Learning The Constitution | Lesson 19 – Article II The Executive Branch Continued

➡ This discussion focuses on the power of the executive branch, particularly the presidency, in the U.S. Constitution. The hosts argue that the president’s power has grown over time, with some believing it’s become too strong. They discuss the role of the vice president and the concept of presidential immunity. The conversation also touches on how different presidents, including Donald Trump, have used their power, and whether their actions were within constitutional limits.
➡ The article discusses the role of the president in executing laws and making decisions for the United States. It highlights the importance of a president who doesn’t hesitate to enforce laws and take care of national security. The article also delves into the history of the presidency, discussing debates at the Constitutional Convention about the power of the president and the fear of creating a monarch-like role. It concludes by emphasizing that the president’s job is to execute the laws of the United States, not to do as he wishes.
➡ The article discusses the evolution of the U.S. electoral system and the presidency. It explains how the electoral college was created to give states and people an indirect democratic voice in choosing the president. The article also highlights debates among the founding fathers about the powers of the presidency, with some advocating for an executive council to limit presidential power. Over time, however, the presidency has gained more power than the founders originally intended.
➡ The text discusses the role of the Senate and the President in the U.S. government. It highlights that the Senate was originally intended to represent the states and check the President’s power. The text also discusses the Electoral College’s original purpose, which was to independently select the President. Lastly, it talks about the President’s immunity from prosecution for official acts, stating that a President can only be prosecuted after impeachment and removal from office.
➡ The text discusses the power of U.S. Presidents, focusing on the use of executive orders and the concept of birthright citizenship. It argues that Presidents have expanded their power through precedent and executive orders, which are treated as law. The text also challenges the common understanding of birthright citizenship, stating that being born on American soil does not automatically grant citizenship. It emphasizes that the parents must show allegiance to the U.S. for their child to be considered a citizen.
➡ The text discusses the belief that being born to American parents instills more American values and less foreign influence. It also talks about the gradual shift in societal values over the decades, comparing it to the slow rise of socialism and collectivism. The text also mentions the significance of the presidential seal’s direction in Trump’s speech at Davos, suggesting it could be a message of peace or war. Lastly, it shares personal anecdotes about the cost of stamps and the popularity of Trump in certain areas.
➡ The conversation discusses the relief felt by border patrol agents due to changes in immigration policy, the issue of child trafficking, and the political shift within the Republican party. It also touches on the enforcement of existing laws rather than creating new ones, and the reduction of federal regulations. The hosts plan to discuss the constitutional powers of the president in their next show.

Everybody to the Untold History Channel. My name is Ron partain, joined by Mr. Constitution, Douglas V. Gibbs. And today we are still talking about the Constitution, but taking a little bit of a detour, talking about the executive branch because, you know, the executive branch as written by Article 2 is really not what is in play today. Would you agree with that? Yes. It’s almost as if the, both the legislative and the judicial branch have given the, the president almost dictatorial powers in many ways. And you know, it’s funny because what’s considered too much power for the president by different perspectives out there, maybe right, maybe wrong, and they look at it differently.

And I think we’re going to try to address all of that. And this is we’re in Article two as we go through the Constitution. So this actually ties into what we’re talking about. Right. And so, and this is important and I want to get back into, make sure people understand what an executive order is. Now we’ll talk about the immunity case and what presidential immunity really is and some of the more colorful presidents in history. We’ll talk a little bit about them. Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and how that power has kind of been building for the presidency.

Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democratic Party, believe that the president should be a strong office, stronger than the legislature. So the Whigs when they emerge, they believe the legislature, Congress should be stronger than the president. They were the anti Jackson Party. They, they matter of fact, they jokingly called him King Andrew. And when I say jokingly they were serious about it. But you know, anyway and, and so there was always fears the president even have too much power back then. We have a president now with a very strong personality. Does that mean that he’s a dictator, an authoritarian? So we’re going to go over all that.

And I had a few articles and these are, some of, these are kind of recent and some of them aren’t. But let me go ahead and share the, and share this one right here first. And this one, let me increase the size a little bit so it’s not so hard on people’s eyes Trump to have more power than the Founding fathers imagined. With Trump’s victory, Republicans will control the executive and legislative branches of the government. That’s not unusual. But experts warn that Trump may also be able to exert control over the federal judiciary. So I’ll get your take on that first.

Well, the federal judiciary is independent. We have a separation of powers. The three branches really have no ties to each other except in the sense of The Senate and the executive branch in which the Vice President is president of the Senate. And so the, the Vice president does have a role there, but the reason why his role there is not because he’s part of the legislative branch. He is the tie breaking vote in case there’s a tie in the Senate since it is two senators per state, tie as possible. And also gives the opportunity for the executive branch to exert a little bit of, of debate in, in the Senate.

Matter of fact, I was talking on my program last Saturday on KMET about how we even misunderstand the power of the Vice President. And we, and Capitol Hill and those who are associated with will say things that are just not true in the case of the Vice President. And this is what, this came from a guy named Chad Pergrim and he was on Hannity on, on Fox News, he said vice president in the Constitution is a little bit fish and foul. They are part of the executive branch, they are part of the legislative branch. And so he cannot debate, he cannot do anything but vote the affirmative.

You can only vote in the affirmative. And that’s just not true. If you look at the four first vice presidents, you kind of get a feel of what the vice presidency was all about. John Adams as president, Senate sometimes debated, usually didn’t. It was then Thomas Jefferson, uh, never really got involved and debated. He just was a deciding vote when there was a tie and that was that. And then, then you have George Clinton, George Clinton was kind of a quiet guy, didn’t debate much. And then you have Aaron Burr. Aaron Burr was in their face every senatorial meeting he could be because prosper of the Senate he had a right to debate.

So this idea that the Vice president cannot debate as president of the Senate cannot vote other than the affirmative is just not true. And, and I, and I open that up because it shows us that we misunderstand the executive branch. Okay, the, well, let me see here, let me, as you were talking I was, I was distracted so I didn’t catch a lot of what you were saying. And I was, but let me see here, let me, let me do this article. And, and as he’s looking, remember there’s a fear because Trump is a strong personality, therefore he must be an authoritarian.

Right. So far his operations have been pretty much within the limits. But we’ll see. I, I, it’s, it’s interesting because I do see, you know, he’s doing a lot of, he’s doing a lot of stuff and you know, I think he didn’t he come out and say a while back that I’m only going to be dictator on day one. Yeah, he said that. But, well, in other words, he’s going to dictate terms and make sure it happens. He would kind of be in a joker about that. But the question is, is being active and doing a lot, is that too powerful? His job is to execute the laws of union.

If all of his actions are executing laws that are on the books, then he’s not being dictatorial, he’s executing the laws on the books. This one is world finance. And I don’t remember when this article was written and I can’t find a date that was on it, but it was, I believe this was during his first term. And as how powerful is Donald Trump? And I’m, I meant I intended on reading these, but I just, today has just been one, I’ll just call it a CF and if for those of you who probably understand what that means, you’ll know what that you’ll know.

But you know, I remember Trump saying, and I, I, I, I couldn’t find where he said it, but I do remember Trump saying something that the, the president has more power than you can possibly imagine at this point in time. And I, I believe that that is, is true, but I also believe that it was done, it was purposefully done that way by treasonous elements within the government, making sure that we kind of had that that power was ceded to the executive so that when you had somebody like a Hillary take office that it could, you could get, you know, she could have unfettered power to do whatever she wanted, you know, and now that Trump is there doing it, they don’t like that because he’s using all the power that they gave to the executive for the betterment of the country and to take it away from the, from the, from the powers that be.

And they can, they’re, and they’re powerless to stop it. And what’s interesting though is he’s not wielding powers necessarily that are unconstitutional like they did. Right. Biden and Obama wielded powers in way that are just, are not given to the president United States. He has only been executing laws that are on the books. That’s his job, is to execute the laws on the books. But because he’s, you know, in your face and, and doing it quickly, making sure it happens and on the ground running, they call that authoritarian. Show me any of these that he’s doing that are not either law on the books or in the Constitution.

Now that said, the first response, I’ll get on that statement from the left will be one of two things, either birthright citizenship or immunity. And those are a couple things we can definitely discuss. When it comes to birthright citizenship, he didn’t change the Constitution. He’s going to the original intent. He is executing the law as it is written. They’re freaking out because the, the lie that they’ve been saying for so long that has become the truth is suddenly being challenged. But it’s a lie. He’s just calling out it, calling it out as a lie and then going back to the original law.

As for immunity, they make it sound like, well, if the President has immunity, he can just do whatever he wants and, you know, it doesn’t matter. He can shoot somebody, it doesn’t matter. No, that’s not what the case said. That’s not what the ruling said. The ruling said that the President has immunity for his official actions. If there’s a problem with those actions during his presidency, Congress has the authority to impeach them. They have the ability to stop that type of activity. But if you’ve got a President that’s worried that his actions will bring on legal cases after his presidency, he’s going to be careful on how he makes those decisions.

He’s not going to hit the ground running like Trump is. He’s going to be careful, and careful is detrimental to the United States. We want a president enacts the laws that he’s supposed to, that he takes care of the border security, he takes care of national security and so on and so forth. And it doesn’t pussy foot around about it or, or try to be an appeaser about it. And so once again, that’s not unfettered power, that’s enabling the President to do the job he’s given, which is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

More Hamster and I have been doing videos, we’ve done two of three so far about his, his executive orders. And all of them, except for maybe one or two, are clearly Constitution constitutional. The other, the two, that, that there’s questions. It’s not that he is unconstitutional, it’s that the power that the, that the law is regarding the first place is unconstitutional. So in other words, he’s carrying out an unconstitutional law. So he’s not really unconstitutional. It’s a law in the first place. So now we have a president who is scaring the other side because he’s in their face and doing things quickly.

But if you, once again, you take a look at it, his executive orders which are the executive orders are for proclamations and instructions to the executive branch on how to carry out or execute the laws of the United States. That’s all they’ve been. He’s carrying out the laws. It’s just, they don’t like those laws. That’s why they’re freaking out. Oh my gosh, she’s doing this. That’s the law. President can, the president can enforce the border. The president can use the military at the border. If it’s a national security issue, the president can send his agency looking for persons who have broken federal law to come into the United States and, and, and deport them.

The president can use tariffs to encourage other countries to play ball. The President can use his impound power, which was also used by Thomas Jefferson, to restrict a spend spending money on certain things, which in this case is sometimes giving federal funding to states that aren’t playing nice. Of course, a lot of that federal funding is unconstitutional in the first place anyway. But he has all of those authorities, all those powers. And what’s even weirder about it, the way they’re attacking him, oh, he can’t do that. That’s okay. Their guys have done it over and over and over.

They set the precedent. Right. And, and, and, and not only they set the precedent. They put it, they, they, they basically put the, the, the mechanisms in place for it to be done. And now they’re crying foul because they’re not in control. So this is the article that you couldn’t do and, and it’s, it’s ironically, it’s a Washington Post article and ironically, the headline is actually accurate. Yeah. Most of the most powerful part of government supposed to be even a, even a broken clock is right twice a day. That’s right. All of you guys that are too young to remember clocks with hands don’t know what that means.

The. Well, even if it’s on 12 o’clock flashing, it’s still right twice a day. This is true. But this was written in February of 2017, like, you know, not even a, three weeks into his first presidency. The President was never, he hadn’t even acted yet, and they’re already saying, oh, look what he’s doing. Right. So, but it’s, you know, the, on the presidential campaign trail, Trump promised to be a man of action. He pledged to take the lessons learned of decades of running a business to apply them to the government. Shortly after taking office, Trump was reminded or learned that this isn’t how the government works.

The President is one of three parts of the government’s leadership alongside Congress and Judiciary. When he tried to implement a ban on immigration, the judicial branch struck it down at the Trump Organization. He was the boss. Now it’s a different situation. Stop right there on that one in particular. 1954 McCarran Walter act actually allowed him to do it. The courts are wrong on that one. There was a law that he was executing. Continue. Right. The modern presidency, in fact, bears only a passing resemblance to what the founding fathers intended it to be. We just, and we kind of said that at the beginning.

And I agree. In a general sense, they’re right. In a general sense, right. Far from being the government’s all powerful central authority, there was debate at the Constitutional Convention as to whether there should be be only one executive at all. I spoke with historian Ray Raphael, who wrote the book Mr. President, how and why the Founders Created a Chief Executive, to get some sense of how Trump’s vision of the position differs from what it was intended when the government was created in 1787. Raphael well, the first thing they have to discuss, had to discuss was if there would be one chief executive or more than one chief executive.

And that was not an easy decision. It was by no means a foregone conclusion. People were very suspicious of anything that would resemble a monarch rule. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, felt very strongly that it should be plural executive, perhaps three people. Stop right there for a second. Stop right there. So the debate was two or three. Part of the reason why they had that idea was in ancient Rome, when Rome was a kingdom, they had 10. When they were first a Republic, there were two consoles, which would be the executive, because they’re afraid if they gave too much power to one person that it could, it would be wielded in a dangerous manner.

So that is understood. However, the president is not a king. His job is not to do whatever he wishes. So I agree with the Washington Post here, but Donald Trump isn’t necessarily doing what they’re accusing him of. No. In, in his case, once again, the job of the executive executive is to execute the laws United States in which he has been doing. See here. They had to be the figurehead for the country. Right. They decided on one executive. But in the next issue, or but the next issue, if there was one executive, he has to have an executive council to kind of spread out the power.

Several luminaries were in favor of an executive council. Franklin and James Madison and George Mason, the guy who really pushed the Bill of Rights. But the executive council got kind of lost in the shuffle for most of the convention it did not get lost in the shuffle. They decided that the department heads would be that council. So if you read article two, it states in that section in the Constitution that if he has any. Any questions regarding certain items, he can ask for their advice in writing. When it comes to the department heads, which now we call the cabinet, they didn’t worry about it too much.

For the most part of the convention, many of the powers that were. That we associate with the president were given to the senate. The president didn’t have that much power for most of the convention. Okay, stop. Why was much of those powers we associate with the president given to the senate? And what they’re referring to, for example, is he can negotiate and sign treaties, but the tree is no good until the senate approves it. He can nominate people, officers, judges, but they’re not confirmed until they’re approved by the senate. Why? Because the senate was the voice of states.

It was the state’s way of making sure they were the final. Okay. It was oversight by the states over the present. This is where was. The Washington Post leaves this out. And they almost act as if. As if they don’t understand why some of that was associated with the senate. But it used to be. Right. They. And it’s very well said, actually. And so it’s another reason why we need to get rid of the 17th Amendment and go back. Absolutely. They’d been meeting for over three months and until two weeks before the end of the key players.

The. Before the end, the key powers of treaty making and appointing powers, appointing ambassadors and supreme court justices, these would all be done by the senate. So the president, two weeks until the end was. The president was elected by Congress, a creature of Congress, and he did not have power over foreign policy to make, which would make him like a prime minister. And they decided that he needed to be independent from the prime. From the legislature. Otherwise, if you had a foul legislature, there would not be a check against them. Right. That’s the way it stood.

And we would have had a very different government then. A few people who really wanted a stronger, more independent president spearheaded by governor Morris, sent that idea to committee in committee. That’s when they decided that the president shouldn’t be elected by Congress, but should be elected by this very complex elector scheme that we are still saddled with today. Yeah. And they don’t even understand what the electoral scheme, complex electoral scheme really is. You know, the electors are chosen by the parties originally chosen by the people in the states. It was a way for both the states and the people to have an indirect democratic voice when it came to who would be president.

The electors would. Would be the ones who would directly vote for president. And there was no winner take all. But that said, the complexity of the electoral scheme, actually the electoral college is really been created over time. Much of the complexity that we see today wasn’t there originally. Right. When they made the president independent of Congress to be selected by electors instead of Congress, they also switched his key powers of treaty making and appointed powers from the Senate to the President. They didn’t want to switch them totally. So that’s why they gave the Senate the advice and cons, the advice and consent.

So that’s where that curious phrase came. In less than two weeks from the end, when this comes up from committee to the floor, these extra. With these extra powers, the people who favored an executive council really flipped out. Mason and Madison and Franklin all said, you know, this is James Madison, the father of the Constitution and Benjamin Franklin, the wise man. They said, no way. Putting such powers on the president alone would be very dangerous. So they renewed their push for an executive council. Once again, executive council’s met. It’s the cabinet, it’s the department heads. It was a compromise.

He doesn’t have a direct counsel that he chooses directly. It’s one that he nominates, is approved, and then run the departments. There were two proposals. Madison, Franklin, and Mason wanted an independent executive council. They never got the point of how many people would be on it or how it would be chosen. But the key thing is they wanted it independent. Governor Morris, who’d pushed for an independent presidency, wanted an executive council that would be very much like our cabinet, who would be appointed by the president, but including the Chief justice of the United States. Mason, Franklin and Madison wanted to limit the powers of the presidency because it was too dangerous.

And they. And the only argument made against it was that it was so late in the game that they were. That they were tired and they didn’t want to create a brand new body of government. Rufus King from Massachusetts said they didn’t want an unnecessary creation of a new core, which must increase the expense as well as the influence of government. They wanted to create this government on the cheap. So they didn’t want an extra body of government. Also, they were too tight. They were too tired to create. That’s. That’s not true. First of all, that last part.

Secondly, it amazes me how the Washington Post lefties, who typically hate Franklin, Madison and Mason, suddenly are championing them. Yeah, yeah, okay. They’re championing them because they wanted to have a system that they, they wanted to have a system that favors what they want to have now when Trump is in office. Well, it’s like, it’s like gun control advocates. They have no problem with the government being the only ones with guns unless Trump’s in charge of it. Right. Again, it’s, it’s, it’s about, it’s, it’s perspective of who’s in control. If they’re in control, then they’re all for it.

But if they’re not in control, then, oh, we should have this system. We should, we should have something different. Even though these amazing men like Mason, Franklin and Madison wanted an executive council, the rest of the guys said it’s going to be too expensive and we want to get home anyway. Let’s just settle with what the, with the president needing the advice and consent of the Senate. So that was the kind of a weak compromise. Madison was very upset. Remember, this is James Madison, the father of our Constitution. He was very upset that the president alone had the power to make treaties.

This is an amazing thing that people should know. He said that a president might gain so much power from conducting war that the Senate should be able to negotiate a peace treaty behind the president’s back end without his consent. The president, which. The president would necessarily derive so much power and importance from a state of war that he might be tempted, if authorized, to impede a treaty of peace. So he said that’s why the Senate needed to have an independent power to conduct a treaty of peace. Isn’t that amazing? The post. Yeah, he said this. The.

He said that wars could be good for a president’s power. He wanted an alternate route to conduct the peace so that the president alone wouldn’t have that control. So there’s a lot. That’s interesting. Real quick. That’s interesting. This is the way they’re talking about it. Well, actually, when, when Trump is the only president in my lifetime that didn’t start new wars. Well, okay, so the guy that he’s. So the Post is the one. The, the guy who’s talking here is the. I understand who he is. He’s not exactly the most constitutional constitutionalist, and he’s gotten some of his stuff wrong here.

Right. And he’s going to appease his interview viewers, I believe. Sure. But nonetheless, once again, it is true. A president, they believe a president has a lot of power in war because emergency powers. Except for there are no emergency powers in the Constitution. So that’s a bad argument. But anyway, continue. There’s a lot of resistance to a full executive power. And you can understand why. They just been through the Revolutionary War and they didn’t want to recreate a monarch, Though some, like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to get as close to a monarch as he possibly could, that wasn’t a very popular opinion.

When he offered that idea, he got zero support. Not a single person among the framers came to his. His defense for that idea. Very accurate. That’s a very accurate paragraph. Yeah. They settled on this kind of compromise which wound up giving more power to the president than the founders wanted. But they were really too tired to start over, which. Yeah, no, they didn’t. I just. They liked what they had. I find it very difficult to, To, To. To believe that, you know, in an, in an effort to get it right, they were going to let. I mean, they literally had just fought eight years worth of war, and everything that they had done up to that point was done as thoroughly as possible.

That’s not true. Yeah. To me, that’s just like. Yeah, that’s like saying you walked. You just got done walking 100 miles and you got 20 more feet to get home, and you don’t want to do it because you’re too tired. This is ridiculous. Right. On September 4th, when they heard this new proposal, they just pretty much said, okay, we’ll go with that. So the post says, what is your sense in terms of where the spectrum between Madison to Hamilton, the presidency as embodied these days, would fall? And he says it definitely evolved to the Hamilton end.

And that’s kind of the great irony. Hamilton had zero supporters. But historically, little by little, presidential powers increased. Another figure that gets involved in this is George Washington. If people did not know, or if people did not all know that Washington was going to be the first president, they would have been more hesitant yet to give these sorts of executive powers. But they figured that Washington would set the standard. And this electoral college will always ensure that the wise person, not a popular demagogue, but some person elected by wise leaders, will be president. So they allowed a few more powers to him.

Then Washington, when he got into office, actually assumed some powers that were very controversial, which Hamilton supported, but Madison and Jefferson vehemently opposed. Then Jefferson gets into office, and this was the guy who wanted a limited executive, and he assumed near dictatorial powers. The guy who opposed executive authority, by the time a fifth embargo act is passed, he. He gives the president power to pretty much execute the whole thing. He can be policeman and judge. He himself can send people to jail. It’s a curious Progression stop right there. Who wrote the embargo act? Congress. He didn’t give himself anything.

Congress gave it to him, first of all. Second of all, he wasn’t given nearly as much power as being suggested here. Now, Jefferson, actually, what he did, and one of the things that ties into this is the impound power which Jefferson did wield. But it was necessary. And what that is is refusing to spend appropriated money on a certain thing because it wasn’t necessary. Right. The push of history has been toward more executive power. If you just took the founders at the convention and how they envisioned the presidency compared to the presidents of the day, they would be absolutely aghast.

They had no idea what they were, what they were going to create. A single individual with this sort of powers. In a general sense, that statement is very correct. I agree. If you’re talking original intent of the, of the framers, they saw a much more limited role than what we have today. The post. Given that, to what extent do you think the Senate is able to uphold its constitutional duty? Advise and consent was just this kind of handy term that was never worked out. Precisely. But again, you have to remember that until two weeks before the end of the convention, the Senate itself had the powers of treaty making and appointing ambassadors, that is to say foreign policy and the other appointive powers the Senate had that then, excuse me, when it was transferred to the President, that’s when they said, well, the President alone can’t have it.

The only way the people will ever accept it, looking over their shoulders at the people who have had, who have to ratify it, is if there’s some check on it. Now it’s interesting because they totally leave out the fact that the senators were the voice of states. Totally leaves out the 17th amendment. Totally leaves out the purpose of Senate in the first place, which was the state’s voice in the system. The states, they didn’t just go, hey, I guess the states ought to have, I mean, the Senate ought to have a say. Also, they did it on purpose because the states are supposed to have oversight over this federal government.

In other words, federal government, including the President, could not act unilaterally without some sort of check against them by the states, normally through the Senate. Madison, Franklin, Madison, Franklin and Mason said, well, the obvious check is an executive council, but they were too worn out to form another body. So they said, we’ll just roll into the senatorial powers. By no, but by no means did they expect that the Senate would not exercise those powers. Now, note that the word advice is in there. Not just consent advice. So theoretically the Senate is supposed to be an executive council and the president is supposed to seek its advice in making appointments.

Why? Because it’s the voice of the states. Continue. Right, Exactly. Is supposed to seek its advice in making appointments such as Supreme Court justice and in treaty making. It was supposed to be an integral part of the process, not some rubber stamp at the end. And I agree with that. But. But to your point, it’s like the. The 17th Amendment has completely removed the state’s ability to have oversight on this, which was one of the crucial components of the. Of the Constitution. Exactly. The post. What was the point of the Electoral College? Oh, this. This will be fun.

Through the convention. There were two ways of electing the president. Congress or the people. Through the. Through most of the convention, Congress elected him. They were very scared of popular elections because of demagogues. Basically at the very end, this kind of compromise of electors, the key component of electors, the whole reason this would work was that electors were supposed to be removed from the people and have absolutely independent judgment and discretion. The very idea was that they would not be pledged to any candidate. They would get together selected by their wisdom and experience and they would select the president out of their own discretion.

The whole idea of pledged electors is 180 degrees opposite from the intent of the Electoral college. The spirit of the law was totally destroyed and we are saddled with the skeleton letter of the law which has nothing to do what they intended. I. I would suggest a lot of that was generally correct. There was a lot of flaws there, but generally right. And then there’s this one right here that. Now this is what I mentioned earlier about immunity. And we’ll get into. And. And I’ll get into it again in a minute. Go ahead. See here. So the Supreme Court gives the president the power of a king.

The immunity decision has enormous implications for Trump’s trial and the future of the presidency. And this is from July of 2024. You’re reading. It has long seen that the stall would be the worst thing the Supreme Court could do when it came to Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution. How naive Delay there will be. The six justices in the Republican appointed super majority held a former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. They added there is no immunity for unofficial acts. Rather than make clear and that trying to overthrow the Constitution’s peaceful transit transfer of power is not an official act.

The justices send the whole matter back to the trial Judge Tanya Chudkan, or whatever name Howard said that expect more con consideration, more parsing, more rulings, more appeals. It will all likely end up at the Supreme Court again in a year if the whole prosecution isn’t shut down entirely. But damage to our system goes well beyond the delay. Trump vs. US astounds in its implications. It grants the President the power of a monarch. Richard Nixon defended his conduct in Watergate, telling interviewer David Frost, when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal. Effectively. The Supreme Court’s super majority has now enshrined that brazen claim.

To be clear, there are reasons to be nervous about the prosecution, the prosecuting former chief about prosecuting former chief executives. So some standards make sense. In this case, though, the court has issued an instruction manual for future lawbreaking presidents. Make sure you conspire only with other government employees. You’ll never be held to account. What makes something an official act in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives, the justices ruled. And a jury cannot learn about the other parts of criminal conspiracy that may involve official acts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not agree with this last critical point.

She said that the court, of course juries can consider the context of a criminal act. Neither Justice Samuel Alito, who flew insurrectionist flags outside his two homes, nor Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was on the Ellipse on January 6, recused themselves. They cast the deciding votes to keep the to keep from jurors the full story of the attempted overthrow of the Constitution. God. All right, so real quick, I don’t even. I don’t even want. Yeah. You know, once again, and we’ve talked about this, number one, if January 6th was an overthrow of the Constitution, then we did a piss poor job at it because we’re the ones that believe in the Second Amendment as beside but.

And it obviously wasn’t. But what we’re talking about Here is Article 1, Section 3 and, and when it comes to immunity, basically they’re the court did not say the president just if they do it, it’s not illegal. That’s not what was said. What was said is that the President has immunity for official acts. Now what where the court missed was what’s in the Constitution. What a surprise. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not exist as Article 1, Section 3 judgment. Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

But the party convicted shall nevertheless be Liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. So what it’s saying is if the President is operating illegally and you want, and, and there needs to be in a criminal investigation and case against that president, they first have to face a political court, which is impeachment once removed. And if they’re convicted through that political court, then the criminal court can happen. President cannot be prosecuted while they’re president. They must be removed from office and be convicted for what you want to go after him for. You cannot, though, arbitrarily go after him for something that he was never convicted of by the Senate through impeachment.

Then there’s an immunity. In other words, if the President acted in a legal manner, you don’t wait until later and go, oh, by the way, that was illegal. You catch them in the act, you impeach them, you convict them, then the President may for anything be criminally indicted and, and convicted after his, after he’s removed from office. But so impeachment is that key part that they didn’t bring up when it came to that case. He is not totally immune. He can be convicted, criminally indicted for anything, but first he has to, it has to have been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial.

Right? Well, I, the, I was trying to find some articles and with just a really, you know, brief cursory search of, of, of where, you know, Congress had ceded and control to the President on, on a multitude of issues that would support what Trump said. And these are what I, these are, this is just like the, the, the, the first things that popped up. So do you have any other knowledge, you have any other knowledge of, of acts or that have been passed by Congress that, that basically give the President more power or, or have seed, seated power that was originally designed for either the House or the Senate to the President? No, not, not specifically.

Most of the power that has been obtained by the President has, is by precedent. For example, you have, you know, actions by the Laconian Republican presidents, which was against the conformal Confederate States. You have Teddy Roosevelt with his environmental actions. When asked if he acted unconstitutionally during his presidency, Teddy Roosevelt responded, remember, he’s the first progressive President. And he responded, every active action I did was constitutional because there’s no place in the Constitution that forbid it. Of course, that’s not how the Constitution works. Woodrow Wilson, same same attitude. So the strengthening of the presidency, the power of the presidency really has been accomplished by precedent and it also be accomplished by something else.

The executive order. The executive order was not Originally called an executive order, the word order was not a part of his name. It was a presidential proclamation. I think Washington had like eight of them and then the next two or three presidents after that had one or two or three each or something like that. By the time you get to Teddy Roosevelt, you have over a thousand. Franklin dell Roosevelt, over 3,000. Right. Real close to like 3,700 or something like that. And the executive order, because the word order is there, it is treated as if it is an order, as if it is law.

And then you have these regulative regulatory agencies and, and departments, executive departments, beginning to also. What was the word through. Through. Through implication or by apply. Implying what it says, interpreting the law and then doing as they please based on that interpretation. Now the Chevron deference, uh, case last year got rid of that officially, but nonetheless it still happens because we have an executive branch that believes that it is its job to interpret the Constitution carried out as it wants and to do what it wants as long as, as long as it’s for the quote unquote common good or general welfare.

And once again, there are not laws of necessarily established. This are some, but for the most part it’s been done by precedence. It’s that president did it. So that means it’s okay. Just like these, just like these blanket, part sweeping blanket pardons. Where did the idea even come from? Well, Ford did it with Nixon precedent. Yep. Well, that’s pretty much all I have. Did you want to jump back into Article 2 now? We can, but I also want to remind everybody how important it is to understand. No, the President does not supposed to have unlimited powers.

No, the President is not supposed to be able to make law, modify law or repeal law. However, the President does have impound power, which means that he believes that the money is not necessary on something. He can withhold spending the money even though it’s been appropriated for some. As a matter of fact, there’s a bunch of lawsuits right now because Trump is saying, hey, you guys work with me or I’m just going to keep federal funding from you. Now they’re saying oh that’s illegal, that’s unconstitutional. What a Democrat president’s been doing their entire lifetime withholding federal funding when state doesn’t comp do what they want.

So first of all, they’re complaining about what they are guilty of. Secondly, the President can do that. Of course that federal funding he’s withholding is unconstitutional in the first place. That’s beside the point. Right. So you know, and, and this battle right now you know it’s funny how constitutional the Democrats are when their guy make when the guy they hate is is in power and then they claim things about costumes just not true. Birthright citizenship being a good example. We’ve mentioned this and there’s got what, 22 AGS suing over this. Well you can’t do that. You can’t change the Constitution.

Not changing the Constitution. Constitution doesn’t support birthright citizenship. Talked about this on videos. The what constitution citizenship clause says is born, born or naturalized and subject to jurisdiction thereof. If you read the congressional testimony in 1866 mainly by Senator T.R. and Senator Howard, the explanation is that subject jurisdiction thereof means subject to the full jurisdiction meaningful allegiance. If you are here but your parents if you’re born here but your parents have no no allegiance or they have not taken any action to show that allegiance, you’re not a citizen if your parents are here temporarily important you’re not a citizen.

Being born America still is not enough. No country in the world does it that way. And, and for some reason we do. And then they’ll argue well 1898 1k mark, Doug and and even Mark Levin. I wanted to slap him upside the head. I love the man 99 of the time and he’s talking about the birthright citizenship and he got it all right until the 1898 Juan Kilmart case. He says well you know those justices just messed up. They were, you know they, they were activist judges and, and they. It was a bad decision. No, read the, read the ruling.

They did not rule that. Wong Kim Ark says that that ruling says that being born American soil is enough to be a citizen. That’s not what the ruling says. The people who are saying that is because either they have a political narrative to support or, or they’re against it. But they haven’t read it. Mark Levin has not read the ruling. If you read the ruling, here’s what he would have said. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof was also met in that case according to the justices in his case though, because his parents could not become citizens, they became permanent residents which which satisfied the end subject to the jurisdiction there apart making won K Mark born America so of parents who are trying to show their allegiance through becoming permanent residents making him a citizen both parts born or naturalized and subject jurisdiction.

And when it says naturalized and subject jurisdiction, how does it met there? Well when the person given their oath renounces their citizenship another country now they are satisfied and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That’s what it comes down to. And why all these people can’t. It. Because. It’s because they don’t research, they don’t, they don’t read the congressional hearings with, or it goes against, or they, they deliberately avoid. Some of it is because they’re narrative. I’m talking about people like Mark Levin. Ah, well, Mark, listen, listen. You know Mark Levin. In my humble opinion, Mark Levin loves this country, but there’s another country that he loves more, and I have issue with that.

There’s another country he loves more, legal or Israel. Israel. Yeah. I’m not gonna get in a conversation with you. I know. I’m just saying I don’t agree, I don’t agree with you on that. And, and it’s probably allies with them. It is important that we are. And, and there’s a lot of things that are there that are misunderstood and misinterpreted, mis. Put out. I don’t want to use the word misinformation because that’s not a good word to use. But in many ways there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Problem is, everything that they’re claiming is misinformation.

It’s the right information. The misinformation is what they’re claiming is the truth. But get back to birthright citizenship. Being born American soul or not naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that mean? It means allegiance. You know, if you’ve got, say, you know, two people on vacation in the United States having a kid on the soil, they’re here temporarily, the kid’s not a citizen. Nope. They’re not subject to the jurisdiction. Well, but they’re subject to the laws while they’re here. And that’s what they’re saying is subject jurisdiction. But they’re temporary. They’re not subject to the full jurisdiction.

Every law doesn’t apply to them. They don’t have full jurisdiction. Right, I, I agree with that. I agree with that. What, where, where did you leave off in. We never finished natural born. All right. We talked about two thirds of one I want to talk about on a natural born citizen. And basically at the time. Well, I was, I was going to explain is what I already just explained is the problem is we have a political class who has taken a lie. Now, birthright citizenship claims that it has some type of constitutional or judicial support and it doesn’t.

And then they’ve said it so many times, you know, you know the saying, right. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Everybody believes this is the truth. Can’t argue against it. I get conservatives arguing with me about birthright citizenship. Until lately of course. Now even they are starting to change our tune. Birthright citizenship, you’re not automatic a citizen when you’re born American soul and you’re not automatically a natural born citizen when you’re born in American soul. Neither one and birthright citizenship will tell you that regular citizenship and natural born citizen is the same thing.

I know it’s not because the language in Article 1, section. I’m sorry, Article 2, section 1 which says no person accepted natural born system or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoptionist constitution shall be eligible the office of President. If they were the same thing, they would not have separated them there or it’s not the same thing. You, you. Every, every natural born citizen is a citizen, but not every citizen is a natural born citizen. Natural born citizen is when you have two parents at your birth that are American citizens. The idea was that you’re going to be raised with more American values.

You’re going to be less likely to have foreign ideas shoved into your brain. Of course you cannot one 1000% guard against that, those problems. But it sure helps if the person is a second generation American. 100 and, and I think that’s, that’s the, you know, going back to when, when all this stuff really started going awry. What back in the 50s and 60s when you, you had, you had the, the minds of the youth that were being corrupted unknowingly and very, very systematically, you know, in, in tiny little increments. And then once it hit, once you get into the 70s and the 80s, then it started to, it started to get bigger and bigger and, and then by the 90s and the 2000s it was like it was over.

And, and now we have a, just, we have a system of just nothing but woke, which is completely anti American. But you couldn’t get here, you, you, you couldn’t jump from 1950 to 2020. You, you can’t make that 70 year jump without the incremental, you know, moves that they made over that long course of time. Well, and creepy and incrementalism is sort of like computer technology. The further down the road you get, the faster it starts to move along. Correct. You know, it’s funny because Yarn Addict in the chat room says, I remember 75 cents a gallon.

I remember 30 cents a gallon back when I was just a kid. If you remember the early 70s and Ron is nodding his head, he knows what I’m talking about. Remember when stamps were less than a dime oh, yeah. I remember when it was like 8, 8 or 9 cents. I remember when it got to 10 cents, people were freaking out a 10 cents for a stamp. Then I remember when I got to like 35 and it was like 35, then 37, then 39, and then they had to come up with the Forever stamps because that way it’s like you didn’t have to, you wouldn’t have to worry about whatever you bought it at that.

It was still good. Right. I remember when I was. What’s the letter cost today? A buck. Is it? Yeah, I bought a bunch of Forever stamps. Like, I think I bought a roll of 100 Forever stamps maybe four years ago. So. And I think they were like, I don’t, I don’t know what they were at the time, but it’s, it’s cheaper than what it is now. Yeah, but I mean, it’s insane that you have to actually have Forever Stamps. I shouldn’t say a buck, it’s 73 cents, but, but it’s a buck after you. If you get them at, at one of those whatchamacallit places, the depots, it’s like a buck because, because they charge you a little extra.

But, but yeah, it’s like three quarters basically. Right. I remember when, like I said, I remember when, when it got to 40 cents back in like the uh, late 90s, early 2000s, and people were freaking out. Well, it’s creeping. Of incrementalism is what it is. And, and because what they do is they slowly inject socialism and collectivism and tyranny just a little bit of time. So you, you, you don’t either, you either don’t notice. You go, oh, well, that ain’t too bad. I guess we could go with that. Right? And, and eventually it all adds up.

It’s pushing the envelope to the edge of the desk. Eventually that envelope’s going to fall over the edge of the desk and it goes back to the old, you know, you know, frog in the pot, you know, boiling, Boiling water. Yeah, exactly. Hey, I’m in a sauna, you know. By the way, did you see, did you see or listen to Trump’s speech at DOB that he gave to Davos? Oh, yeah. And the best way to describe it is he went up there and said, I’m back. I want to share, I want to share something with you here, because a lot of people didn’t, they didn’t pick up on it, and I want to see if you pick up on it.

Let me find it here. I talked about this last night on my, on the show that I did with Ghost, and it was, it was very interesting. I, I noticed it the other day. Let me find it. Here it is. Okay, here we go. What do you see in that? Is there anything, is there anything in the presidential seal that you see? Weird. I see weird. Mm. Keep in mind, there are two presidential seals there. Yeah. There’s the President. Aside from the fact that the looks like the eagle’s head is looking a different direction. It is.

Is that what you picked up on? Yes, it’s. What direction is it? It’s, it’s looking at, instead of looking at the direction of the olive leaves, it’s looking at the direction of the arrows. Mm. Which means one is peace, one is war. And if you look at the presidential seal on the podium, it’s looking at the, the, it’s facing the olive branch. But if you look at the one that’s in his, that’s in the background, it’s facing the arrows. Do you believe that that was his way of saying, I think peace, but I could be war if you mess with me.

I think that is an absolute calm that, I mean, considering what he actually said to them and what Malay said to them, which I, I, I can’t, I, I have to believe that those two speeches were coordinated. It was, that was just absolutely, that was, to me, that was like, Yeah. I mean, he, he essentially said, look, I won in landslide, in a landslide fashion, and the entire American people are behind me, and there’s nothing that you guys can do that’s going to make me have to do what you think I’m now, by the way, work with me or I’m going to tear a few or other one or something else.

Right. Yeah. I thought that was a major deal to see Yarn Addict. I think the whole bunch of the Davos crew pooped their pants after Trump and Milani. You know what? Absolutely. So anyway, I just thought that was a big deal. When I, when I first saw that, I was like, whoa, that’s actually, I, I pointed that out to a few other friends and they were like, holy. I didn’t even see that. But I don’t know, I, maybe I’m, that took me a moment, but, but I, I saw that. Once you pointed it out, I wonder how many other people noticed it.

I don’t know, but they noticed it. Yeah. Davos people. Well, I don’t think they, I don’t think they know to know it. I don’t think they, they, but maybe subconsciously they may have Picked up on it, maybe, but at the end of the day, it still is. To me, that was actually rather significant. Maybe that was for the American people to see and pick up on, but that was a big deal. That’s, that’s definitely a question. If I was in a newsroom and I had the ability to ask a question about that, I would ask because that’s a, that, that, that was not accidental.

Interesting. All right, well, I’ve got my Make America great again hat on. I’ve got my come and take it shirt on. Trump is my president. I’ve had this, I’ve had this sweatshirt for, shoot, like six or seven years. It’s still, I love wearing it because it’s so simplistic and it’s just, it just pisses people off because it’s big red and it just says Trump on it. And so I just, especially here in SoCal. Yeah, so I have a sticker that says Trump 2024. And I went out there with a big black pin and added the word one W O N.

It’s, It’s a beautiful day, man. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s. I’m, I’m, you know, there. You’d be surprised, actually, at the amount of people here, here that are like, just really happy. You know, I, I, I went down, I had to go down to Mexico to get some dental work done. And I know a lot of people that do that. Oh, yeah, it’s cheap. Well, the, they had a makeshift border patrol checkpoint on the 8th between Brawley and the, and the, it was about 20 miles before the Colorado river in California. Okay, that was, that I had, I have never seen that.

Yeah, not on the eight. I, you know. Well, I mean, there is one on the one on 15. And sometimes you’ll get makeshift ones along the way or like run along 15, like at Rainbow or something. But when you get off the freeway, but never going east and west, I’ve never seen them. Oh, no, there are, there is one on the eight. There’s one on the eight in Arizona as well. Yeah, I’m talking about in the San Diego area. Well, it’s not even San Diego. That’s actually, that’s obviously, that’s out. It was like 20 miles county.

Yeah, 20, 20 miles from the, from the Arizona border. So it’s just, I just had never seen anything like that before. And on the way back, there was, there’s, there’s another one on the 86 right there by the Salton Sea. And the, the I said to the guys, I said, you guys, you guys must be like the weight has been lifted off your shoulders or your job just must have gotten a whole lot easier or something like that. And they, the guy smiled and said, absolutely. And you can just tell he’s like that. They’re the, you know, they, they no longer are having to do their job with their feet tied together and their hands tied behind their back.

So. Well, that’s what they got, that’s what they pursued that job for, is to do their job. Yeah, it’s a beautiful thing. I just see Selena Gomez crying. Ah, yes, that was children. The children. Criminal aliens first. Yeah, it’s always the children. They only do that. They only talk about the children when it works for their benefit. Forget about all the children that are being sexually trafficked. So. But so far They’ve already found over 300, 000 children that were missing. I don’t doubt that. I don’t doubt that. Well, Tackleberry says they’re self deporting here in Texas.

Yeah, I’ve, I’ve been hearing that they, the, the self deportation started about a month before the inauguration. Then they were showing pictures of people at the border trying to get into the country from a few months ago. And then the other day, really nobody’s there right today. Nobody, nobody’s trying to cross no more. We don’t, we’re not going to be worried about any more migrant caravans. We’re not going to have to worry about. Well, I, I saw pictures of like, you know, there was helicopters and ospreys and all kinds of stuff going. I mean the activity, the military activity at the border is off the chart.

And then in the chat room, Gus2 says, I love piss and liberal soft. I am a master. I like to, whenever I see bumper stickers for someone like Biden or Common or something like that, I purposely try to get my vehicle in front of them so they have to look at my Trump sticker and my prayer changes things sticker. And that’s so true. It’s so much fun. It is really. It’s just, it’s so much fun. And you know, I’m, I, everything that’s going on now is just, it’s. I, I don’t know if it’s gonna, if it’s gonna be this peaceful in perpetuity because I do think at some point there’s, you know, the, the, the left has fought too hard to get this power.

And when I say the left, I’m not talking about Democrats, I’m talking about people like, you know, you know, neocons and, and the, and the, the Marxist left. They both, everybody to the left of the Constitution. Right. And, and Trump has changed the Republican Party. The old guard, right, McConnell, they’re on their way out. Yeah, yeah. All the, all the damage that was done by Eisenhower is, is now beginning to be undone. All the damage from Eisenhower to Bush is being undone. So, but anyway, well, this was, you know, even though we really didn’t get much into the Constitution, I think this was a really good exercise to talk about the, you know, the, the, the, the power that the president has and you know, a lot of the things that he’s doing.

It’s, you know, it’s so funny when, when you look at all these people, oh, we got to pass a law. We got to do this. No, you don’t need to pass a law. There’s already laws on the books that do what, what, what you need to get done. Just enforce the existing laws. And I, and, and the regulatory state that, you know, Trump, you know, I remember when Trump said if you’re going to pass one new regulation, you need to get rid of three. Now it’s like a 10 to 1. Mm. And I love how he froze federal spending and froze federal hiring and how he said he was gonna put all of the, all the, the IRS border agents or all the IRS agents that they got hired, you know, stick them down at the border.

Real special ed calls us the great D program, guys. Yeah, well, that’s, and Melvin thanked us for another good show. I gotta go. But folks, when we get back next week, oh, we’re going to finish off the eligibility requirements for president and I want to get into the, his, his role, Commander, chief, all that’s going to come up. And so what can he do? What is his power? So we talked about how it’s become more powerful. Now we’re at the, we are at the point in this Constitution article two where we’re going to start getting into some of what his powers really are.

What is it he can do? Yeah, well, and for those of you who are curious, Mike King sent me an email just before it was about an hour ago and said he’s got some, he’s got some electrical issues at his house and he’s not going to be able to do it tonight. So we’re gonna, that show has been postponed until Thursday. I will be uploading a short video telling everybody about that. But if you’re watching here, you won’t need to watch it. So, but, but Mike will be on Thursday at same time, 8:00pm Eastern. So. And we’re going to be going over his new book.

So. So no, no more shows tonight. I’ve got some stuff that I’ve got to get done and so it’s actually kind of a blessing in disguise. So thank you, Doug, for a good show and we’ll look forward to seeing you next week. By the way, when are we doing this thing with the Federal Confederate Constitution? That’s good question. Talk to Brady. We’re. We have one more episode first that we need to do. We’re going through all Trump’s executive orders. We’ve done two shows so far going through his executive orders. We got one more show to do the rest of them.

If you guys are, uh, would like to see that, go to Brady’s. Rumble. It’s rumble.com warhamster. Rumble.com warhamster or you can go to my site also douglasvgibs.com I’ve been writing stuff, putting stuff up, putting also videos that he and I have done on there. So check that out. Yep. Alrighty, guys. Well, hey everybody, have a great night and we will see you next week for more of the Constitution. Have a great night, everybody.
[tr:tra].