determine what they’re allowed to ship in or not. I think that should be absolute. And again, as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution. Now, I think they’re, you know, there are.
There are laws that are on. Sorry. There are laws that are on the books that I think lawyers dig into a little bit too deeply and read too deeply into it to try to cultivate a political outcome for their, you know, take the ammo exam. Take the ammunition. Well, I mean, is. Is. I mean, is it illegal for you to. Well, the thing about ammo is it’s not illegal to buy ammo in California. So. But what you. It’s actually not illegal to cross state lines with it. It’s illegal for a Californian across state lines with it into the state.
No. It’s illegal to bring it into the state. No. If you’re not a Californian, you are not a resident of California. You can bring it in the state, however, you can’t give it to anybody else. You know, you cannot transfer it to another person you have. It stays with you, and it leaves with you if you don’t use it. Okay, I didn’t know that. Yeah. Oh, shoot. Melvin just asked the big question. Well, hang on, because before we get that far down, there’s a few others I want to go over. Real special ed, real estimate, how many politicians should be in jail for not following the Constitution? Well, I, I don’t know if they should be in jail, but I would say more than 85 of them have violate the Constitution regularly.
And I would say almost all of them have at least once, if not all of them. And then. So did a little Tackleberry or. Let’s see. Going down. All right, so now we get down to Melvin’s big question. He’s asking the Marbury vs Madison question, and there’s no way we’re going to do that tonight. But where in the Constitution does it say courts and judges decide the meaning of laws and. Or wording the Constitution? Curious. Might have missed that part. Okay, so actually, no, this is very good. And I can resolve this in a couple minutes.
It says it nowhere. The courts are not given the authority to be the arbiters of the Constitution. And if you think about it, it is complete violation of the enumeration doctrine in many ways. Because, and, and think about this. I, I was on a show with him, with someone who was defending the idea of judicial review. That’s what you’re talking about. And the person’s defending it. And I said, okay, well, do you agree that the government’s supposed to be a limited government? They said, yeah. I said, okay, but you have the federal courts, which is a part of the federal government, through their rulings, deciding what the authorities of the federal government are.
How is that limited government? And it, and of course it. There’s, you know, a disconnect there. And so, no, it is not constitutional. The federal courts don’t have that authority. Leftists will argue, well, Marbury versus Madison, that goes back to 1803. And so for those of you now looking for the real answer to when really want to dig into it, I’ve written about it like three or four of my books. 25. Misconstitution, basic constitution. Well, Doug, the three of us have been talking about this for pretty much since we’ve known each other. Yeah, this is like one of the, this is like one of the original sins of how the Constitution was not followed.
It’s really one of the top two or three crimes against Constitution. Oh, yeah, you get rid of. You get rid of judicial review, and, And a lot of the problems go away. And you know, the best part about it is, well, the follow up question is, well, if the, if the Supreme Court’s not supposed to determine what’s constitutional, who is the people in the states. Thank you. Well, that actually the, in the, in the Constitution originally, who, who was supposed to ascertain the legitimacy of or the, the constitutionality of the bills? It was a president. It was the president.
The president. Constitutional veto it. Yeah, but if it becomes law, then it becomes up to the states and the people to find it and get, and get rid of the people who did it. So they put the right people in to get rid of it because it has to be done legislatively. In fact, in fact, in fact, John Taylor, when he was, when they tried to impeach him, one of the arguments was he kept vetoing bills for reasons other than constitutionality. It was because of his political beliefs and that was unconstitutional. That was the very, very, very first attempts to impeach was against John Tyler and, and that was their argument.
He was imp, he, he was vetoing bills for reasons other than constitutionality. There’s nothing. Well, I, I, the, the point that I was trying to make is that the, the president is not supposed to use his, his belief system when he, he’s not a lot. He’s not supposed to allow his beliefs or to be involved in the legislative process, at least, at least according to how. Yeah, his vetoes were supposed to be on constitutional grounds. I love you, brother. This is the best comment today, Douglas. Looks like have to order a lot of your books as presents for myself.
Better get better educated. I agree. I will, I will say this Approaching Christmas, somebody, one person bought 12 copies of 25 Myths. I got the report. I’m like, all right, that’s someone who’s doing some Christmas shopping. Which 25 missed. For those who don’t know, that’s my first book. Douglasvgips.com by the way, for me, radio shows. If you want to catch my show down in San Diego county on KCBQ and kprz, all you gotta do is go to your favorite podcast platform. Enter Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas V. Gibbs. The latest episode was Trump and God’s Plan.
I actually get into the biblical part of what I think’s going on too. And so for those of you who that’s interesting to you, you might want to check it out. Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas D. Gibbs and Man Warhamster. Good to see you here. Hey, glad I could. Glad I got home. Scott stopped by. Sorry I got here late, but. And thank you, Ron for having me on. Kind of feels like Old times. Yeah, indeed. The three amigos ready to cause trouble. Hey, there’s a. There’s a. There’s a. There’s a question in there from DJ Mel at the very end.
You’re going to have to ask him to ask it again next week because it’ll take Doug and ron at least 10 minutes to address it. Are you talking about that last one by DJ ML? Yeah. No state can pass any law. Yeah, I. I just read that. I’m like, wow, that. Yeah, that. That’ll take an hour to talk about. Well, that’s a whole. That’s a whole show. And it’s a great question. It is, it is. And. And it brings. I will say this. It brings into the discussion something called the incorporation doctrine. Oh, gee. My favorite topic.
So, anyway. All right. Glad you guys were here. United we stand combined with kick butt. God bless America, my friends. God bless you. It’s such a pleasure being. Being here talking to all you guys in the chat room. Thank you, Warhamster, for showing up. Ron, thank you for hosting this program. I know we’ve got some new viewers because just last night I was at a meeting and a couple of people were not familiar with this, and I. They got added to my email list and. And said that they were gonna. They were gonna view it. You sign in to rumble, you could participate in the chat room every time.
Next episode be Christmas. Episode one. After that will be for New Year’s. And then article two, our next. Yeah, we will not be live on this, on this channel, talking about the constitution again until January 6th. Right. Which I think is appropriate. Yeah. So. And from. From that sense, I guess I’ll see you next year. Yeah, absolutely. All right, everybody, thanks for spending the time with us. All right, everybody, have a good night. I’ll see you with Tuesdays with Mike is in about a half an hour. And we are going to be going over the deplorable presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
So that I’m looking forward to. So anyhow. And you can only do an hour on that. Oh, God. I know, right? I know. It’s. It’s. Well, it’s kind of a crash course type thing, but. Yeah, I mean, I. I could probably spend a month on that. Yeah, I’ll be reading. I’ll be reading a Woodrow Wilson quote on the show that Colonel Town and I are doing on Thursday on Secret Societies. So that’s a little teaser on that one. Yeah, that guy was just. That guy’s just an absolute piece of crap. And. And this. That whole notion of, oh, I’ve.
I’ve. I’m. I’m a most unhappy man. Cry me a freaking river. That’s the quote. Yeah. Cry me a freaking river. And yesterday I wrote an article about birthright citizenship. So douglasv. Gibbs.com or if you want to go directly to the blog, political pistachio.com awesome. Well, thanks, guys. And I look forward to seeing you here in about a half hour when I’m with Mike and the rest of you gentlemen. I will see you when I see you. All right, Ciao. All right.
[tr:tra].
Author
