Learning The Constitution | Lesson 23 – Article 3 Judicial Branch Continued

➡ The speaker discusses the upcoming daylight savings time change, the differences in daylight hours based on geographical location, and the impact of weather on daily life. They also delve into a debate about the U.S. government’s potential withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations, questioning the President’s authority to do so. Lastly, they clarify the difference between a constitutional republic and a federal republic.
➡ The discussion revolves around the differences between a federal republic and a confederation of states. In a confederation, member states hold most of the power, while in a federation, the federal government has more power but states still maintain some autonomy. The conversation also touches on the efficiency of Switzerland’s system, where cantons (similar to states) hold power. The talk concludes with a debate on the role of judges in the U.S., suggesting that those who rule unconstitutionally should be impeached.
➡ The text discusses the concept of ‘maladministration’ in relation to impeachment, arguing that it should have been included in the Constitution. It suggests that if a person in power, such as a judge or president, carries out their duties in a way that goes against the Constitution, this is maladministration and could be grounds for impeachment. The text also discusses the separation of powers, arguing that the judiciary should not micromanage the executive branch. It concludes by discussing historical examples of clashes between the judiciary and executive, and the concept of ‘good behavior’ in office.
➡ The text discusses the Mexican American War, arguing it was more of a liberation than an expansionist move. It also talks about the role of the President and judges in the U.S., emphasizing that judges should not get rich from their positions and that the President has the power to control spending. The text also mentions the importance of the Constitution and how it outlines the specific powers of the federal courts. Lastly, it touches on the speaker’s family history and their rebellious nature.
➡ The text discusses the powers of the federal government and the courts as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. It explains that the federal government’s powers are delegated by the Constitution and must be in it. The text also discusses the roles of the federal courts, including their jurisdiction over cases involving U.S. laws, treaties, ambassadors, and disputes between states. It further explains the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction, with the Supreme Court having both depending on the case.
➡ The text discusses the power of Congress to check the judiciary through the exceptions clause. If a judge makes a ruling that Congress believes is unconstitutional, they can pass a law to overturn it. This can even be done without the president’s approval if two-thirds of Congress votes in favor. The text also mentions that judges can be impeached by Congress, although this is rare.
➡ The text discusses the historical context of jury selection in colonial America, emphasizing that a jury was originally meant to be composed of peers who knew the defendant well. It also touches on the power of Congress to decide where trials should be held if the crime was not committed within a state. The speaker then mentions their upcoming discussion on treason and shares some personal anecdotes about their pets and their book, “Repeal Democracy”. The text ends with the speaker promoting their radio shows and expressing anticipation for an upcoming speech.
➡ The speaker discusses a recent interview with John King, an Australian of Aboriginal descent who overcame childhood trafficking and PTSD. The speaker also mentions a State of the Union-like speech by the current president, despite him being in office for less than two months. The speaker plans to fly soon, despite rumors of increased plane accidents, and will host a pre-recorded watch party. Lastly, the speaker anticipates a discussion about former President Jimmy Carter and his potential manipulation by his advisors.

Is Tuesday, March 4th. I always forget to look at the date before I go live. I just have to, it’s like, I don’t know, one of those habit, habitual things where I, I say I’m gonna do it and then I don’t and then I have, then I have to like, oh, what is it? But Anyway, it’s Tuesday the 4th of March, 2025. And next weekend, man, I can’t wait next weekend and go back to daylight savings. It’s gonna be awesome. Oh, is that this coming weekend? No, not this weekend. The following weekend. Okay. Yeah. Clocks move forward for all of those outside of Arizona and Hawaii, so.

But up here too, because we’re further north. It’s funny because you get into the middle of summer and the sun’s not, you know, completely. You don’t get sunset until like 30 after 10. Yeah. I remember one year for 4th of July, we’re up here and they couldn’t do the fireworks till 10:30. It wasn’t dark enough until then. Yeah, the further north latitude you get the, like, like, you know, where we are here in SoCal, when the days get longer, they get longer by about like 30 seconds. 30, 30 to 45 seconds a day. And then, but up there I think it’s probably more like about two to three minutes a day.

Each consecutive, each consecutive day gets like, it’s substantially longer than it is down here and then also substantially shorter because in the winter time. What time does the sun, what time does the sun set? Like 3 o’clock? Well, we were getting dark right around 4, just after 4 there for a while, but now we’re back up to like 5 or 5:30. Yeah, but I mean, but this, but I mean, it starts to get dusk about 3:30ish. Yeah. Down here it’s about an hour difference. So, but you know, you get up into Washington and British Columbia and you know, and then you get up above the Arctic Circle and the sun never goes down.

Well, the thing is, so when it’s getting, when you have the shorter day and it gets darker earlier, you really don’t notice because it’s raining all the time. The sky’s kind of dark anyway, so. Well, I, I, I, I have heard that it only rains twice a year in Oregon, like August to May and then June to September or something like that. Well, I will say this. We get over the weekend what Southern California gets all year long, right. 100%. But, but you know, it, you get used to it. It’s no big deal. And I, you know, as a Writer and video guy and stuff like that.

I’m indoors anyway. But when the sun comes out, then it’s like everybody’s in town, man. Everybody’s trying to get stuff done. I jump on my tractor or whatever. Right. Hi, everybody. Yeah, we. People are starting to. People are starting to flow in. So that’s a good. Berry already has a question. Constitutional Republic or Federal Republic? Well, kind of both. Federal Republic, technically. But a Constitutional republic is. We are a republic. It has a constitution. But a Federal Republic is more specific. We are a federation. That’s. That’s the more. That’s. That. That would be the more accurate term of what.

Of what our system of government is. Well, yeah, just like is. Are they Q tips or are they cotton swabs? Right. Well, one is more specific. It’s a company, you know. Well, yeah. Okay. Before we jump into the judicial thing, I’m hearing a lot of rumblings going around D.C. going around the blogosphere, going around all kinds of places that tonight, when Trump addresses both houses of Congress, whether or not the left shows or not, I don’t care, but I’m hearing rumblings that he is going to announce that we are going to be pulling out of NATO and possibly also pulling out of the United nations, or he.

I know. I don’t think that we can do that. We have. That has to be Senate approved. He. The President can’t just pull us out of that. That has to be. That was kind of what I. Where I wanted to ask you this. Does the President have the authority to pull us out, or does that have to be. Well, if it’s. Both of them are treaty organizations. So it was a treaty, and the Senate had to approve that treaty. So while the President negotiated and signed, the Senate ratified. So the suggestion would be that it would take a Senate to reverse it as well.

Okay. Right. That’s. And that was. That was kind of. That was my thought, but I didn’t know. I wanted to. I just wanted to make sure that just because the Senate ratified it, does that mean that the President still has the authority to pull us out. Now, don’t forget, we have a system. Now, I’m not necessarily saying this is the way it should be or that I agree with it, but we live in a time period in which emergencies and national security give the President special powers. Absolutely. So. Well, apparently Trump was saying something along the lines of the United Nations.

The people who come to the United nations, it’s like with their diplomatic passports, they essentially can break almost every law, traffic law, whatever, and they can’t be held to account for at all. Diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity. And they, they cost the city of New York millions of dollars a year because of their diplomatic immunity. So I would be all for that. It’s long overdue. I know he pulled us out of the World Health or he pulled us out of the World Health Organization. That, that was, that, that’s not, wasn’t done by treaty. It was an agreement because it’s a part of the United Nations.

So his question is based on the President, you know, were we going to participate in that part of UN so he could do that just like he could pull us out of the Paris Climate Accord because it wasn’t technically a treaty. Right. So anyway, I, I, I was, somebody said that they were thinking about doing that. I looked up, I, I kind of chat g GPT it today. I was, I was driving and I just, I, I asked Chat, chat GPT to tell me all of the treaties and international agreements that the United States is, you know, has, and it said, it just, it gave me like, highlights.

It didn’t give me, it didn’t go into great detail, but I didn’t really dig too deep and I was driving and I wasn’t going to be chat gpting while I was driving like that, so. But I was down in your neck of the woods today, your old neck of the woods. I had to go down, I was right off of, I met, I met a friend at the, at Navy Federal down off of Nicholas in Winchester. That was a branch that I, I, I figured. Yeah. Matter of fact, it was right down the street from where I lived.

I know. That’s why I said it was in your old neck of the woods. Yeah. Because you know where Rustico Restaurant is. Yeah, yeah. I’m like, I was like two and a half blocks from there. Right. I know. I’ve, I’ve been to your house. I, I, I had been to your house. Oh, that’s right, you picked me up that one time. Yeah, yeah. I, I, I, I, I’d been down there a couple times, so. Hi, everybody. Yeah, how you doing? I sent you the invite in the event that you want to pop in for a few.

So you’re, you’re welcome to, welcome to join us if you, if you, if you, if, if you have, if you have a permission slip. Wow. I could almost hear. Never mind. I’ll be nice. What was that? Honey, stop cracking that whip over there. Geez, honey. So, yeah, all in jest. I love you, honey. May I? Honey, May I? Honey, may I? I Love you, brother. Don’t worry. Yeah, I thought of Warhammester the other day because, you know, it’s a rodent, like a squirrel. And I watched this video of the squirrel and it was caught. This guy pulls a squirrel out, he’s taking care of it, nurses it back in health.

And then the picture after that, is it pulling it out of the oven? Yeah, I think somebody’s whipped. But hey, you know, what can you. What can you say? Yeah, we’re ball busters. Anyway, get back to Tackleberry. He asked if there was a difference between a constitutional republic, federal republic. Constitutional republic is a republic that’s. That has a written constitution. A federal republic is what we have in which the federalism there. The federal government only has some powers, not all powers. It’s not a national government or federation of states with a federal government that only handles certain issues and the states retain most of the powers.

And. And then there’s checks and balances on that’s a federal republic, a constitutional republic, anything it considers itself a republic and has a constitution can call itself a constitutional republic. But a federal republic specifically has the limited government and the enumeration doctrine and the checks and balances and state sovereignty and autonomy and things like that. Now, I’m going to piggyback on what we’ve. The side project that you and I in Warhamster have been doing. What is the difference between a federal republic and a confederation of states? Confederation is the member states hold more power, almost all power, and the.

The central. The central agency that holds them together has almost no power. But in a federation, the federal government whole has a lot more power. The, the member states, while still sovereign and autonomous on most things, are not in a confederacy. Confederacy be like the European Union where the member states pretty much each hold all of their own power and the union has some power, but it’s very little. But a federation is. Is. Is more. Is more national in the sense that it leans in that direction. There’s more power to the central government, but the states still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy and sovereignty.

Then you get a national government in which the states are really nothing more than provinces. Okay, an example Canada on that last one. I mean, the provinces have very little. And. And I’m surprised the provinces have any. Be honest with you in the Canadian system. But well, you know, there, as I understand it, and I’m going to bounce this off of you as I understand that there is one country out there who has essentially our system, but it’s much. They employ their. How they Run it is much more efficient than the way that, than the way we run it and much more aligned to way our system of government is supposed to operate.

And that would be Switzerland. I’ve heard that before, but I haven’t studied Switzerland’s system enough to know that for sure. Yeah, so I forget what they’re called. They’re not called states. I keep wanting to say prefectures, but that’s Japan. Cantons. Cantons in, in, in Switzerland they’re called cantons, not states. But it’s, but they’re A canton is essentially the same thing as a state. And from what I understand the. There’s 26 of them and they’re very, very small because Switzerland’s not that big anyway. So they, the, their, their system of government is, is extraordinarily efficient and, and, and decentralized.

So there was discussions during the constitutional convention over all of that. In fact, Alexander Hamilton during the constitutional convention said that the state should be like corporations, meaning that they should be like provinces. They should be under control, almost total control under the quote unquote national government. And meanwhile the anti federal sand federal government has too much power. We’re not giving the states enough. We need to lean back, you know, more towards the articles. Confederation. Everybody knew the articles of confederation wasn’t working. A confederation, when there’s practically no power centralized, certain issues become, become while they’re put in danger.

Because you know, it’s just like as the old, old saying goes, are you ready for a political correctness crazy. As the older saying goes, you know, too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Not enough Indians. All right, so that’s what happens in confederation is you have too many chiefs, not enough Indians. And, and so you want to do want to centralize the power on certain things, you know, national security being one of them. Also when there’s disputes between the states, you know, you want the central government to be involved. You know, maritime law, trade, all that jazz.

And confederacies do that on a limited basis. But the approval by the member states is greater. It requires greater approval. And so they don’t let their central government operate almost at all independently. Federal government allows the federal government to operate independently on a lot of things. But what the states did to still make sure they had some type of oversight is they were appointing their, the u. S. Senators, which that’s been taken away. So we’re actually not constitutional slash federal republican. Really Federal, excuse me, federal public. We were before. Because of things like that, we are becoming more of a democracy.

Good old, the good Old progressives. I love how they. I love how they do that. So if you’re. They. They say, oh, well, you know, you’re. We’re progressives. And if you’re not progressive, that means you’re regressive. So that means you. Would. You. You know, it’ It’s. It’s the old neuro linguistic programming saying we’re progressive and if you’re not progressive, then you’re not, you know, for forward progress. So you’re. You’re actually to go. You want to be basically Amish the rest of your life. Well, progressive. They are progressive, but they’re progressing towards failure. And so just because you’re progressing during.

Towards failure doesn’t mean that progress or that type of progress is a good thing. Well said. Very well said, I should say. All right. By the way, I ordered your book today. The, The. The democracy book or Repeal Democracy. Repeal Democracy. Very good. I ordered that one and I ordered the. The 1860 election book. I thought I had that and I didn’t. Yeah, I’ve got 1860 election book around here somewhere. And by the way, guys, just a shameless plug for the. For the class that we’re doing, Warhamster and I and Doug, we’re going basically line by line through, you know, here we go line by line through the.

Through the American Constitution and the Federal. The United States Constitution. But what we’re doing is we’re going line by line through the Confederate Constitution and showing the differences. You know, I think a really good thing that we should probably consider doing, if you guys haven’t already done it, is go line by line through the Articles of Confederation and compare that to the American Constitution as well or whatever. I mean, compare. Compared to whatever. It’s, you know, either the Confederate Constitution and the American Constitution. The election of 1860 book. You’re talking about this one. That’s correct. Yeah, I have it, but I haven’t read it yet.

In fact, to prove I haven’t read yet, it’s still in its plastic. Oh, nice. But I definitely am looking forward to reading it. All right, well, so welcome. We’re in Article 3 and you guys. Okay, you. So Warhamster says you guys already did do the Articles of Confederation. I didn’t know that. Well, he and I did. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for the invite. Appreciate it. Yeah. Ain’t right, you know, and now whenever you’re on with us, we can start messing with you and just start. Echo, echo, echo, echoing. You know, I know, I know, I know. I’m loved.

All right, so we’re in Article 3. Matter of fact, I, I, I recorded a video a couple days ago. I’m still not doing the editing on it where I I. It’s the federal courts versus The U. S. President. I’m hoping to post that tonight on my video channel. So if you guys haven’t visited my video channels, YouTube. But don’t hold your breath on whether or not all those videos will stay. Rumble, bitchute and brideon. Keyword is my name. Douglas v. Gibbs. Rumble.com Douglas v. V. Gibbs would be the best one. Most recent one I did was about the, the words we the people.

But I’ve got the federal courts versus the president and I got into a lot of what we’re. Some of what we’re talking about today and we’ve talked about in the past here, but in more detail when it comes to that relationship. As for where we are, we began article three. I talked about the, the judicial power being vested, the judicial review and all of that. Now we’re going to start working our way down the language. And so what? And so where we are is the judges, both the supreme and inferior court shall hold their offices during good behavior.

I began with that, but I didn’t finish. Does not say it’s a lifetime appointment. But they’re not elected. It is a lifetime appointment as long as they operate during times of good behavior. So what it’s saying is then what happens if there’s bad behavior? What is bad behavior? Bad behavior. They can be impeached. I believe that a lot of these judges are acting. Tron and on is here. Holy crap. Welcome, Tronan. He’s like one of my favorite channels of all time. Oh, okay. So. Wow. That’s a. That’s, that’s. I’m. I’m honored Tron and on to have you honored Tron and on is here.

So now I tell myself my head. Yeah, no pressure, Doug. No pressure. Yeah, no, he’s. He’s awesome. Tron. Tron is spectacular. I’ve been following him for I. I’ve heard you mention Tron and on before. Five, six years. So him and him and space shot. Awesome, guys. Awesome Hulkinator. All those guys. Glad you’re here. Tron and on, man. I’ve heard him talk about you. I haven’t visited Japan. He hasn’t talked about me. I don’t think he really knows who I am. But that’s okay. Apparently he does. He’s here. Yeah, he’s here. So that’s. That’s good. But I just.

You’re not A spaceless. It’s an honor. It’s an honor to see him in the chat. So. All right. So anyway, getting back to where we’re at, so. So question is. Well, first of all, judges can be impeached. And I’m a firm believer that these judges that are ruling unconstitutionally should be impeached. The problem is we have this idea that impeachment should only be used if the person, be it a judge or president, vice president, quote, unquote, breaks the law. What about maladministration of office? And if you go back to the, to the Constitutional Convention, the word maladministration was originally going to be into that document.

A couple times they decided to pull it out because they felt it was too general. Maladministration should have remained. They should have done what they did with the new language but kept it in there because maladministration, what that means is carrying out your duties, the duties of your office in a manner that is outside the way that you’re supposed to. Maladministration. And that includes the constitutionality. If you’re operating in a manner that’s outside the powers granted or the principles that are provided by the Constitution, then you’re operating unconstitutionally. Maladministration of office. And every one of these judges that are violating separation of powers, that are trying to micromanage the president, tell the president how to carry out the internal part of his office.

And understand, I’m not saying that the president can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, because he wants to. And there are consequences there when it comes to, you know, dealing with Congress, impeachment, you know, not being able to get reelected, things like that. But when it comes to the inner workings of the executive branch, the, you know, how. The how and, and where, as long as they stay within appropriations, that money is spent, the hiring or firing, the, the, the structure, you know, the offices and how many people and all that. That’s, I’m sorry, but the press, that’s his branch.

He doesn’t need to ask the courts or anybody else for permission on how to do that. And as I, and I, I can’t remember if I said this last week, but I definitely say it. My video. We’ve got a couple examples of this going back. Thomas Jefferson being one of them. Thomas Jefferson After Marbury vs Madison, when Marbury won his case and John Marshall and the Supreme Court decided, you know, what, you were supposed to get your commission, you won the case. Marbury. But he also told Marbury, but good luck in getting it because the person is supposed to make sure you got it was the President.

And he’s, he’s the execute. He’s the one executes the laws. He’s the one that enforces. And if he’s the one that says you ain’t getting it, you’re not getting it. We have no enforcement power. The courts knew they could not even if they disagreed with the president. Hey, you should have given him his commission. What are they going to do about it? They couldn’t force him and they knew it. And Jefferson did not give up that commission. And he wasn’t impeached. There wasn’t suddenly all these lawsuits popping up because he’s defying the courts. Because it was understood that the President of the United States is in charge of the executive branch.

And if he. And, and if he felt that those. And, and remember the, by the time the ruling was founded, also the 1801 Judicial act had been already repealed anyway. But, and so they, they couldn’t make another good example. Not, not that I like the circumstances involved per se, but the legality part of it was accurate. Gets to Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears courts told him, hey, you cannot force those Indian populations to move west to Oklahoma, you know, through just your own actions. And Andrew Jackson said, john Marshall’s made his decision, now let’s see him enforce it.

So understand that the president is head. It goes Back to the first language, Article 2. The ex. The executive power is vested in the President here. Now we have the judicial power of the United States vested in one Supreme Court and the inferior courts that Congress may from time to time or establish. Well, what is the judicial power? It isn’t micromanaging the President. The judicial power is hearing cases and applying the law to those cases. But they are not an enforcement arm. They don’t have an enforcement arm. They are not there to dictate and micromanage the other branches.

And then when you have judges acting outside those constitutional limits and they are ruling in a manner that’s outside what is constitutional, that is bad behavior, and they should be impeached for it. Judges, both of the stream and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, bad behavior, and that includes maladministration of office, should be able to lead them to either resign or be removed through impeachment. And this is very important once again, good behavior. What is bad behavior? It’s not just breaking the law. You have any questions that you want to add or chat room? You have anything for me? Yeah.

Anybody have Any qu. If you guys have questions in the chat, by all means, you know, spit them out. Yeah, I’ve got the chat room right up here on my screen. I’m watching, and I’ve got two shows where there’s a chat room. I have a, I have a question, Republic. I have a question that’s not necessarily constitutional as much as it is more philosophical, at least, you know, from, from kind of what the left talks about. So really more historical, you know, when, when the, when the British or, you know, when, when, when it was predominantly the British that settled the, the colonies from, you know, basically from Georgia all the way up in through New England, you know, when, when, when all those guys came here, they worked in harmony with the natives, you know, and it’s not to say that there weren’t ever, you know, times where it was like I said, you know, they, they weren’t con, they weren’t conquerors.

Like the Spanish were their families and investors. They didn’t want to fight with the local population. They needed help. They needed to work with them. 100 they didn’t. So. 100. Absolutely. 100. So, so kind of where I’m going with this is, you know, one of the arguments that we always hear on the left is that, oh, well, we just stole everybody’s land. Now, I don’t believe that we stole the land from the natives when we first landed here, you know, you know, back in the 15, 1600s, however, in 1700s. But I do believe that when we, you know, with the manifest destiny and the westward march, after we got the, you know, the Louisiana Purchase and, and, you know, and, you know, post, post civil war or post war, post war between the states, as, as the, as everybody started to migrate west, we did steal land from the Indians or we did conquer them.

Is, would that be an accurate statement? I think conquer would be a better word than steel. And you know, historically, you know, we just have to look at reality. And if we wanted to play this game where everybody should go back to their original land, well, then is Israel would go all the way out to Iran and all the way down to, you know, the edge of Egypt and all the way up, you know, the coast, getting close to, you know, Turkey. My wife’s phone goes off. No, you stop. All right. Anyway, if we wanted to play that game, you want to say, well, what about the Islam? Islam showed up like what, 700 A.D.

long after that land was already somebody else’s. Right? So to, so to play that game is kind of silly. I, I, I, I agree and first of all, second of all, when the English showed up, they, they tried to purchase and they tried to work with them. Part of the problem was, and, and this is, this is where it’s important. Part of the problem was that the local population, Indians, if you want to use that word, Native Americans, I don’t care, they didn’t understand this concept of owning land. So how do you steal land for people who don’t really believe that they owned it? Everyone owned it.

It belonged to everyone. That’s the way they operated. And even, and even, and even the newcomers, you know, they were welcome to use it. The problems weren’t over ownership early on. That’s something that the Indian population has learned from U.S. ownership. The problem was, is when we began to settle into areas that was good hunting ground, areas that they use for, you know, certain times of the year, stuff like that, and it began to interfere with the normal perception of their environment, their society, and so on and so forth. And so really that was the problem when, from their point of view.

And then lastly, and then this goes back to. Actually my first point is when there’s a clash of civilizations, there’s just a reality, the stronger one wins. And if you look back in history, land is always moving from owner to owner primarily because of con. Conquest. And I’m, I’m not condoning anything in particular. I’m not trying to, you know, play games on anything. I’m just telling you historically, that’s the way it is now. Why didn’t we keep Mexico? Because we weren’t the aggressor imperialists that they try to make us out to be. For those who. What, what he means, folks, is during the Mexican American War, we got all the way down to Mexico City.

We could have very easily said, all right, well, we conquered this land. This is our land. You know, all you guys stay south of Mexico City. We could have done that. Very much so. And, and getting back to. Without getting into the. A long story on it, Mexican American war wasn’t a war of expansionism as much as it was a war of liberation. You know, the. Mexico had adopted a constitution very much like ours in 1824. And, and Santa Ana was killing anybody that supported that old constitution. And he was, you know, killing anybody that stood against him.

And, and, and he considered, you know, the, the white people or, or non Mexicans in Texas and, and other areas to be unwilling to, to fall under his command. And so therefore they needed to be. I mean, that’s, you know, that’s all it was and so we liberated the people from that type of tyranny, and we could have very well have very easily have just kept all that property, but we didn’t. United States said, okay, now that this is over, here’s what we want. And we’re. And because we feel so bad about, you know, knocking the living, you know, crap out of you, we’re even going to pay for that property.

I mean, we offered and said, here, here’s some money so you can help you rebuild after this war. That doesn’t sound like an imperialistic, conquering country to me. Right. Okay. I didn’t mean to. I didn’t, you know, I’m not, not trying to go down that rabbit hole, but it’s, it’s, you know, because we’re talking about it right now, I think, you know, a lot of people are, you know, probably still what, you know, that watch us probably still think that we conquered or that we, you know, that we stole land from the Indians. So. And I just, I’m just trying to make the point that, yeah, that’s not exactly how it went down.

South Dakota. Gardner in the chat room asked about the process of checking that judges are adhering to the Constitution. That’s primarily going to have to be the voice of the people. And Congress impeaching. If they believe they’re going outside the Constitution, that is really the check against them. Right. To answer that question. So there you go. All right. And talk about Doge got the politicians to hire constitutionally trained people at half the pay to start real special ed. You, you might be onto something, you know, and then get back to Doge, getting back to, you know, the constitutionality.

The, the, the President of the United States can operate the executive branch as he needs to. The, the judges are basically saying, no, the bureaucracy is in charge. The bureaucracy’s. The bureaucracy is there to serve the President. They serve his pleasure. And if he says, hey, too many of you. As for the money and appropriations, appropriations means the money has to be spent on this. But if it’s too much money or spend on that is not reasonable for a number of reasons. The president does have the allowance not to spend the money or to. And to send it back to the Treasury.

That’s called the Presidential power of impoundment, which Congress passed a law in 74 and, and Nixon signed it under duress, but that doesn’t, but you can’t get rid of a constitutional power with a piece of legislation. So the President still has that. And the example I used last week is, let’s Say, you know, mom gives a kid, you know, $10 by. Well, I’ll say 20. Because $10 might not be completely out of the range now for eggs, but to go buy a carton of eggs, let’s say he finds a carton of eggs for $9. So what does he do? Pays $9, takes the money back, here’s the change.

It’s like taking the money back to treasury by the President. It would be ridiculous for mom to say no, take those eggs back, get a refund and go find someone who’s. Who char is charging $10 or $20 per dozen because that’s what I told you to spend. That’s idiotic. And that’s what they’re trying to do to the President. So to talk about doge real special. That’s it right there. And okay, now getting back to Article 1 or Article 3, sorry, Section 1. So now it says after the good behavior and shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance of in office.

I’ve always thought it curious that they will use the word compensation rather than emolument. Emolument was the term for salary or you know, money given or money made. But they use the word compensation rather than emolument. And the, and I believe based on what I’ve read and what I’ve seen that the reason why they use the word compensation is because judges and office holders like elected critters and non elected critters there in Washington. This is service to the country receive for their services. This is not just any old job that gets an emolument per se when it comes to the judges they are serving.

It’s a compensation. And, and I do believe there’s a, a different attitude that goes with that word. And then it says which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. This was to eliminate pressure on the judges to rule in a certain manner. Well, you better rule this way or we’re gonna your pay. Well, they either their, their compensation cannot be diminished during their time in office. So that, so it was an attempt to guard against. You’re never going to totally get rid of corruption, but it was attempt to guard against the corruption in that sense.

So judges are similar to other politicians as far as pay. They’re supposed to be tackleberry in the chat room but. And they’re not. And you’re not supposed to be getting rich on this. That doesn’t mean that you should be making such a low amount that you can’t take care of yourself. It is something that you’re doing, and you’re unable to take care of what, you know, your farm or your. Or whatever it is else you do outside of government. So it does need to be compensation that’s good enough that you can take care of yourself, but you’re not supposed to be getting rich off this stuff.

That’s why it’s compensation. Also not an emolument. You ever do a John Wayne operation? I, I, you know, it says, Says Doug. I don’t know. Did I kind of sound like one? I don’t know. Well, I, I do know. I don’t know, pilgrim. I can’t do John. All I know is all my family give us Arkansas. So even though I’m born and raised California, and every once in a while, a little bit of a twang will show up just because I grew up around a bunch of Archies. But. Yeah, well, my, you know, a good. My family for the most part, is from, like, kind of the Arkansas area, the.

The southeastern Oklahoma. But. But my. Around Fort Smith and all that in Arkansas. Well, yeah, Art. Kind of like Ardmore and a little bit east of that. But. But my. My real claim to fame, as most of you probably already know, is that I am a Wallace. Yes. That William Wallace of great fame from Braveheart. That is my. That’s the blood that’s coursing through my veins, which was. Which would explain why I am so rebellious. My claim to fame when it comes to historical famous figures is the Dalton boys. You want rebellious, famous bank robbers. Yeah.

Their sister was like my great, great, great, whatever. And then more modern times, Jonathan Davis releasing her corn as my cousin. So a little more rebellion, I guess, but anyway. All right. Yeah. Rebel rousers. Thank you, Tackleberry. All right, let’s continue down article three. Get into section two because this is where it gets interesting. Because what it’s doing here now is. It’s. It’s delegating the specific powers of the federal courts in Section 2. Remember the Constitution, the way it’s designed. Should I start dancing? No, that’s my mom calling me between my dog’s barking and your phone.

Hey. Well, yeah, you know, that was three Dog night. Mama told me not to come. That’s. That’s my mom’s ringtone. So. Hold on a second. I’m gonna. I’ll. I’ll let you finish while I. Because she doesn’t realize that I’m live, so I’m going to mute my phone. Yeah, I had a friend who. His White. The ringtone for his wife was a nuclear explosion and the ringtone for his mother in law was Darth Vader’s. And I told him, man, you better hope neither one of them is in the room when one of the others call you or when they call you themselves.

But anyway. All right, so our article three, section two. Remember, what we have when it comes to Constitution is the enumeration doctrine. The federal government doesn’t technically have a power unless it is enumerated, listed expressly in the Constitution. We have three places in the Constitution that kind of supports that. The, the 10th Amendment, which says that if a, if something is not delegated to the federal government and does not prohibit the states, it belongs to state. So that tells you right there, then there’s something delegated. Article one, section one, where it says that all legislative powers herein granted.

And then, and then we get into Article 1, Section 8, the necessary proper clause. And it says the foregoing powers of those powers given by amendment. So three times Constitution tells you that the powers that the federal government has are delegated by the Constitution. They need to be in the Constitution. Now that said, there’s an awful lot of things the federal government does that’s unconstitutional because they were never given the power that they ought to be doing. Like FAA aviation is not the Constitution. There was never an amendment. So technically the FAA is unconstitutional. But hey, I, I think it’s something they ought to have a hand in.

You know, planes flying over the country and around the country and off over the ocean, all that. There should be a central federal agency that, you know, sets uniform rules and all that. So I get it. Then where’s my amendment? Let’s not just decide that the Constitution can be just forgotten and just take it upon ourselves to do it. Well, in Article 3, Section 2, these are what is delegated to the federal federal courts. It, the federal courts are being given their list of powers. So, and it begins as such, the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution.

Law and equity, the laws, equity, everyone’s equal under the law. Okay, Remember, justice has, you know, you know, with the scales, the sword and a blindfold. Justice is blind. It doesn’t matter what’s seen. What does the law say? Okay, all right. So the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution. So when it says a right rising under this Constitution, it doesn’t mean if something’s mentioned in the Constitution, it’s automatically their authority. That’s not what it Means it means of powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution, rising in arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States.

So whether it’s constitutional or not, if it’s a law of the United States, they have an authority over it and treaties made or what shall be made under their authority. And by the way, this also mirrors language in Article 6, which we’ll get to down the road. Okay, so that’s. And, and treaties which made or shall be made under their authority under the authority not only of the government, the president signing it, but also under the authority that, you know, the Senate can ratified it, so on and so forth, their plural meaning states. All right, so in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls.

Now it’s giving you more detail beyond those first parts. So we have the Constitution, we have United States law, we have treaties. Then we have cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consoles to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, navigable waters, ocean, things like that. Then it says to. To controversies in which United States shall be a parties. The United States is one of the parties to the lawsuit in controversies between two or more states. So disputes between the states across the state lines, basically. Then you’ll see if you have a pocket constitution like mine, you’ll see in brackets because it’s no longer a part of, is no longer it’s obsolete because of the 11th Amendment between a state and citizens of another state.

What that means is the federal courts have no jurisdiction over it. But that doesn’t mean that that lawsuit cannot be brought. It means it must remain under state authority. So if, let’s say you’re from Arizona and you want to sue and you want to sue someone in and you want to sue the state of California, that is going to. First of all, it’s going to have to be filed in California court and then it’s going to stay within the state system. The federal courts can’t take it between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.

And here we have a bracket again. So this is once again now obsolete. And between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects. So if someone from a foreign land or a foreign country is going to enter a lawsuit with an American person or or state, then it’s going to be filed at the state. It’s got to stay within the state system. The federal courts can’t take that anymore because the 11th amendment, then it goes a little bit deeper when it comes down to jurisdiction. And also, and where those where the jurisdictions are jurisdictions.

You have two basic jurisdictions when it comes to the courts. Original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that this is the original court to take the case. Appellate jurisdiction means that the case was in another court and was appealed. And if a court has appellate jurisdiction, they can then take a case that was appealed. So your municipal courts have only original jurisdiction. Your circuit courts have only appellate jurisdiction. Your district courts have both original and appellate. And then. And the supreme court has both original and appellate, depending on what the case is. And so this is going to lay it out here.

So in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those of which a state shall be party, supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. So if the lawsuit is regarding an ambassador, a minister, a public minister, consul, or a state is. I’m not talking a state officer, but the state itself is a party to the lawsuit, then it goes straight to the supreme court. They have original jurisdiction. They’re going to be the first court to take the case. I remember when, when the Obama administration sued Arizona over their immigration law because, you know, SB870. Yep, that’s the one you know, because it was so unconstitutional and it was.

The language was so horrible. Even though the, the language actually mirrored. It was. It was the exact same language in the federal statutes. It was just applied to the state so that the, the state law enforcement officers had the exact same authority that the federal ones did. But the federal government came in and said, no, you can’t do that. Well, there was actually one difference, and I can’t remember the word off top of my head, but it’s where you, you target someone just because of, you know, their race or the way they look or something like that.

I can’t remember the right term. You mean, you mean they profiled people profiling? Yeah. So in the state law, actually, profiling was not allowed. So the federal law did allow profiling. So that was the only difference between that state law and the federal law regarding immigration. And immigration is a concurrent issue on certain aspects. It is a federal issue when it comes to the border deporting someone. But when it comes to apprehension, it is a concurrent power, a concurrent issue. And that’s what that law was based on. Well, when, when the Obama administration sued and. Oh, what’s his name? Holden Holder.

Eric Holder. Thank you. Eric Holder filed it. He filed it. And it was against Arizona. It wasn’t against the governor. It wasn’t against the secretary of state. It was against the state of Arizona. Arizona was the party to the case. And he Filed it in the district court first and they were judge shopping and all that what was unconstitutional because a state was party, therefore original jurisdiction belonged to the federal government. So myself and a couple of other constitutionalists, we were sending emails and phone calls like crazy to Governor Brewer, hey, you know, refuse this case and demand that it take goes up the Supreme Court.

You have constitutional recourse here to that to make sure that goes straight to the Supreme Court. But once the party sued accepts the case in the court that it was, that it was filed in, then that’s where it’s at. And, and any chance to get it to go to the Supreme Court got lost and that’s what happened. But I loved the day when she met Obama on the tarmac and just shoved her finger right up in his face. Oh, that was beautiful. That was just. Yeah, not, not that Jan Brewer was a saint, but she was absolutely one of the better governors that Arizona had.

Well, yeah, and she was tough as nails on when she needed to be often. All right, then it says in all other cases before mentioned, Spring Corps shall have appellate jurisdiction. So, so ambassadors, public ministers, consoles and cases in which a state is a party original jurisdiction of Supreme Court, they are the first. They’re supposed to be the first court to take the case. Everything else that was listed in the section two, they have the authority over. They have appellate jurisdiction. So it needs to go through the circular, you know, system first and all that. Then here’s the part that really, really is interesting.

I’m going to talk about the exceptions clause and this is how we’re probably going to wind up closing because this will take more than the eight, seven or eight minutes we got left. Then it says, I mean we’re not like limited to that. We can go over a few. Well, no, trust me, this will take. If you can’t, then that’s fine. But we have ex. We have a little extra time. Oh, I see what you mean. We can go beyond. Okay, well, might be, it might be prudent to finish a section 2, but anyway. All right, this says both as to state to law, in fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

That’s known as the exceptions clause. And this is. And, and now I get to answer Tackleberry’s question more because I didn’t want to give the whole thing up yet because it was part of the lesson. There is another check against the courts. He asked me earlier, how do we check these judges? So Congress has the power here under the exceptions clause, which basically means this If a judge rules or gives it a judicial opinion that is outside the Constitution that the that the legislature takes exception to, they know it’s unconstitutional, they know it’s wrong, they know it’s void.

They know it’s bad decision. They can use law to overturn that ruling or or opinion. It becomes null and void if law is passed nullifying that judicial ruling or opinion. Now what if the president’s in on it though? What if they go to pass the bill and and the president refuses to sign any vetoes it? Well then you got the ability to over override a veto. If both houses of Congress can muster 2/3 vote in favor, they can still without the president get that law passed and put a check on the on that particular court decision exceptions clause.

So Tuckerberry to go on to to finish answering question earlier about checks against the court and these judges, that’s the big one. Congress can be a check against a Wait a second, Doug. I heard that the courts, the federal courts and the Supreme Court and all that, they’re the final arbiters. We’re told that all the time. Right. Judicial review final arbiters they say goes there’s nothing you can do about it. No. Originally the courts were supposed to be the weakest of the three branches and Congress can put a check on them through law, on on their decision, on their rulings, on their opinions.

They and and remember they serve at the pleasure of the other branches. So they can be impeached. Judges can’t impeach members of Congress. Judges can’t impeach a president. But Congress sure as heck can impeach a judge and have them thrown out of office if they reach a conviction through the Senate. Now has it happened? S.D. gardner’s How how often does Congress ever do that? I don’t see much of that checker balance whatsoever. There’s been I don’t know a dozen times where a justice or a judge has been impeached and removed from office. I don’t think there’s ever been a Supreme Court justice impeached and removed from office.

But and Tackleberry yes Andrew Jackson proved the courts are not final arbors as did Jefferson. But and and it’s not often you don’t see an impeachment of a judge and conviction and thrown out of office. Remember, impeachment is the indictment. Then you get and they need to be convicted through a Senate hearing and then once they are then convicted then they removed from office. You don’t see it often. I like I said I off top of my Head. Maybe a dozen times that’s happened. But, uh, and once again, federal judges, but I don’t think any of them were, uh, Supreme Court judges, if I remember properly.

I don’t have it all in front of me. I apologize. So, so, yes, real special. I can think, I can think of gone. I could think of a few that should have. Oh, and Mershon, one more. Sean brought it by. Real special in the chat room is a great example. No, I’m thinking like Errol Warren and John Roberts and. Oh, you’re talking Supreme Court justices. Yeah, there’s that too. Well, in the case of Roberts, in his defense, I think they’re holding something over his head. I, I, I, I think the pup, the puppet strings have got him because he’s a afraid.

There’s a picture of him doing something somewhere. He’s, he’s, he’s allegedly on the Epstein fight logs. Yeah, that, that’s, that’s one suggestion I’ve heard before. Yeah, so, yeah, he’s, he’s been compromised. Yeah. But all right, so, and then SD Garner says, well, I don’t see the checks working. It’s because we’re not using them first. Exactly. I mean, you know, it’s, it’s like, you know, it’s, it’s like, you know, when you watch sports, you know, and, and, and you know, like one of the, you know, players, the LA Dodgers, does something dirty and the, and the ump doesn’t say anything about it.

What good is having the up if they’re not willing to write? So the check doesn’t, it’s, it’s only, it’s only valid to do something dirty against the Angels. I was gonna go into football, but I, but I wasn’t sure where you were with football. No, I was gonna say. Well, I see. If, if you did something like, it would be like if somebody was going up for a three point play or going up for a three point shot and they got hit, they got like massacred on the arm and the, and the, and the referee did not call a foul.

So, you know. Well, for some reason the Tuck rule came to mind. You. Yeah, the rules are only, are only valid if they’re followed. And when these people just ignore them outright. And you have referees that are ignoring them too, who are supposed to be. And my contention is they’re ignored on purpose so that it’s like, I’m going to scratch your back, you scratch mine. I’m going to ignore this and then you ignore something else and then we’ll be even. All right, so this last part, I, I, we’re definitely go over and take about five minutes or so.

That’s fine. We’re good. Definitely applies to something that happened recently. Here’s the question. When it came to the immunity case against Trump, did Donald Trump have immunity, or could they go after him criminally afterwards? And the courts ruled he had immunity, but they kind of didn’t get it exactly right. But they were close. This next part goes into that. So here’s what it says. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment shall be by jury. You know, and I, I screwed up. This is not the one right here. I don’t think it’s a different one.

I apologize. I’m two articles away, but I’m still gonna go through this one. I apologize. I’m thinking of Article 1 section. Hang on, let me do it real quick. Well, you know what? Why don’t you talk about, why don’t you talk about the lawfare that was going, that was used against Trump and all these 34 alleged felonies. Yeah, I, what I was thinking of when I just said the introduction I did was Article 1, Section 3, Final Clause. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office. Impeachment is a political trial and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office, honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

But a party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment under the law. According to law, in other words, the president is immune unless charged, indicted, impeached, and convicted. If they are convicted and removed from office based on that, then they can be gone after criminally for that item. So a president has a certain immunity, but they’re not totally immune if they are caught, impeached, thrown out of office. All right, now let me get back to what we. What I should have read without that intro. The trial of all cases except in case of impeachment shall be by jury.

All cases accept impeachment by jury. Why not impeachment? Because impeachment, the Senate is the jury. They are the jury, they are the judges, and they are the sentencers. Okay, well, there’s only, there’s only one sentence, isn’t there? I mean, if he’s convicted. Well, it is possible not to remove someone from office if he’s convicted. So theoretically, it’s possible that the punishment is not removed from office, but that would be very difficult. It’d be maybe for maladministration, because it also says when the President, Vice president, is guilty of, of High crimes and misdemeanors, which means pretty much anything.

The, the, the punishments can be removable from office. High crimes doesn’t mean that they smoke marijuana. No. And it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a vicious crime. It means that someone high in office committed the crime. That’s what a high crime is, is a crime committed by someone high end office. So anyway, so, so trial of all crimes, except in case of a patient, shall be by jury. And such trial shall be held in the state where the said crime shall be committed. Could you imagine if you did something, California decided to hold it in Boston.

Boston doesn’t understand the culture in California. Well, see, that’s what was going on in the colonies when Massachusetts became so misbehaving with the Tea Party and stuff, they decided to pass an act that took away the right by jury, created admiralty courts, and that it was possible also for the trials to be held in Britain. So they’re trying to avoid all that with this now. Now. Well, you know, I mean, you remember the, the Citizens Rule book? The one it’s like, it’s. I, I don’t think you really like it. You prefer that little pocket constitution that you have.

Yeah, Rulebook was put out by Sheriff Mack. But the Citizens Rule Book talks. It has, it has some really interesting stories about, you know, just about colonial America. And one of them talked about how the, the judge and jury, how the jury was not supposed to be people that you didn’t know, it was supposed to be people that knew you because that was your peers. Means that judge being judged by your, Being judged by your peers is not being judged by people who do not know you. It’s people who do know you. A jury of your peers, A jury of your peers is not just someone at the same maybe economic level, but people in your neighborhood, people who knew you, people who dealt with you if they could be convinced, know your character, know the things that you’re capable of.

And if they can be persuaded by the state that you’re guilty of that, that’s one more level of protection that you’re supposed to have. The whole thing of jury, you know, being impartial, that is something that has been, you know, put upon the American people and we just bought it hook, climb and sinker. But that was not the way that it was supposed to be originally. You, the 12 people on the jury that are judging you are supposed to be people that know you basically intimately. Not intimately, but certainly know you and have known you well enough for, for some time that know your Your tendencies and how you think and you know.

Exactly. Yeah. So, all right. That’s a very big deal. That’s a very big deal. The chat rooms ask, are there reparations for those who have suffered from judges that have not followed the Constitution? No, because from their point of view, they did follow the Constitution. Because you gotta realize, this is not the Constitution of these people. What you see on the screen is not the Constitution. The Constitution of them are what other judges said it is. Right? Absolutely. So. So now, so. So then it says the trial should. But when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at a place or places as Congress may by law, have directed.

Well, what do you mean, not in a state? What could be in territory. It could be on maritime, you know, out on the water. Washington, D.C. that’s not a state. If that’s the case, then Congress can, by law, say, okay, well, if something is committed here, the cases can be held there. That’s what it means. Congress, by law there has to be. It has to be legislated. Already in place. All right, that was Article three, Section two. We’re good. You know what that means, Article three. Yeah. I mean, so we begin with reason next week. Where the heck is my.

I’m not talking about treason today. I’ll talk about next week because it’s a long discussion, but we’re starting with treason next week. Article one, Section three. I don’t know why I was. Guess I was asleep of the wheel there. Yeah, you were last. Okay. I have a. I have this feline who is deciding to come up and crash on my shoulder. So this is Winchester, and he is a. He’s awesome. He’s absolutely a character. So. But he’s very happy right now. I gave him. I gave him a couple of pouches of Sunkissed tuna with some. It was the Ibanu or whatever they are.

The. It’s like the. Like a little parfait thing. So I. I spoil them. I’ll say this on the way out of here. So I have. I have two dogs. And yesterday and today are bath day. So Link, he’s the bigger one, and he’s real calm, gets his bath. He just sits there. You know, he puts up with it. No big deal. The moment that the bath water started running for Link Petey, my white dog, went running and hid. Well, that’s the reason why Virginia, my wife, waits till the next day. That way he can forget about it.

And then. Then you hit him. But he. He don’t like his baths. Well, you know, I have Bengals. And Bengals love water. So whenever I turn the water on in the sink or the shower or whatever, they flock to it, and I have to keep them out of the shower. It’s like, no, you can’t come in here. So we got a couple people in chat room saying they’re looking forward to treason next week. Yeah. So Florida, Jackson. They love Winchester. Sure. He is a. He is a very beautiful animal. And you know when. But it was about.

I. I guess it was about 16 months ago when he was. I thought he was. I thought he was not gonna make it, and I had to go down and have surgery for him or whatever, but. Well, I’m gonna. I’m gonna plug myself. Please don’t do it. Go ahead. But reading something from the chat room to do it real special. Ed. I’m almost done with Doug’s book Repeal Democracy. Great book, guys and gals. I highly recommend. Thank you. That’s my book where I basically explain the difference between a democracy and a republic. And each chapter begins basically with a.

If we were a democracy, we’d do it this way, but we don’t. We do it that way. And I kind of give you an idea of what the difference is between democracy, republic, bit by bit, piece by piece. That’s actually. That’s actually a book that I. That I need to get and read on the air. Not. Well, unlike certain people out there, I have no problem with you reading a book. Yeah. On the air even before interviewing me about it. Right. That is. You have to enter. That is definitely a good. That. That’s definitely a topic of conversation that needs to be.

Yeah. Addressed. So real special. I put a link in there from Amazon. Thank you. I’m a huge dog person. Mine is laying right next to me. Yeah. You know, I am, too. Both of minor. One’s at my feet and the other one’s kind of keeping an eye out because he was. He was the one who was barking earlier because he heard my wife doing something. He’s, like, looking around, seeing what she’s doing. But I’m a huge dog person. I love animals. I just love cats. I. I love animals, but I especially love dogs because he. Cats.

And you would think because of my personality, politically, I would love cats. You know, they’re independent, they got their own minds. I love that. But I. But see, in my house, I’m dictator. And so cats welcome. I love my dogs. My dogs love me. No matter what, I get mad at them. Guess what? They’re still excited to see me when I get back. I saw a really, I saw a really interesting video the other day of cats that actually defended their humans. Oh, really? It was really, yeah, it was really fascinating how, you know, just, just things that have been caught on camera where like if a, you know, maybe an animal or a human or somebody is attacking.

And in fact, I actually heard a story one day about this lady who went back to work and she had a friend who was gonna be her, a nanny for her daughter. And this, this cat they had was just, she was very lovable and loved everybody, but she didn’t like the nanny. And they were actually considering getting rid of the nanny. But the, they put like cameras up in the thing in like to spy on the nanny and the nanny was actually being abusive to the baby and the cat was fighting back and defending the baby.

Very cool. So, yeah. All right, real quick before I go. So douglasvgibs.com use Douglas V. Gibbs for social media and video channels to find me. And don’t Forget, I’m on three radio stations in Southern California. One of them is KMET, that’s Constitution Radio from 1 to 3pm Political Talk KMET 1490AMcom and the other show is called Mr. Constitution Hour and it is on KCBQ the answer San Diego and a KPRC keep Praise the Christian station in San Diego County. And, and those episodes are all also available on all the podcast platforms. So if you look up Mr.

Constitution Hour by Douglas V. Gibbs on any podcast platform, I think I’m on darn near all of them. Check it out. And usually the latest episode shows up like Monday or something like that. So it’s, it’s great to be here. I am looking forward to tonight’s speech. Asking us in the chat room. I’m looking forward tonight’s speech. I don’t know, it’s more entertaining watching this president work or watching his opposition run around in circles with blood squirting out of their eyes. I know that’s that that is so much fun. And Tackleberry says sotu I, I don’t remember what that was, but I think it’s a movie and it’s all about like something up in like Finland or something along those lines.

But, and along those lines, guys, if you didn’t see on on Saturday, I interviewed a guy named John King who is a. Of Aboriginal descent in Australia, American citizen, been here for, you know, well over 20 years. But he, he was trafficked as a child and he actually overcame all of that PTSD and whatnot. And he’s starting to tell his story and I interviewed him for about a Good probably about 60, 75 minutes and then he’s. He Ghost introduced me to him and then. And Ghost came in for like about the last 15 minutes. So if you guys have not seen that interview, I cannot encourage you in stronger terms to go watch that.

His story is absolutely riveting and I do intend on having him back to, to delve deeper into his story. So. But not, not to steal any thunder away from. From Doug, but the SOTU is what kind of got my attention there because he has that actually tattooed on his. Oh, State of the Union. I’m sorry. It’s not so. It’s not so too. It’s something else. It’s Sisu. I’m sorry. It’s Sisu. He has Sisu. So yeah, I, I was. I is tonight. It’s nice. Not State of the Union. It’s just a. It’s. It’s just a. Well, it is a State of the Union speech, but it’s not officially a state of union because he’s been in office under two months.

Right? It’s not. It’s not a State of the Union. It’s just him getting. It is a State of the Union by another name. Right? It’s. It’s a. It’s a joint session of congress is what it is. Right. Well and. But a State of the Union speech is joint session of congress and to the people. So like I said, it is a State of the Union speech but by another name because he’s been office less than two months. So technically according to their rules, they all made up. It’s not technically. How can you tell the State of the Union after only a month? After two months, right? Or after really not even two months.

It’s like. Not like. Like six, like five weeks. So. But what a five weeks it has been. It’s been fun. I will leave it at that. So next week we can just talk about treason and pray for me as I fly because I hear planes are just falling out of the sky. So I be. I will be. Even though that’s false. There’s been less accidents during January and February since they’ve been checking and taking records anyway. But I am flying on Friday. So there will be a watch party on Friday, but it will be a pre recorded watch party and there will be no watch party.

So. Or no, there will be no after party. So not 100% sure what I’m going to be playing but. But I will. And I will be gone. I will be back though for the Monday night show with Ghost. So. But in any case, in any event, rather all of Doug’s links are in the description, or if they’re not, they will be and links to his books and all that good stuff. So definitely go check him out and all of his shows, his radio broadcasts. And as always, I thank him for participating, for teaching the Constitution on my channel.

It is a privilege and an honor, sir. I thank you for that. It’s definitely appreciated. Thank you. So anyway, on that note, guys, look forward to seeing you here in about 15 minutes with, with Mike got. We’re gonna be talking about good old Jimmy Carter tonight. So that is the topic of conversation is Jimmy Carter. So, uh, look forward to seeing. Remember that knucklehead? Yeah, yeah. I, I, I’m, I’m like torn whether or not he was good or bad. I, I, Part of me thinks he was just a, a weak individual who was put there because he could be controlled.

Or was he actually trilateralist? Yeah. Or, or was he evil? Because, I mean, I’ve heard a lot of things about him that he was, he, he suffered from just, just horrible bouts of depression and he was very easily manipulated. And if you look at the, the one thing that is absolutely for certain, if you look at all of the people that surrounded him, they were all evil. I mean, shoot. Zigniew Brzezinski is if, if I had to, if I had to pick one person in the government that would be responsible for all of the, the, the, the hullabaloo and garbage that’s going on in the Middle east that has been going on in the Middle east for the last 30 years, I would, I would say a lot of that originated the two people.

The two people that I would blame the most would be Zigny Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. So, but I digress. So anyway, Mr. Gibbs, always a pleasure, sir. Look forward to seeing you next week. And I will be, I will be uploading the, the Constitution and the Federal Confederate and Versus the American Constitution. I’ll be uploading that before I depart for Florida. So have a great night, everybody, and we’ll see you here in about 12 minutes. So, all right, see you next week right here. Yep, Absolutely. Take care, everybody. Have a good night. If I can find my dog on cursor so I can end the stream.

There we go. Have a good night, everybody.
[tr:tra].