Learning The Constitution | Article 5: The Process For Amending The Constitution

Ron Partain, the host of the Untold History Channel, discusses the Constitution on his show. He mentions his upcoming travel plans, including a visit to Canton, Ohio. The main topic of the show is Article 5 of the Constitution, which deals with the amendment process. Ron explains that any changes to the Constitution require the approval of three quarters of the states.
The speaker is a fan of the Razorbacks, a sports team from Arkansas, due to family ties and friendships. He discusses the team’s recent success under a new coach. The conversation then shifts to a complex discussion about the U.S. Constitution, the roles of different branches of government, and differing interpretations of the Constitution. The speaker believes that the final say should rest with the states and the people, not the courts.
The text discusses the roles of the president and the courts in the U.S. government. It argues that the president acts within the law, and the courts can’t enforce anything or tell the president what to do. The text also discusses the concept of ‘general welfare’ and how it has been misinterpreted over time. It concludes by stating that executive orders are instructions from the president to his staff on how to execute laws, and they are not unconstitutional.
The text discusses the enforcement of existing laws, the separation of powers, and the constitutionality of certain actions by government officials. It also touches on the roles of different branches of government, the interpretation of laws by regulatory agencies, and the potential for collusion among these branches. The text further explores the idea of citizens’ duty to oppose tyrannical governments, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and the potential unconstitutionality of certain government departments.
The text discusses the limitations of presidential power, the process of impeachment, and the role of Congress in spending and law-making. It also criticizes the current education system, particularly the involvement of the federal government in student loans and funding for universities. The speaker advocates for homeschooling, arguing that it often results in better educational outcomes than public schooling. Lastly, the text emphasizes the importance of understanding geography and history in education.
The text discusses the differences between public and homeschooling, the cost of education, and the role of Congress in passing voting laws. It also touches on the constitutionality of certain laws, the process of vote counting, and the influence of universities on political ideologies. The text concludes with a brief explanation of the political spectrum, emphasizing that there is no ‘right’ in the traditional sense, but rather a scale from anarchy to total government control.
This text discusses the different forms of government, including monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, republic, and anarchy. It explains that the U.S. is a republic, where the government is limited by law, not a democracy where the majority rules without restraint. The text also highlights that anarchy, a state without government, is not a stable form of government but a transition to a power-hungry oligarchy. Lastly, it emphasizes that the word ‘democracy’ does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of the 50 state constitutions, as the founders intended to avoid a democracy due to its potential for mob rule and eventual tyranny.
The text discusses the rise and fall of Rome, highlighting how it transitioned from a republic to a democracy, and eventually to an oligarchy. It emphasizes the importance of limiting government power to preserve freedom and warns against the dangers of politicians exceeding their granted powers. The text also mentions the potential of an Article 5 convention, a tool to amend the U.S. Constitution, but stresses the need for it to be used responsibly. The author concludes by predicting a shift in the U.S. political landscape, with the potential death of the Democratic Party and the rise of the Libertarian Party.

Well, we are live, brother. Welcome to the Untold History Channel. My name is Ron Partain. Tuesdays. It is Tuesday 25th March, which means it is time for the Constitution class as always on Tuesday. And we have with us Mr. Constitution himself. Heavy on the Mr. With the. Trying to grow the Paul Bunyan beard or something. I don’t know, I’m always trimming it. I don’t like it long. That’s, that’s about where I keep it. Gotcha. I, yeah, I keep my mind very, very, very short. I like the, I like the kind of the high and tight look if you will.

Even if it’s here, I buzz it all the time. So. So anyway, you got the side of the head looking like a marine, but that’s okay, that’s, that’s the point. I like it that way. I, it’s not a Marine taper, taper. But I was Navy, Navy, Navy. I, I like it. I, I like it short. So easy to take care of now, now that said real quick before we get going here, so Melvin is in the chat room so I can tell Melvin and I still need to let special Ed know and anybody else in Ohio the date we’re supposed to arrive.

We’re gonna arrive in the evening on May 21st, be there all day on the 22nd, May 22nd, then depart on May 23rd. And well, we do an event, we just have lunch, whatever, you know, two of you, one of you, 14 of you, I don’t care. But we will be in Canton, Ohio on the 22nd, arrive on the 21st. We’ll be coming in from West Virginia and so it’s only like a three hour drive. So I mean I can, if I need to come in for dinner if that’s what you guys want on the 21st, that’ll work.

Alrighty. So for those of you who don’t know, I’m getting ready to tail end of April basically for a month I’m going to be on the road. So it’s Independence hall at Buena park and then Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio and the Minnesota. And about half of those places we have events planned and the other half. Will we be doing constitution classes? I don’t know. Then that’s a good question. Why don’t we, let’s, let’s talk about that offline. But I suggest that what we do is we record them in advance, so.

Might be a good idea. Yeah, just as a fail safe. But anyhow, I’m actually getting ready to make a trip down to Southern California, leaving on Thursday. My wife’s father passed away. So the funeral down there. Yeah. So this. So this weekend on kmet, Alan and Dennis will be carrying the program. I won’t be there because I’ll be at my wife’s father’s funeral. He was definitely. He. He was, uh, definitely important to me in my life. I. And for those who’ve gone through my classes, you’ve heard me mention him. He did it the right way when it comes to immigration and, you know, was a hero in many ways to me.

Anyway. All right, as I eat, take the, like, last bite of my lunch here. I’m cutting everything close today. I sat down at 27 after. So am I. Actually. So am I. Let’s see. All right. And we are at a part of the Constitution that tends to be a deep conversation. We get a lot of. They changed the website. It’s no longer the way it was. They changed it up. Oh, to bring up your. Yeah, it’s not fine. I mean, it’s. It’s okay. I don’t. Hey, websites change. It is what it is. But I’m just saying they changed the website.

It used to be like, you go to the Constitution, and now you click on the Constitution and then it takes you down. So read the full text. I guess they didn’t. I can read the full text. So. But anyway, I must have clicked on something that I didn’t realize I was clicking on. Ah, they didn’t change the website. You changed your path to where you were going. Correct. Happens sometimes to the best of us. Yes, Indeed. I invited Mr. Hamster, but I don’t know if he’s going to show or not. Hello, real special Ed. I was just talking to Melvin.

So the date I’ll be in Canton, Ohio, is the 22nd. We’re arriving on the 21st. In the evening, maybe we get together for dinner or the next day. We’ll. We’ll talk about it later. All right. People are slowly getting in. Into the show, and it’s good to see you guys. So Article 5, as I was saying a second ago, is a critical part of the Constitution. It was also, for some people, a controversial article. For others, one that’s not. Yeah, 22nd of May. Correct. Real special. One that is misunderstood maybe one that has created a lot of debate.

And it’s about the amendment process. The amendment process is the ability to change the Constitution. If there’s an amendment, it is a part of the Constitution. No different than those first seven articles. If it changes something, then what came before in the Constitution becomes obsolete and the new amendment takes precedent. It is, or should I say it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s the more recent and, and now you can repeal. That’s what happened with the 21st Amendment, the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. Typically, for change of any type of powers in the Constitution, it’s not supposed to be done by legislation.

It’s supposed to be done by amendment. Without reading it, I’m going to get real, go over it kind of a little bit because I want to give you a little history and then we’ll read it and go over it word by word, word for word, letter by letter, line by line. So remember, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were there to represent the states. The states, be it the people, the legislature or a combination of both, had voted to send these people to this convention. All states sent people. But the Rhode island people never arrived. They were called back.

Rhode island was afraid of this new constitution. So you’ll notice when you read all the signatures, 12 states or listed. Rhode island is not. And these delegates discussed it, they had committees, they wrote it, they voted on it. And, and every, and every state had one vote no matter how many delegates they had there. Except for New York and Rhode Island, Rhode island didn’t have anybody there in New York had only Alexander Hamilton. Two other gentlemen had Robert Yates and John Hansen. No, not Hanson, I can’t remember the last name. But anyway had the. Originally there were three from New York.

But, but the, but after about six weeks when they realized it wasn’t. They weren’t there to fix the Articles Confederation, they were actually going to write a new Constitution. Those two other non Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton people from New York threw their hands up, walked out, never came back. So, so you have to understand that there was also a lot of delegates that came and went. There were some that were there. Most of them were there the entire time by the end of the convention. Those that were there on the final day, three of them refused to sign it.

And, and one of them, George Mason explained the reason why is A it didn’t have a Bill of Rights and B it didn’t outlaw slavery. That was his reasons. The, the other uh, the other two is the Iran. Oh man, let’s see. Randolph and I can’t remember the name of the, the third one. It’s on tip my tongue. But anyway, I’ve got so many things going on, my brain is in so many different directions. I might remember the names right now. But anyway, and but those who did sign it, then after they signed it and they approved it, then it got sent out to the states like an amendment.

It needed to be approved by the states by ratification. Because this constitution was not the creation of some national government that they just decided to create themselves and they were just going to run it. And, you know, the states be damned. This was something for the union, for the states, and if it had too much power, the states would have never ratified it. The amendment process follows that same. That same idea. So. And. And it’s also, once again, if you’re going to write the Constitution but need the state’s approval, then if you’re going to change the Constitution, you need the state’s approval.

So in the end, all amendments, no matter how they’re proposed, and we’ll get to that in a moment, they must be ratified by three quarters of states. Typically, the states would decide how to ratify. Either they could hold a convention, which would be delegates chosen by the people, districts, and sometimes by members of the legislature, depending on how they decide to do it. You know what? After. After the Razorbacks getting a sweet 16, I should be wearing Mark and saw Razorbacks at. Well, my hair’s all jacked up and I didn’t realize that. I’m like, okay, I gotta put my dodger hat on.

Yeah. And I just went to town and I got my creator. Why are you a Razorbacks fan? I’m so Razorbacks fan, yeah. Why? My whole family’s from Arkansas, going back and forth to Arkansas. One of my to live there, you know, if it wasn’t for the bugs and humidity. One of my good friends actually graduated from there. So he is a Razorback. My parents live like real close to the stadium there. They’re in Bella Vista, just 20 minutes north of Bentonville, which is near Fayetteville. He was telling me that I have a wonderful wife. He was.

He was telling me, I guess, that they have a. They got Calipari. Yeah, yeah, Calipari, which is a Hall of Fame coach. And he actually, he. They didn’t get him. He came to them. He quit Kentucky to coach for Arkansas. Muscleman, who had been the coach before, went to usc, took all the players with him. There was two players that remain with the team. So it was funny. When Calipari first came to Arkansas, he does his first press conference. He says, yeah, I met the team, all two of them. But then he recruited this team. And a credit to him, they’re on the sweet 16.

And these are guys that hadn’t Played together before. Yeah, And Brazil, which is what probably my favorite player on Arkansas is one of the former Arkansas guys. You know, he stayed with the team. I’m wondering how many of those guys that took off now. Because, you know, USC didn’t go to the make the dance. But anyway, so now I got my, my, my Arkansas Razorbacks hat. I don’t have my hog hat. Hog hat is actually a hog. And, but anyway, all right, get back to all of what we’re talking about. So the year 1808. Bamlo is asking about 1808.

Clarify what your question is and we will. Maybe asking about the slavery thing. Yeah, well, it’s definitely about the Atlantic slave trade, probably. But there’s the other. That was 1899. But I want a specific question. If there’s gonna be a question, I need to see a question. All right, so anyway, so like with the approval of the original Constitution, any changes need state approval because this, the states are the oversight, they are the final arbiters. Now here’s why I discussed this. We have been told our entire lives, the last 200 plus years, but especially the last 100 years of the courts are the final arbiters.

The courts have all this power. The buck stops with the courts and that they can even micromanage the President. They’re so high and mighty. No, the final say is the states and the people, we of the United States. By the way, I actually, in reference to that, I’m going to ask a question that was asked of me yesterday. Okay. Okay. So it says the Democrats say that Trump is acting against the Constitution. The magazine Porters say the Dems act against Constitution. My gut tells me the Dems interpret the Constitution to support their bullshit. That’s likely because I have developed such a disdain to everything and anything they stand for.

I was listening to Mark Levin and he makes sense when he explains that what Trump is doing, why and how it aligns with the Constitution. But these liberals say the opposite. They go back to saying it’s explained through interpretation of what the Founding Fathers meant versus what the facts are, slash were. It gives me a huge headache because I’m not educated in the Constitution. I admit I’m a bit naive on it, but it feels, if it feels wrong, it is wrong. Meaning on the side of liberal interpretation. Am I making sense? And I, so I don’t know.

I, I called her and I, and I said yes as well. I said the, I said a lot of times what happens is that the, the left or the right, both are guilty of this. Where if they, if there’s. Realize there is no right. I. You know what I mean? But you know what I’m saying. The, the, you know, the conservatives or, or the Democrats. How’s that? Republicans. The Democrats. Well, yeah, Republicans aren’t necessarily usually conservative. Although of late you have been. You’re gonna shoot me? Okay, there’s two frickin sides, you know, so, so humor, humor me here.

That’s his way of saying I’m a dick. All right, go ahead. So he just pissed on wearing the dodger hat and so. But whatever. The hogs are in the sweet 16. Hey, it’s all good. But anyway, the point, the point of the matter was is that I said the, the whatever happens, whatever legislation gets passed, then they automatically will default to oh well that’s unconstitutional. And then they take it to the courts and then they’ll find some activist judge who will then say oh, that’s unconstitutional. And then it’ll get shot down. And you know, a lot of people want to blame the amnesty program, Reagan’s amnesty in 86 for the destruction of California.

And I disagree. I think that I certainly. It wasn’t his amnesty program. Those Democrats. And he gave in. But I get what you’re saying, but, but while that played a significant role, I think the true death knell for California was the overturning of Prop 187 in 94. I think the true death knell was when they started figuring out how to cheat. Well, yes, but 187, 187 was the save Our State program, which was like you couldn’t, you had it basically. No, what it did is it implemented state citizenship and you had to prove state citizenship in order to get any benefits.

And that passed overwhelmingly by the, by, you know, by the people in California. But the, but the, the, the left automatically took it too. And they said oh no, we’re gonna, we’re gonna fight this. And, and they did. And then ultimately I think it was Gray Davis who said, okay, well he, he stopped fighting it in a. Like that. Well, that passed in 94. That resolution passed on the ballot in that 187 got rid of affirmative action. 187 did a lot of things, but it basically, it essentially it made it so that you couldn’t get state benefits unless you were actually an American citizen specifically, you know, a resident of California type thing.

Okay, so. But, and I mean it was the, you know, the Hispanic community out here was just absolutely in heaven and you know, apoplectic. And of course the, the left Fought it hard. All right, well spend about five or ten minutes answering that question about the judges and all that. Yeah. And Mark Levin for the most part, has been nailing it when I’ve heard him talk about this. So the Constitution first of all has separation of power. So each branch does its own thing. The final arbiters are not the, the judges, like I said earlier, it’s the people, we, the people and the states.

States are supposed to have oversight over the federal government. A lot of that’s been removed. Almost all of it’s been removed. One of those ways of having oversight was the fact that the states appointed the U.S. senators. One of the ways that they had oversight was my mind just went blank. But, but the big one is the senators. But anyway, and so the states have been. And, and ever since the war between the states, the states have been treated as if. Well, they all misbehave. So the federal government’s got to keep them in line. And we’ve been taught that our entire life.

And so we don’t trust the states, we trust the federal government. And if the federal government doesn’t do something, it won’t happen, it won’t get done. And the final numbers of the judges, which comes from judicial review, which goes all the way back to 1803, Marbury versus Madison. Now, when you I talk about separation of powers, what powers? Legislative branch, Congress. Legislative powers. Their job is to create law, modify law, or repeal law. Once that law is in place, then the President comes into play. His job is to execute those laws. The executive branch is his hired help so that he may execute those laws.

So to blow in the face of some of these judges, the bureaucracy does not operate, supposed to operate independently from the President. This idea of independent agencies and independent departments is ridiculous. They all fall under the purview of the executive power under the President of the United States. So it is his job. Some presidents do it right, some do it wrong, some act constitutionally, some act unconstitutionally. Well, Doug, how do we stop them? That’s where the judges come in. No, if you get the judges micromanaging the other branches, why do you have the other branches? If the other branch is operating in a manner that’s outside the Constitution, then either Congress, in the case of the President, would need to impeach them, or we just make sure that they don’t stay in office because they don’t get reelected or their party doesn’t get reelected.

That’s way it’s supposed to be. The judges are supposed to apply the law. So first of all, until there’s law, the executive branch and the judicial branch have no job. Their whole job depends on law. The law must exist in order for it to be executed or applied. If it doesn’t exist, there’s nothing for them to do. So if a president tries to execute something that’s not law, then he’s acting unconstitutionally. If the judicial branch tries to interpret in such a way that it’s not law and create law on their own, they’re acting unconstitutionally. Now, when it comes to President Trump, every single thing that they’ve gone after him on, there is a law supporting it, every one of them.

Therefore, he is acting constitutionally. The courts have no business, first of all, micromanaging him. And number two, they don’t have an enforcement arm. They cannot tell him, you cannot do that. I don’t care if he’s doing it right, wrong, or in between. I don’t care if he’s the most unconstitutional, you know, crazy socialist son of a gun you’ve ever seen. The courts don’t have the authority to enforce and say, oh, you can’t do that. If he can’t do that, we need to be on the ball and the states need to be on the ball and the Congress needs to be on a ball.

None of the court’s business. Now, as for defying the courts, they say, well, he’s defined the rule of law. No, the rule of law is not what the courts say. The rule of law is natural law, the laws of nature and of nature’s God, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, what we know to be right. That’s the rule of law. That’s interesting. It’s interesting that you say that because that’s exactly what all their arguments. What I, well, that’s exactly what I kind of reverted to. I talked about the, the, the two, are, the, the two things that I brought up was the, you know, the Declaration of Independence was like, you know, hey, you have the right to, you know, to throw off the government if it’s, if it becomes tyrannical, because you have the, you have the right to.

Now let me see here. What did I, what did I say? Keyboard declaration. All right, well, okay, here it is. There it is. We, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So unalienable rights that are among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, those are. When I I said those are unalienable, meaning that they cannot be taken away by man. They are, those are God. God granted, man cannot take them away.

And, and then I used the, like the welfare clause. And I said that, I said the welfare clause is one of the most misinterpreted things out there. What they do is they say in general welfare, if you go back and you look at 1828 when, you know, that was. The general welfare was how everything functioned, you know, correctly. Whereas, you know, and everybody, everything was in a state of, you know, goodness. It’s not regulated, but it was, everything was functioning, you know, properly. Well, you know that what they, what they have done is they’ve taken their welfare clause and made it into a basically a, you know, a government handout thing.

Like now it’s. Welfare is government, is government handouts. And that is completely not what was meant within the Constitution or the constitutional principles. Well, general welfare is a condition that’s met. In other words, if the federal government is doing its job, there will be general welfare throughout the country. That’s the reason why it’s in there. If you read the clause, you’ll, you’ll. And with that mindset, you’ll understand it. So, and I’m going to finish my thought and then there’s three comments in the chat room that one also go with so, so what we have here is judges trying to dictate and agencies and departments trying to dictate to the president.

He’s in charge of the executive branch, and the court’s job is to apply the law, maybe have a judicial opinion, but they cannot enforce anything. How do I know they cannot enforce anything? Well, well, there’s actually precedent. And because the Constitution doesn’t say they can enforce anything, they don’t have an enforcement arm. The enforcement arm of the government is the executive branch, just like in a county government. The enforcement arm is the executive, which is the sheriff at the state. The enforcement arm is the state police, which falls under the governor. The enforcement arm is the executive.

Courts don’t have an enforcement arm. So you’re telling the enforcement arm that he has to enforce against himself. Innocence. That’s the stupidest thing ever heard. How do I know that that’s. That, that, that’s a bunch of baloney. Well, Thomas Jefferson, some guy that might understand the Constitution. Third President, United States, when he went into the presidency, he basically was coming in after a bad presidency under John Adams. They were reversing everything they could. He was, he was, you know, he was refusing to spend money that that was being spent. And they’re saying, oh, you have to spend the money, so, no, I don’t.

And then in Mario vs Madison, what that originally was about wasn’t about judicial review. That’s what came out of it was originally about, was about a judge who got confirmed by the Senate and just waiting for his commission so they could take his seat. Never got delivered. So he sued James Madison, the Secretary of State under Jefferson, for not delivering it. And Marbury won. But the courts in, in the opinion. You could find it in opinion says, you know, good luck. Or what? I’m sorry, that was an opinion, was in a discussion in a letter to Marbury.

Good luck if you getting it. But you’re not gonna get it because the enforcement arm is the president. He’s the one said, you’re not getting it. And when the, and when it ruled, when they ruled in the favor of Marbury, did Jefferson go throw his hands up, okay, fine, deliver it, Madison. No. He said, no, I’m not. I’m not delivering it. It’s a little. It’s illegal. It was illegally gained. And that law, by the way, was reversed while the case was still in play. All right, so what are your thoughts on this? So there’s a, there’s, there’s a great precedent of the president saying, you know, pound sand courts, I don’t have to do what you say.

When it came to them trying to tell him he had to spend the money that Adams is spending and the Marbury versus Madison situation. Then later on, when it came to the relocation of tribes from Florida and, and Georgia and eastern Alabama to Oklahoma, and the courts ruled against Andrew Jackson says, you can’t do that. And he said, and I quote, and it was the same, same Chief justice, by the way, John Marshall has made his decision now let’s see him enforce it, and then did it anyway. Why? Because the courts don’t have an enforcement room.

They cannot dictate to the president. Now, real quick, and I know you put something on there, the county should always save at least 2% of their budget for welfare. Now, I want to answer a couple questions. So the same person, Bamlo, earlier said the Department of Homeland Security cannot trump the president. United States, no. The Department of Homeland Security is under the present President Trump is in charge of that department. And the reason for those agencies is to execute the laws. Obviously, he can’t do it himself. So he’s saying, hey, the laws that you were supposed to execute, this is the way you’re supposed to do it.

This is the way it’s done. Here’s your executive order. Is the executive order, is your instructions on how to do it. Those executive orders are his instructions to his branch, his hired help, on how to do their job. That’s what an executive order is supposed to be. Aside for proclamations, and they’re saying, oh, his instructions to his staff is unconstitutional. No, his instructions to his staff is his business. Right. Wrong. Unconstitutional, constitutional, doesn’t matter. That’s between him and his staff. If, if you don’t like it, throw out a judicial opinion, put it in the news, let people be upset about it, they’ll get rid of them in the next election, whatever.

But his instructions to his staff is his business, number one. Number two, since Kennedy, because Kennedy put this in place and it’s been in place ever since, it is required in every executive order. That’s two instructions to the staff, to the departments or agencies on how to execute a law. The law being executed has to be in the executive order. And every one of Trump’s is. And they’re all existing laws. Can he deport those criminal aliens? Yes. Alien enemies act of 1798. Can he say, hey, the birthright citizenship is being defined. Wrong. This is the proper definition.

Here’s how you’re going to carry that out. Yes. There’s no law that says if you’re born on an American soul and nothing else dramatically a citizen. There is no court case that says that even though they argue 1898, wanton Kim Ark says that it doesn’t because it, it was born in America. So. And the parents met full jurisdiction thereof by being permanent residence. By the way, there is a law, but there is a law that says that if you’re born in Mexico and you. But should I say you have foreign allegiances, you’re not a citizen. That’s.

And that’s the Civil Rights act of 1866, which is still in place. And he’s carrying that out. So every single one of these attacks, they’re attacking him for executing laws that exist on the books. So, first of all, they’re unconstitutional attacks because he’s operating constitutionally. Secondly, they’re unconstitutional because they’re none of their. It’s none of their business. They can rule all they want. He’s not some common citizen walking the street. He is the head of the enforcement arm of the United States government. It’s like when Biden was doing stuff unconstitutional, like the loan, student loan thing.

There was no law that supported that. In fact, Congress said, you can’t do that. And then the Court said he can’t do it and he did it anyway. Did they continue after him? No, Everybody just looked the other way. Why? Because there’s a separation of powers. And while he was operating unconstitutionally, there was, there was no way the course could just stop him, so. But what happened in the next election? Because of stuff like that, A big change. Now, that’s question number one in the chat room. Number two, I was just going to say real quick before you.

I was just. I, I really loved what Tom Holman said when they asked them about that law. And he’s like, well, yeah, well, go ahead. We’re. Yeah, well, we’re following the Constitution and that’s older than that. So what? I don’t know. I don’t understand the problem. Yeah, yeah, I love Tom Holman. He just nails it every time or. Sd Gardner, what happens when all three branches are in collusion? This has been the tactic used, infiltration and non invasion. Well, first of all, if we were Republic, all three branches couldn’t be in collusion because of the Senate and the House.

We screwed it all up when it came to the 17th Amendment and Reynolds v. Sims. Now that said, what happens when all three branches are in collusion? The Declaration of Independence tells you it is your right and your duty to throw off such governments. Oh, Doug’s an insurrectionist. No, I’m telling you what the Declaration of Independence says. It is our duty to throw off government. If they’re all in collusion and it’s all tyranny, it is our duty, not just our right, but it says it’s also our duty. Says in the Declaration of Independence. All right, Bamlo.

I always thought flipping the Chevron case. Chevron deference case proved the FBI cannot make laws. What’s the magic wand? All right, so once again, only it says in Article 1, Section 1, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress. It means that Congress is the only ones that can make law. The regulatory agencies are the hired help for the President to execute those laws. What was happening with the Chevron deference? Deference is. And not just the FBI. It was the epa. There’s a whole bunch of them. What they were doing is they’re saying, yeah, okay, but because we’re agencies and we’re going to act independently and we’re gonna, we’re going to interpret that the mean the law actually means this instead of what they said it means.

And we’re allowed to do that. Well, they’re making law by doing that. Right. And so when they Flipped it that basically they can’t do that anymore. If, if there is any question about what was intended with the law, they must go to Congress to ask for the definition. And if Congress has a problem with how it’s being carried out, they can have that agency back up and say, no, you can’t do that. Because remember, while we do have a while President is in charge of the executive branch, Congress is in charge of what was the laws.

And Congress has a check and balance. That’s amazing because they can make laws and they. And with the President’s signature or without. If they can override a veto that stops that stuff. That’s. Oh, so the FBI is going to do this saying that we meant this. All right, we’re going to write a law that says, no, we meant this and it’s going to become the law and it’s going to supersede. That’s what I was looking for earlier. It’s going to supersede what the FBI is doing. All right, next one. General welfare, a long, long time ago was when you were unable to no longer swamp out the bunkhouse or both house and you were put on the county literally flooding the house with water.

I have no idea what that means. But general welfare, the word welfare means a condition that all’s well. General. A general condition that all is well. And if you read. If you want to understand what the general welfare clause means, the best explanation is the veto by James Madison of the bonus bill in 1817. So if you have questions, read that, then we’ll talk. Let’s see. Is there any more? The president has a charge in the. Of the District of Homeland Security. While it’s a department. I guessed right. And the. And the Department of Homeland Security have their hands in every agency in America.

The Homeland Security Department should be done away with. It’s none of the. None of the. None of the departments are supposed to outrank the others. They have their own job. And the Homeland Security was created to. Yeah. Basically like corral the other agencies. No. Get rid of the home. Get rid of Homeland Security. It is an unconstitutional. Well, two thirds of them are unconstitutional. Three quarters of them. But that’s beside the point. My favorite is the education thing. Oh, if there’s no Department of Education, the public schools go away. No, it means that they don’t get federal money and the federal government’s not dictating.

But then the states will do something stupid like Illinois is doing, you know, trying to get rid of homeschooling and, and force homeschool well, then that, then the state, then the people in that state better get control of their state. But I would rather it happen at a state than in the entire country. Okay, so here, here’s a question for you. I, I think we’re operating in a world where the federal constitution is supreme over the state constitutions. And, and it, it is not supposed to be except on the things that are federally. So you got Article 6, Article 6, Federal Supremacy Clause.

The Constitution is supreme law, but if the issue is not given the federal government, it’s not the supreme law. It belongs to states. And state constitution takes precedent or takes super supersedes it depends on what it is, first of all. Second of all, we, we live in a world where we have been taught that we have a national government, not, not, not a federal government. And therefore the states are really nothing more than provinces. The federal government, what it says goes. That’s not, and that’s not so either. Can the, can the president remove the student loan program from the Department of Education and place it into sba? Yes, that’s his departments.

It was unconstitutionally done anyway. He what, what he should have done. But he’s, he’s being smart about this. Just got rid of the student loan program somehow and then transferred it to banks of the banks administer it to get their money back or something. Let the banks buy the loans, in other words. But what he’s doing is he’s working on getting rid of it, but he’s doing it without pulling the rug out. It’s a smart way to do it. It’s just like, just like Social Security give you that as an example. And the, the left every time I talk about Social Security.

Oh, you want to get rid of Social Security? I didn’t say that. It’s unconstitutional. Should have never been put in place. But you don’t yank the rug out from under people after they’ve been spending their lives putting money into it and expecting something from it. Right. So you have to gradually, and it might take a hundred years, but gradually get rid of the program. And, and they keep calling entitlement program. I, I what, what’s her name? Levitt. Caroline Leviticus. Yesterday I heard her calling it the Social Security entitlement program. It’s not an entitlement program. Entitlement program is where the government just gives you money you put money in.

Now granted, that stash of money is gone, but that’s beside the point. Go ahead. Doug has, has told me off camera that his new favorite congresswoman is Jasmine Crockett. Not to be confused with Davy Crockett. As every time Jesse Water says that it cracks me up. Yeah, she’s a real piece of work, isn’t she? Yeah, she. Well, see, Maxine Waters is ready to retire, so she had to be replaced by some other idiot man. All right, can the president. Okay, we already did that. What happens if the SBA is giving loans to 11 year olds? Those loans are null and void.

Trump gonna make martial law to get rid of those 235 scumbit. He can’t. Well, first of all, it’s misspelling a Marshall for martial law. Second, it’s M A R T I A L. Secondly, martial law, that’s not what he’s calling for. He’s calling for using. He’s. He’s calling for impeachment to, to have them removed. First of all, second of all, martial law cannot be just called by the President. We are not every other country in the world. The President doesn’t have the power to just go up. Martial law, that’s it. Everybody goes under my thumb. You require something like martial law would require the National Guard to carry it out.

The carrot. Carrot. National Guard must be called up by Congress, but it can only be deployed by the President. So both House of Congress and the President have to be in complete agreement that martial law should be in place. That said, martial law simply means that there is strict orders, you know, regarding whatever it is, but does not suspend the Constitution just like with COVID Does not suspend the Constitution. And, and you can’t martial law to get rid of the judges. They are scumbag judges, don’t get me wrong. But it has to be done one by one.

It’s like, it’s like checking your. Your voicemail, which my voicemail, they, they just didn’t update on my phone and it screwed my voicemail up and my, my phone says I have none and my mailbox is full. So I have to go in there now listen to each one individually, get rid of an order for it to reset. But it’s sort of like that. You know how you have to go through all your same thing. They got to go through each judge one by one, impeach them. And I don’t think any impeachment is going to happen until after the midterms because we don’t have enough votes in the Senate right.

To remove them. We can impeach them, but you can’t remove them. You don’t have enough votes. Close to time to lock and load, says Melvin. Yeah, some might say that I’M not necessarily saying that, but there have been that. That thought has crossed my mind a handful of times. I will say this. One of the reasons I moved up here was because it’s easier to do that. Mla, you don’t need to close down a country to arrest a couple lawyers. Good comment. Congress is the only one that can make the law, and Congress is the only one that can spend the money.

No, Congress cannot spend the money. The President spends the money. The Congress can appropriate the money on how it’s going to be spent. Correct. President spins it. If, if it’s, if their appropriation is wrong because he’s in the real world application, then he doesn’t have to spit it exactly the way they did. The example I used a few weeks ago was, let’s say, bamlo, you’re, you’re a kid and mom says, here’s 20 bucks, go buy some eggs. And you find the eggs for $9 for the desert. So you buy the dozen. $9, you come back with a change.

She’s not going to say, no, I told you, spend the whole 20. Now go find someone who sells the eggs for $20 and spend the whole thing. No, that’d be stupid, right? You were in the real world application of spending the money. You found the deal where it’s $9. So therefore you, you don’t have to spend it all and you send it back to the Treasury. That’s what Trump’s doing. And so, so it is up to the President to spend the money, and it’s up to him to decide if it should be the way it was appropriated.

If he needs to spend less, then he sends the rest back to the Treasury. If he needs to spend more, then he has to request Congress to appropriate more money. If it needs to be spent on something else, he then has to ask for Congress to change the appropriation where it’s being spent. Usually the preparations are done generally. In other words, it’ll say, this is for national defense. Doesn’t say, has to be on a rocket or it has to be on a tank. So he says, okay, when they did this, they expect to be a build some tanks.

But I’m steady, I’m going to build some ships, because that’s what we need. That’s up to him because of the way it was appropriated. It was national defense generally. So we got to take all of that into account. All right, Melvin. So shouldn’t these judges have gone to Congress and asked for definition of what, what were our, what they were going to block? They didn’t have to. The law is clear. They’re, they’re a bunch of actresses, activist judges. They need to be impeached, removed from office, period. And they’re not. And they are not the final say, they are not the final arbiters.

Drives me nuts. Go ahead. Oh, no, I just said amen. Home mortgage, 30 years. Student loan, 30 years. Don’t, don’t yank the rug out from under people. Well, and once again, I think that’s what Trump is doing by moving it to the SBA is he’s, he’s not yanking the rug out, but at the same time, he’s trying to get rid of the student loan system. Federal government has no authority to be involved in student loans. It’s none of their business. They have no authority to be spending, sending money to universities like Columbia. You know, I can’t remember how much it was.

This is this ungodly amount. That, that was a federal funds being sent to Colombia and Columbia tuition is like 90, 000 a year. Why do they need federal money, first of all? Second of all, where in the Constitution has given the federal government the authority to give a learning institute? The federal government has no authority whatsoever regarding education, period. Exactly. Private institutions. It’s up to the states, up to your communities. Thomas Jefferson believed in public schools. He believed that the state should pay for it, the community should run it. What was the, what was the original purpose of public schools back then was to teach people history, government, reading, writing and, but more specifically and the Bible.

The Bible. Oh, by the way, the Bible was the first textbook. That’s right. The, the pub. The public school system was created to teach kids how to read so that they could read the Bible. Melvin says 400 million to Columbia University. Yeah, something like that. It’s just got ungodly amount. And I’m like, this is a, this, this, this is one of those Ivy League schools. 90, 000. I remember hearing one of the reporters say it was $90,000 a year tuition. You know what, and you know what? The homeschoolers don’t get public education. And they score higher on tests.

The public school kids. Oh, well now, but that, you know, those parents, they don’t know what they’re doing. Apparently they do. Apparently homeschools do know what they’re doing. You don’t need to spend ungodly amounts to make sure a child learns something. One of the great things about homeschool is the classrooms are smaller. Sometimes it’s one on one with mom and kid or father and kid, but I I taught in the homeschool system for many years. Last year was my last year. I taught U. S. History last year, last school year. And it was a. It was a home school on paper, but it was a.

The parents then, you know, basically through this system, this. Not quite a co, op, it was something bigger in a co op, but basically I’m hired as the history teacher for this group of parents, kids basically, and those kids and, and what was funny about it, I think. I don’t remember if I talked about this last week or not, but what was funny about it was I have been teaching homeschool kids for years. Many, many, many, many, many years. Kids have been homeschooled their whole life. They’re a different breed. They are so far ahead of public school kids, it isn’t funny.

I had a 15 year old when I was teaching government in a co op. I think it was about three or four years ago. Who was, I mean, he, he could write better than anybody in college. He, he was sharp in class. He, he, you know, good questions, all that. So last year, last school year, the school that I was at, those kids came from public schools because of COVID These were parents that suddenly like, oh my gosh, my kids out of public school, where do I go? But they still wanted a classroom setting, so they sent their kids to school.

I was at. So all of my students, this was either their first year or second year at that school. And prior to that it was nothing but public school. And when I started teaching US History, I started asking certain questions because I do that a lot with my classes about. And they were geography related and the kids had no clue. So I spent the first six weeks of my history class teaching geography because the public, the former public school kids had no clue. And, and some of these kids were like 16, 17, and they had no clue.

They couldn’t, they couldn’t point at the pacific ocean on a map. They couldn’t point at the rocky mountains on a map. They couldn’t point at Indiana on a map. So I spent six weeks just a geography. These are kids coming out public school. You don’t have to. And most of these homeschool kids, the money going into their education, while it seem it’s expensive to the parent, it’s a lot less expensive than what it is per student in the public schools. In public schools, you’re talking 30, 40, 000 per student a year, if not more. Doug, how about people saying that this is a pug’s mom.

Doug, how about people saying that Congress needs to pass a voting law which calls for one one day voting paper ballots and voter id. Can Congress make this type of law? Technically, no. It would need to be an amendment. Now it let me. Yeah, they kind of could it. Okay. Yeah. Before I go too far, let’s read the Constitution on that because I want to make sure. So it’s up to the states on how to run the elections. However, Congress can make laws regarding elections but. But that was not intended for Congress to dictate how elections are held.

So I guess technically they could pass that law but it really goes against the spirit of things they Congress. Here’s here. Here’s where it’s at. Article one, section four for those of you who want to read along. Article 1, Section 4, the Times places a manner of holding elections for senators and representatives. No, president’s not there. Electoral college elects a president and that’s totally up to the state legislature. And the congress has no business getting involved with the presidential election. A time places a manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.

But the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except in the places of choosing centers. So Congress can make a law saying hey, for house representatives in senate we are going to require one day voting paper ballots, voter id, but local laws, that’s up to the states, local elections, president that’s up the state legislature. And we’re not even supposed to be voting for president. We’re supposed to be voting for electors. And this and the. And the state legislature is supposed to be choosing outdoors. And then those electors are supposed to go vote for president.

So see so. So when we ask if something’s constitutional, part of the problem is we’re already unconstitutional. So how do you make constitutional? It’s already on a bad path. And then Yarn addict put an up arrow. I’m assuming the same question as Pug’s mom. Real special ed. We can vote on a particular day, but we they also need to count the, the dagum votes that day as well. 30 days to count votes. Ridiculous. Yeah. You know it’s funny. I was I when I was growing up in the 70s and the 80s, I remember them knowing the results of election by the end of the night and it was all hand county.

Then we go to technology. It’s supposed to make it faster, better, stronger. It takes a month. How is that? It’s because there are shenanigans going on. Cheating. Now here’s the thing, here’s the way they did it. Back then. And this is why they couldn’t cheat. The precincts counted the votes, then they sent the votes and the numbers to the state. Then the state then recorded the vote. But it had to match what the precinct counted. If they believed there was an error, then they’d have to send it back to the precinct. Now what we have is a general centralized location counting the votes.

When you centralize anything, anything, you’re gonna get tyranny. So, so we need to go back to the, the account, the, the voting places and that. And then the precincts are counting the votes and then sending their numbers up to the state and then the state collecting all the precincts information, verifying it, and then sending it to the federal. That’s the way it’s supposed to go. I don’t know if you touched on this. S.D. gardner says Columbia University has been a breeding ground for promulgating of Marxism. And I would. Every one of these universities have been. I agree.

But, but, but Columbia is where it started. That was when especially bad. Yeah, yeah. That was when. When all the Frankfurt school guys came over here. That was where. Remember all these Ivy League universities that go all the way back to the 1700s. They were originally Christian colleges. I know, but my. But, but what I’m saying is, is that the, the Columbia was where a lot of the ideals of the Frankfurt School were first implemented into, into the curriculum in the United States. So now the good news is we’ve talked a lot about the Constitution and we’ve answered a lot of wonderful questions.

The bad news is I haven’t been able to talk one lick about Article 5. Well, maybe that’s not a bad thing because Warhamster wanted to be here for this. So. Yeah. So what we’ll do is we’ll get into Article 5 next week. But this is all good because it actually kind of ties into all of that because we have to remember the final arbiters is not the federal government. It’s not federal judges. It’s we, the people of the United States, the state. Real quick touch on that, real quick. Then about, about these, the, all these lower level federal.

All these lower level circuit court judges that are, in this case district judges, actually they’re even lower than the circuits. Exactly. They’re. Yeah, they’re. I mean, they can’t, they can’t stop the President from doing things. They just can’t. That’s. You’ve got some, some judge. The entry level, understand district judge is entry level position for federal courts. That’s like, that’s like Saying that’s like saying that the box person at your grocery store is running the grocery store. Well, no, he’s not running it, but the. But the manager can’t do anything without his approval. Right. Okay. Well said.

That’s crazy. Hey, box boy, you know what? We’re looking about doing this with the. With the stock in the back. What do you think? Yeah, and whatever you say, I have to do, right? That’s stupid. It’s beyond stupid. I mean, that’s like letting the dick. The Dodgers dictate all of Major League Baseball, you know? It just would be wrong. Oh, I’m sorry. Hey, don’t be pissed off. Don’t be pissed off that they just. Hey, right now it’s the end of basketball season, and my team is doing well, and it’s. And you know what? I. I need good news, because the Raiders and the Angels and the Razorbacks, football hasn’t been exactly something to root for lately.

But I. But I’m. Look. But I’m excited about. Well, there’s all. You know what? You are wearing a blue. For the Raiders. You are wearing a blue shirt. So, you know, there’s. From the Creator Museum there. There’s always. There’s. There’s always room on the Dodger bandwagon, brother. There’s always room on the Dodger bandwagon. Ouch. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, but no thanks. If ever I was pushed onto that wagon, I would fall off the wagon really quick. Touche. Touche. All right, guys. Well, I mean, we’re kind of at the end. Is there. Was there really an agreement? Wow, there’s a deer that just went by.

That’s so cool. God, I love living here. I look out the window and deer goes trotting by my window. But anyway, was there really an agreement somewhere that Republicans could not be poll watchers? I just heard that somewhere. I’ve never heard that. But it’s probably an unwritten rule because the left has infiltrated and now. And I want to say something real quick. So earlier I told him, there is no right, but yet you say, hear me say left. Am I confused? No. So left real quick. Political spectrum. Just a real quick lesson. Three minutes. That’s what we got left anyway.

So far left is 100 government. Actually, I should do this because that’s what’s left to you. Far right would be anarchy. Constitution’s dead center. So anything that’s bigger government than the Constitution is to the left. Anything that’s less centralized government and more localized to the right. So anarchy is to the far Right. Everything else is to the left of the Constitution, even the Republican party, even conservatives, because they want the federal government to do more than it’s supposed to. So that’s why I say there is no right. Now we are conservatives and people like that is to the right of the hard left.

But it’s not the right. There is no right. There is no right wing conspiracy. There is no hard right. There is no right wing extremist unless you’re an anarchist. And fascism, by the way, is also not far right. That’s far left. 100 garment. In fact, it’s exact same as communism. It’s control of the means of production. It’s just doing it in a different way. Communism, socialism controls the means of production by owning it. Fascism does it by heavy regulation called bundling. It comes from an old Italian fascimo. So, so there, there’s your quick lesson. So that’s why I say there is no right.

If I could find that dog gone. What, what, what was the, what was that? John Birch Society. Oh yeah. American form of government type. No, it was. It’s not that. It was. Yeah. Where it goes through the, the whole spectrum and stuff. They were doing it when I was doing it. I, I thought they stole it from me. Has Benjamin Franklin and Elizabeth pal at the beginning of the video? Is that what you’re talking about? Yeah, this is it. Okay. It’s called the American form of government is how I find it. Well, yeah. And that it.

Well, it’s. It’s actually a. That is a, A ten minute. Yeah, yeah. It’s a small piece of A bigger. It’s a 10 minute. It’s a 10 minute portion because it’s about a 30 minute video. Right. So here, if you can look for it online. I found it. Let’s see. So Thursday the Hogs play Texas tech. They beat St. John’s was number three seed. Texas Tech number two seed. Shouldn’t be a problem. We’ll see. Hey, this is, this is. This actually would be. This is actually a good American form of government. Yeah. Here, let me, let me.

I’m gonna. I’m going to speed this up just a hair and play it right. You play it. Yeah. All right. It’s funny because like I said, they described the way I did. Stand by. Let me. I. It’s the way that it’s coming out, is coming out. It’s coming out through my speakers. So I need to make it so that it doesn’t. So that there’s no echo. Here we go. Constitutional Convention. He was asked By a woman, sir. What have you given us? His immediate response was, a republic, ma’am, if you can keep it. Yet most Americans today have been persuaded that our nation’s governmental system is a democracy and not a republic.

The difference between these two is essential in understanding Americanism and the American system. Before we discuss political systems, however, it’s helpful to address the confusion that has been spread about the political spectrum. Many have been led to believe that the political spectrum places groups such as communists on the far left, fascists or dictators on the far right, and political moderates or centrists in the middle. However, a more accurate political spectrum will show government having zero power on the far right to having 100% power on the far left. At the extreme right, there is no government. The extreme left features total government under such labels as communism, socialism, nazism, fascism, princes, potentates, dictators, kings, any form of total government.

Those who claim that Nazis and fascists are right wing never define their terms. This amounts to spreading confusion. Toward the middle of the political spectrum can be found the type of government limited to its proper role of protecting the rights of the people. That’s where the Constitution of the United States is. Those who advocate such a form of government are really constitutional moderates. So let’s analyze the basic forms of government. They are monarchy or dictatorship ruled by 1, oligarchy ruled by a few, democracy ruled by a majority, republic, rule by law, and anarchy, which is ruled by no one.

In discussing these five, we’ll see that they can be narrowed down to even fewer. Looking first at monarchy or dictatorship, this form of government doesn’t really exist in the practical sense. It’s always a group that puts one of its members up front. A king has his council of nobles or earls, and every dictator has his bureaucrats or commissars, the men behind the scenes. This isn’t ruled by one, even though one person may be the visible leader. It’s ruled by a group. So let’s eliminate monarchy dictatorship, because it never truly exists. Oligarchy, which is ruled by a group, is the most common form of government in all history, and it is the most common form of government today.

Most of the nations of the world are ruled by a powerful few, and therefore oligarchy remains. At the other end, we find anarchy, which means without government. Some people have looked over history and found that many of its worst crimes were committed by governments. So they decided that having no government might be a good idea. But this is a mistake, because as the ancient Greeks stated, without law there can be no freedom. Our founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized, orderly society. In a state of anarchy, however, everyone has to guard life, liberty and property and the lives of family members.

Everyone must be armed and movement is severely restricted because one’s property has to be protected at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding. A sheriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place, the people were freer. They could leave their property, work in the fields, and so on. In short, the proper amount of government makes everyone freer. There are some who advocate anarchy, however, not because they want no government, but because they don’t like what they have. They use anarchy as a tool for revolutionary changes.

The condition of anarchy is very much like a vacuum, where something rushes in to fill it. These calculating anarchists work to break down the existing government with rioting, killing, looting and terrorism. Tragically, the people living in such chaos often go to those best able to put an end to it and beg them to take over and restore order. And who is best able to put an end to the chaos? The very people who started it. The anarchists who created the problem, then create a government run by them, an oligarchy where they have total power. This is exactly what happened in Russia that led to Lenin taking total power.

And in Germany, where Hitler’s brown shirts created the chaos that brought him to power. Incidentally, that’s called a Hegelian dialectic, where they create the problem, cause the reaction, and then offer the solution. But anarchy isn’t a stable form of government. It’s a quick transition from something that exists to something desired by the power hungry. It’s a temporary condition, and because it isn’t permanent, we eliminate it as well. The word democracy comes from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and Kratian, meaning to rule. Democracy therefore means the rule of the people, majority rule. This of course sounds good.

But suppose the majority decides to take away one’s home or business or children. Obviously there has to be a limit. The flaw in democracy is that the majority isn’t restrained. If more than half the people can be persuaded to want something, in a democracy, they rule. What about republic? Well, that comes from the Latin res meaning thing, and publica meaning public. It means the public thing, the law. A true republic is one where the government is limited by law, leaving the people alone. America’s founders had a clean slate to write on. They could have set up an oligarchy.

In fact, there were some who wanted George Washington to be their King. But the Founding fathers knew history and they chose to give us the rule of law in a republic, not the rule of a majority in a democracy. Why? Let’s demonstrate the difference in the setting of the Old West. Consider a lynch mob. In a democracy, 35 horseback riders chase one lone gunman. They catch him and they vote 35 to 1 to hang him. Democracy has triumphed, and there’s one less gunman to contend with. Now consider the same scenario in a republic. The 35 horseback riders catch the gunman and vote 35 to one to hang him.

But the sheriff arrives and he says, you can’t kill him. He’s got his right to a fair trial. So they take the gunman back to town. A jury of his peers is selected, and they hear the evidence and the defense, and they decide if he shall hang. Does the jury even decide by majority rule? No. It has to be unanimous or he goes free. The rights of the government aren’t subject to majority rule, but to the law. This is the essence of a republic. Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, nor does it appear in any of the constitutions of the 50 states.

The founders did everything they could to keep us from having a democracy. James Madison, rightly known as the father of the Constitution, wrote in essay number 10 of the Federalist. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Alexander Hamilton agreed, and he stated, we are a republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy. Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated, democracy never lasts long.

It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. The Founders had good reason to look upon democracy with contempt because they knew that the democracies in the early Greek city states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case, they ended up with mob rule, then anarchy, and finally tyranny under an oligarchy. During that period in Greece, there was a man named Solon who urged creation of a fixed body of law, not subject to majority whims. But where the Greeks never adopted Solon’s wise counsel, the Romans did. Based on what they knew of Solon’s laws, they created the 12 tables of the Roman law and in effect, built a republic that limited government power and left the people alone.

Since government was limited. The people were free to produce with the understanding that they could keep the fruits of their labor. In time, Rome became wealthy and the envy of the world in the midst of plenty. However, the Roman people forgot what freedom entailed. They forgot that the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government. When government power grows, people freedom recedes. Once the Romans dropped their guard, power seeking politicians began to exceed the powers granted them in the Roman constitution. Some learned that they could elect politicians who would use government power to take property from some and give it to others.

Agriculture subsidies were introduced, followed by housing and welfare programs. Inevitably, taxes rose and controls over the private sector were imposed. Soon a number of Rome’s producers could no longer make ends meet and they went on the dole. Productivity declined, shortages developed, and mobs began roaming the streets demanding bread and circuses from the government. Many were induced to trade freedom for security. Eventually, the whole system came crashing down. They went from a republic to a democracy and ended up with an oligarchy under a progression of the Caesars. Thus, democracy itself is not a stable form of government.

Instead, it is the gradual transition from limited government to the unlimited rule of an oligarchy. Knowing this, we as Americans are ultimately left with only two choices. We can keep our republic, as Franklin put it, or we will inevitably end up with an oligarchy, a tyranny of the elite. I played that for my classes so many times and what was funny though, seriously, I would draw that same triangle my classes before I ever discovered that video. And people swore. But now I took it from them. I’m like, maybe they took it from me, I don’t know.

But the, in the end the truth always agrees. So when they knew the truth, I knew the truth were drawn it the same way because, you know, truth agrees. It was a, this, this was a clip that was taken from the, from the John Birch Society. An overview of America I believe is what it’s called. And I’ve, I’ve got it. Yeah and it’s about, it’s about a 30 to 35 minute video and that. But, but the, the overview of America has that portion and the Jobberg Society and I love each other and still like until I start talking about Article 5, which we will talk about next week.

Well and you know, I actually, I, so, so I, I heard an argument about that and actually it was James Perloff who made the argument against that and I was like, oh, that’s interesting. I hadn’t thought about that. I, I proposed that, you know, I, I mentioned that to the war hamster. And he was just. He shot it down like a. You know, he shut it down like he. And here’s the thing that’s interesting. What we’re talking about is an Article 5 convention, for those of you who haven’t picked up on it. If you listen carefully to me, I don’t say that the.

What Warhamster or what the Article 5 see Convention of States organization says where it’s our only salvation. But I don’t say that it’s, you know, gonna destroy us like John Bird society or eagle form might. I’m actually kind of somewhere in between now. I do lean more towards the first group, but I believe it’s a good. I believe it’s a good tool, but I don’t believe it should be left unsupervised, so to speak, by the people. I do believe that we need to wield it responsibly, and I don’t believe it’s the only thing. I mean, it would.

It has to work with things like nullification in order to really be effective, in my opinion. In the end, it comes down to Republic Review, which is where the states actually just audit the federal government and then threaten an Article 5 convention to get rid of federal unconstitutionalities and then the con. And. And so that’s, to me, even more a better tool. But anyway. But we’ll get to that next. We’ll get into the. Yes, we will. Yes, we will. All right, guys, well, appreciate you taking. Taking the time. Sorry we went over a little bit today, but we will.

We will be back next Tuesday to really discuss article 5. Go hogs on Thursday. Go Dodgers tonight in Anaheim. It’s preseason, though. Doesn’t really count. But hey, we get our. We get our world series rings on Friday. You know what that looks like? So. So they finally. So they. So the. The cartels that they team up with finally had it made for them? Something like that. Yeah. Yeah. It is ironic that my. My favorite teams in college and baseball are the same color. Well, yeah, well, you know. You know what red is also the color of in other countries? Yes.

Used to be the country. It used to be the color of the Democrats, too. Yeah, they. They decided to change it, though, because they’re a true blue conservative. Remember that back in the 70s? Yeah, true blue. True blue conservative and Blue dog Democrat Republican. True blue Republic Dog Democrat. Exactly. That couldn’t have. Couldn’t. Couldn’t have Democrats be associated with the color red because that was too close to the truth. Too close to the truth. Exactly. All Right. Yeah. Someone needs to change their name from the Democratic Party to, you know, what they really are. Well, and if I may, I actually am of the opinion that we are witnessing the death rows of the Democrat Party.

We, and, and we’re going to, it’s almost going to be monoparty for, for the Federalist Party. Yeah. When the Federalist Party died, I mean, and that’s a little, and I, I, I will admit that that’s a little scary. I’m not, I’m not. Here’s the thing. When the Federalist Party died, the Democratic Party and what ultimately became the Republic Party began within the Jeffersonian Republicans, that one party. So when we had that mono party, the split of two parties happened within that party. Something else didn’t appear. I mean the wigs did, they came and went. But the true, it actually came from that same party.

Jeffersonian Republicans originally. My, my, my feeling is, is that what’s going to happen is, is the Republican Party is going to be one party and then the Libertarian Party is going to be the other. But the Libertarian is really more of like a Jeffersonian ideals. Well, I’ve always told people they are, they’re just conservatives that smoke dope. Not always, but I get your point. So anyway. All right, we’ll see you guys. All right guys, we’ll see you next week. Have a good night everybody. We’ll see you here in, oh, I will be with, with Mike King tonight here in about 20 minutes and we’re going to be going over six, six of a six, six instances of airplane crashes and basically it’ll be really interesting.

I’m looking forward to that. So anyhow, all right guys, we’ll see you next week or I’ll see you in 20 minutes, depending. So have a good night.
[tr:tra].