Church and State - MAGA Law Professor Ilan Wurman

Spokane Valley could become a sanctuary city. A different Houseman Caleb Collier says that this I'm. Proposing that the City of Spokane Valley issue a proclamation stating that our city is a Second Amendment sanctuary. Welcome to the fire today on Church and State the Constitution of seventeen eighty nine with Elon Worman. Hello Christian Patriots, and welcome to Church and State, where we drive morality and religion over tolerance and apathy. And I'm your host, Caleb Callier, once again your favorite far right shock jock and the show that talks about politics and religion. Jesus Christ is our referee, so it's always nice and clean. Real quick, I'm going to appoint you to the website Church and State dot media. Fill out this registration form, get our newsletter and personal phone call from yours truly, I call every single one of you who fills this out. While you're on the website, check out our most recent episodes, continuing to cover hard hitting topics that I believe you should listen to and share with your friends, family, and neighbors. Also preves to the great feature guest list that we have over the decade that I've been doing this, a lot of interesting people have joined us, and you can check every single one of those out just by clicking on their name. Also, please peruse through the wonderful affiliates that we have. These are companies that I support, that I personally shop with, and they're just great things that I think every one of you should examine at the very least, and with every one of those use that promo code Church and State. Many of those who get a discount. But regardless, you'll be helping to support us. Speaking of support, hit the donate button for us. Keep us alive on NRBTV, preper Broadcasting Network, CDM, your News, so many wonderful ones that we're a part of that we want to continue to be a part of and expanding into that national AMFM radio syndication. So please, we need help to do everything that we're doing. It's expensive to do us. Any amount will help us. Lastly, if you want to get a hold of us, Church and State seventeen seventy six at Proton dot me. With that, I think it's rather appropriate that we discuss the Constitution. You know, here we are, we're about to celebrate two hundred and fifty years of existence as a republic, not a democracy, darn it. But it's my pleasure to bring to you Alan Worman. He's a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the author of the Constitution of seventeen eighty nine, a new introduction. He's also the podcast host for Rationally Based podcast. We'll be covering that in a little bit by Elon. Thank you so much for joining us on Church and State. Thank you so much for having me lots to talk about today. There certainly is, yeah, I mean there's I look around at this country and I think about what our founding fathers did, the sacrifices that they made to give us this beautiful republic. A lot of times I think they'd be kind of mad at the condition of America nowadays. Well, one thing that I talk about in my book, the Constitution of seventeen eighty nine and the introduction, which you were so gracious to mention, is how far we've come from the original meaning of the Constitution. So my book is basically like an introduction of the Constitution. Anyone who's never set eyes on a conservative, originalist, textualist, law professor or argument about the Constitution, it starts with the nature and constitutions legislative power, executive power, judicial power, taxing, spending, commerce, and so on. And really, when you go. Through all of these, we've really diverged from the original meaning of the Constitution. You know, think of like legislate Congress delegating its legislative power to executive branch agencies. Think about the presidents typically usurping Congress's war powers. Courts are totally out of control and have totally lost what it meant to exercise judicial power. Congress, in one respect, it doesn't do enough by giving its power away to. The executive branch. But in another respect it does too much because under the Commerce Clause and the taxing Clause it now has reinvented them, and the Court has helped it. It reaches areas of national life that the States historically had to grapple with and that the Framers never envisioned Congress would deal with, you know, agriculture, production, mining, labor laws, and so on. All of these things weren't commerce, you know, let alone interstate commerce. But today Congress could basically do whatever it wants. In my most controversial chapter and then I'll stop, I'd joke that. You know, the late Great Justice Scalia used to joke, I'm an originalist, but I'm not a nut. I'm an originalist, and I may be a nut, okay, by which I mean my last chapter says that federal welfare programs, most of them are probably unconstitutional because there is no power to spend for the general welfare. That clause is actually a taxing clause, not a spending clause. And so there's so much for your listeners and viewers to read if they only got my book again the Constitution of seventeen eighty nine and introduction. Thank you for the wonderful intro question. You know, you and I are going to get along famously because I am most certainly a nut. And you know, I once again examine these founding documents, and I you know, I would have been an anti federalist had I lived during that time period. And I love the Bill of Rights and the government is just violating our Bill of Rights constantly and continuously. And then don't even get me started on some of the amendments that came later. I mean, we could have a whole we could have a whole program on my hatred for the sixteenth and seventeenth Amendments. Well, so my book, of course, you're starting to touch on my previous book, so I'll say something about this. But my current book, you know, is seventeen eighty nine. Right, it's all that separation of powers. The Bill of Rights was added in seventeen ninety one, so it's not principally about the Bill of Rights. But my first book, my second book, excuse me, was called the Second Founding, an introduction to the fourteenth Amendment. And there's a question as to whether you know, the Bill of Rights were intended to be, you know, applied against the states and so on, and so I talk a little bit about that. But look, your point about would you be an anti federalist versus a federalist, it's a good one, right, In many respects, the anti federalists predictions came true, right. Now. Having said that, look at the time, you know, politics was just a little bit different. The federalists, Yes, they believed in national powers, right because the Articles of Confederation was inefficient, right, you couldn't execute the resolutions of the Confederated Congress. But I don't think many people disagree that, like you need a union, a national government to handle things like war and defense. The problem today is that Congress does a lot more than they intended it to do. Right, So, the whole genius of the new science of politics that the Federalists, that the Framers inaugurated with the Constitution, was this idea of a compound republic, that the national government would be binding directly on the people, would be adopted on the people, and be enforceable on and through the people, right of by for the people, but only within its limited sphere. That's my view, right, I would have been a federalist having said that the ani federalist predictions turned out to be true in many respects. So I love that setup. Yeah, that's a fantastic answer. Let's talk about, you know, currently what we're seeing in the United States, and honestly, there's not enough time to discuss at all. But one of the things that a lot of people are well up in arms about, both the left and the right is birthright citizenship. And I know that you've been doing a lot of work on this, you know, educating people. I mean, my gosh, you just I believe you said. Thomas actually quoted you three different times in his speech. So let's talk about birthright citizenship. Okay, so just today I'm not sure quite when this will air, but this morning, before we are getting together, the Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration if you on birthright citizenship in a fly four decision. I actually think this is huge. When this all started a year and a half ago, everyone thought this would be eight to one, if not nine zero right because the Constitution was so clear. And then a bunch of scholars started writing on this, and it's like, well, wait a minute. So I mentioned my book, The Second Founding. I wrote that book on the fourteenth Amendment when I was untenured. Right, I wanted it prave. Yeah, I know, it wasn't really about birthright citizenship. So I other than you know, we got a reverse drud Scott and give birthright citizenship to the freed people and so on. That's really what the book was about. But in writing that book, I had seen materials on birthright citizenship. But why would I write it up. I didn't have tenured, you know. But now I'm tenured. I've got a very privileged position in the administration. Trump won the election. The administration did this, and I thought I got to get out there and then other people followed suit, you know, Randy Barnett, Kurt lash Amy, swearer of Richard Epstein, a lot of professors, Philip Hamberger, who pretty prominent people got on the record saying, actually, the conventional wisdom is not open and shut. And so in today's decision, we had. Four justices agree with the Trump administration on the constitutional question. I mean, it's a range of perspectives. Just as Kavanaugh had surprisingly the most restrictive view. He seems to think that to be a citizen when you were born, your parents must be a citizen. Justice Alito had a slightly less narrow view, but still pretty narrow. He said, you can't be subject to any foreign power. This is the language of the Civil Rights Act. So if Mexico treats your children born in the US as Mexican nationals, then you're out. So that's pretty narrow. Gorguch and Thomas had a slightly less narrow view, which happens to be my view, which is, if you are a domicile resident of the United States, then you are subject to the full and complete jurisdiction just as citizens are. And so under that view, lawful permanent residents their children would be citizens, and that makes sense for all sorts of reasons. They left own the question whether unlawfully present aliens illegal aliens, whether they can latterly create a domicile for themselves, So they left that. For another day. The majority of you that you know, the three Les plus Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, had the most expansive view. They said, birthright citizenship applies to anybody born in the United States, with the exception of a few narrow historical categories like ambassadors or invading armies and so forth. So it's it's really no one would have seen a five four decision coming. Even just the other week. I was like, people were asking me, what are your adictions? It won right? Seven to two is something like a really really interesting day. And the issue is, you know, is still alive. It's not going away, sure, obviously, you know, I mean, anybody watching Trump knows exactly what's going to happen here. Trump's going to jump on true social and he's going to call a number of these justices names. But what course of action does he have in taking on this issue. It is a major road bump, there's no question about that. But just today, the same day that they issued the birthright citizenship decision, they issued a campaign finance decision that reversed a five four decision issued by the Supreme Court twenty five years ago. So you really just need sort of one change in personnel right on the Supreme Court. You need one appointment to go differently, and then this issue could be brought back to the court again, right, I mean a four person descent, a five four decision moves the overton window, moves the needle on this in a way that no one ever thought possible. Right. You know, I posted on an X today about this. How remember that judge in wat State when this was first coming down, who said this is blatantly unconstitutional. Where were the lawyer is? You know, this is a borderland sanctionable argument. Well that that. Argument just got four votes, you know, on the Supreme Court. So I think Congress should keep pushing. Should we need to get rid of philibuster, of course, and just after the Save a Baric Act, which again I don't know exactly what it does, but it sounds really important to conservative just after that one that, you know, do a birthright citizenship of some kind and just bring it back to the court I suppose maybe they could do something in the territories because they're at statutory birthright citizenship. So, like you know, Sipan Peter Schweitzer has says a big birth tourism industry there, and the visa rules were relaxed by the Obama administration without Chinese tourism, so they could fix that statutorily, I think. But it's a roadbump. It's a roadbump, no doubt about that. You know, aren't Americans getting tired of this? Though? I appreciate your your take on this, and I agree with you, but there should be a standard that every single representative we have and I believe these justices are representatives of we the people. But isn't it tiring for us to constantly have this this battle of how we just need one on our side and we can get this thing pushed through? I mean, I know that the answer is the Constitution, that is the standard, but can we get back there? Look, your your frustration is totally understandable. Why when you look at all the major cases that the Supreme Court has decided, not quite all of them, but like today, the transgender cases, for example, the campaign finance cases, but birthright just take birthright. Was there any doubt how the three liberal justices were going to vote, There's no doubt. There's no doubt the conservatives. I mean, look some decisions. Justice Kagan will vote with the Conservatives sometimes very rare, very technical sort of cases, but she does it. She does it, so do Mayora Jackson. Almost never do anything like that. So immediately with this case, you know how three are going to vote, and you don't know how the other six are going to vote. You it's really you're fighting for six votes, but they just have to peel off two two of six. Right. But if you take away the three liberal judges, and it's just who takes this issue seriously right and cares actually about the original meaning of the Constitution, and isn't just going to do what they think that is politically you know their particular preferences. That's only six people playing that game. Right, It's pretty cynical view of the liberal justices, I admit, and like I do want to give them a presumption of good faith, but like, look at the numbers, look at the mumb They almost never joined the conservatives on anything, and Conservatives routinely brink breaks, break ranks, and go with the liberals, right, So, really, of the six people taking the Constitution seriously, it was only two votes support of the trut you know, and the support of against the Trump administration. It was four votes in favor of the Trump administration. Now, of course two plus the three liberals gets you five before. So it's frustrating. It's really frustrating. And just think how close we came to, you know, to having seven votes the other direction. Right, if Trump had not won. In twenty seventeen, twenty sixteen, maryck Garland would have been on the Supreme Court, you know, Justice s Ginsberg would not have been replaced with Barrett. I'm missing I'm missing a few, right, but Gorsich, Kevin, Al Barrett, all of them are Trump appointees. And like, we could have had a seven to two sixty three court the other direction after a generation already of a liberal court, right, so close, and like, look, I love the Federalist Society. They've done amazing things for the legal movement and the country and so on. But make no mistake about it, the reason their idea is one is because Trump won and because Trump pushed through you know, these judges. That's why that's why and became so close to having it the other direction. And so look, it's the fight is on and a lot of the justices are getting older, so who knows when they'll retire. And again five four not a bad way to lose on the constitutional question. Actually it's the best way to lose on the constitutional question. Well more votue you would have won. Sure. No, absolutely, is there a risk you know, this has been happening since really FDR of this idea of packing the court. Do you see Trump in anger trying to push some type of agenda like that we need to put more conservative justices on the Supreme Court. No, there is absolutely no political will among conservatives to do that, partly because they have the court theoretically right, They theoretically have six appointees on the court, So it would make sense to use a tool that the Democrats could then come back and pack it to fifteen, you know, with liberals, and you know, there is this great distaste for what FDR tried to do, basically pack the court in order to stop the judges from stopping his New Deal program and so on, and so I think there's just zero political will on his side of the aisle to do this. The Liberals have been talking about packing the court all the time though, and that's the problem, right if they take power. You know, before when they had power, when Biden was president, the only holdouts on the filibuster were Mansion and Cinema. Both of them lost their seats next time around. I don't think anyone like them is going to be there, Okay, I mean maybe Fetterman. Fetterman is the Pennsylvania I don't know, right it's gonna be, yeah, but they're gonna get rid of the philibuster. They're going to pack the Supreme Court. They're gonna make Puerto Rico state, They're gonna make DC into four states, Like why not? You know, if it's all about political power, and then it's just a question of like, well, if they're going to do it, should we preempt them or you know, it's it's really uncharted territories that we're in. Well, and why set the precedents. I mean, throughout our history as a country, we've seen where they've moved away from the constitution against that would shackle the government. And one party does it, and then the next party does it, and it's just a snowball effect. That leads to, honestly, in my opinion, tyranny. No, that's right, and it happened with judges as well, judicial nominations. Right. Originally you didn't fill a buster lower court judges, right, and then they filibustered lower court judges, and then so they it was just tip for tet, right. I do think the Democrats sort of started the judicial conformation wars. But the tip for tet problem is real. No, absolutely, all right, let's move over to another issue, the Voting Rights Act. You know, we're we're fast approaching the mid terms here, and you know, I get really tired of this rhetoric. But you keep hearing over and over and over again. You hear it every two years. This is the most important election of our lifetime. And I'm like, every election can't be the most important of our lifetime. But that's the rhetoric going on right now. And clearly there's problems with what's going on with voting, and there's this whole conversation about should you have to show ID to be able to vote? What say you? Yeah, Look, I think the Constitution doesn't say very much about this. I mean it does say I think that you know, using race to make districts is probably racist. Raciscrimination should be constitutional. Yeah, and that's what the Supreme Court basically held recently in the Cala decision. I will say that the democratic theory, the Democrat Party theory of the Voting Rights Act was maximizing democratic. Voting power, right. I mean, like I've talked about this a bit on the podcast that you mentioned, rationally Based actually one of my favorite episodes. We called it maxing. Okay, this was their theory of the voting Rights sack. But you can't quack them, right, You can't because that dilutes their vote. But you can't pack them either. You have to maximally give them the most number of districts you possibly can to like support Democratic candidates, and so that can't be right, and I think important to get rid of that interpretation of the voting right backed on the other stuff, the Constitution doesn't say very much stuff about like voter ID and so on, but I do think there is The States obviously would be allowed to do it. Congress I think would be allowed to require it because it can alter the regulations of the states regard but I do think it's like a small c constitutional principle. It's like an unwritten principle, not enforceable by courts. But like in a representative democracy, right, a republic, constitutional republic, as you said, people need to have faith in elections, And like, I almost don't care how much fraud there is or isn't. Is it obvious that requiring voter ID would increase confidence. That's worth something and constitutional rebubblic that's but the fact that the other side fights it so much does make me suspect that they know there is more fraud than they're letting on or unwinning fraud. It doesn't have to be intentional fraud. It could just be. There was a case in Nevada where six thousand people, through the various processes, got automatically so they allowed I think it was non citizens aliens to get drivers licenses, and they were automatically registered to vote, and then they voted because nobody told them, right, And it's only a crime if you knowingly vote illegally, right, And so all of a sudden, you can have six thousand people vote in Nevada who are who are not eligible to vote, but they're not actually committing a crime because they were duped. They didn't know, they were just automatically enrolled. It is a serious, much more serious problem. Can it flip elections? Has it flipped elections? Probably some It probably can to some degree. But again it doesn't matter because obviously this would improve confidence in the elections, and so I'm for it for that reason. Gotcham okay, and you brought up redistracting, And I've been falling this with a keen eye. You know, especially in the Southeastern states, it seems to me that they've been redistricting properly. You know, they had these districts. It was like this blue area and then twenty miles away they bounce over and all of a sudden, that's part of that same district. And they seem to be trying to correct that in the Southeast. Now, obviously in some of the blue states they're redistricting in ways that I don't actually appreciate and making sure that, you know, places like California will forever remain blue. Is there a way constitutionally to ensure that the redistricting is actually fair and doesn't benefit one party or the other. Not without a constitutional amendment, let's put it that way. But this does give me an opportunity to talk about sort of a pet issue of mine. Right, Historically, districts states did not have to have equal population in every congressional district. At the state assembly level, they could have the equivalent of like a US Senate, right, where rural interests get a senator, and so you'd have a senator representing a much smaller number. But this was all and this I think was good because it allowed districts to accommodate communities of interests. Right, God forbid, rural communities might have different interests that need to be protected against majorities right in the big cities. But the Supreme Court, in a case that I actually think was wrongly decided this goes back to my previous book, concluded that the fourteenth Amendment prohibits unequal district populations. This is the so called one man, one vote or one person one vote in Baker Vy card Rentalds against Sims. And as a result of that, actually I think we see a lot more partisan gerrymandering because if you have to otherwise just keep the districts equal, if that's the only restraint, well I'm going to do a tentacle district and you know, get the population's equal but that support me on a partisan basis, whereas historically it was like, wait, communities of interest actually mattered, right, and so work on these counties. So historically Louisiana, for example, was all county based, but in order to accommodate the Voting Rights Act under the democratic theory of it and the population equality requirement, you could see that had to break up counties, and like, why should they have to do that? So that's a really really good question to which there's not a great answer. Okay, kind of bouncing off of that one or piggybacking off of that one, in your opinion, would repealing the seventeenth Amendment, which is in my opinion I hate that one probably the most. I mean, the sixteenth is right up there. But would repealing the seventeenth Amendment? Would that benefit the States? Yes? And this goes back to the compound republic discussion, this new science of politics which I talk about in my book again the Constitution of seventeen eighty nine, which is right behind me for some subliminal. Messaging to your viewers. Part of the deal, right was that the again the national government would be directly binding on the people, unlike the articles of confederation which operated on the states, right, and the states sometimes didn't obey the commands you know, the resolutions, right, It operated through the states, which made it very difficult to execute. The national resolutions. The new national government created by the Constitution would operate directly on the people. But part of the deal was the states themselves would be part of the law making process and the treaty making process that would determine these laws that would then operate directly on the people. And the biggest protection for that was the state legislatures would appoint the senators, right, and so the states would be deeply ingrained in the law making process. That was a deal. That was the deal, right, We move away from the articles to this compound republic, this compound government where the national government binds the people, but the states would have a role in that lawmaking process, and the seventeenth Amendment got rid of that. Were there other trends leading to the great expansion of federal power and the new deal state, Sure of course there were. Would it have been dramatically different if the states still had something of a stay here and as state legislatures, Absolutely so. Sixteenth and seventeenth I agree with you are probably the two worst. Yeah, I mean the eighteenth was would definitely be thrown in there, but we repealed that. We got rid of that one. Yeah, let's move on. Let's talk about something that a lot of people are very interested in, a lot of people are kind of watching with a fearful eye, and it's Iran. But I also want to throw in Maduro into this as well, because Venezuela has a part in this. But what's your take on this? Yeah, so this gives me a chance to plug both the book and the podcast, because so I have a chapter on the war powers in the book that explains a lot of this, and then we also did on the Rationally Based podcast an episode on the Iran Warren and Venezuela and so on. And the short answer is a lot of modern day presidential actions probably violate the original meeting of the Constitution, right, I mean, it's quite clear. And now maybe that's inevitable, maybe that's a practical necessity, right, But under the original meeting of the Constitution, I don't really think it's disputed that the president's only unilateral war power was to relations right, defend against imminent attacks and so on. Washington wrote a letter saying offensive expeditions of importance cannot be undertaken without congressional approval. Right, is the Iranian expedition? You know, Iran has been waging war, okay against the United States for fifty years. But have we engaged in offensive expeditions of importance? I would say so right now. Having said that the modern framework, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So the modern framework as Government Office of Council memorandum issued by the Obama administration to justify the twenty eleven bombing of mo market Afi, right, and so basically they said, well, if depending on the nature, scope and duration of the conflict, if it's not, if the scope and the nature isn't too big, you know, no ground troops and so on, then it's not war within the constitutional sense. This is totally made up, totally made up. But again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that justifies an air campaign in Libya leading to the death of the Libyan leader Momar Gadaffi, how can it possibly not allow Trump to do a surgical precision extraction of the leader of Itezuela. Right, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Even under that view, is the Iran pushing I think the limits probably even of that modern framework, but still plausibly within it. So that's a lot unheck clear. No, And I mean I want to talk a lot more about this because it seems like you and I are pretty much aligned on this one. And you know, I'm not afraid. I mean, the audience knows I'm a libertarian, I say it all the time, and so I'm not afraid to push back against either of the two primary political parties. We are coming up on a hard break here, and so we're gonna have to come back and discuss that one. But real quick, I do want to plug both of your websites here. Well, your podcast number one is a great one that I'm going to start listening to, and it is rationally based, and Chris is showing that to you right there, the rationally Based podcast. You can find that on YouTube. You can subscribe right there. And then of course I want people to read the book, and we're gonna have an Amazon link here. But this is such an important issue to understand the Constitution of seventeen eighty nine, right this new introduction to it. I think the people need to be reintroduced to the constitution. Now we've hit the heartbreak, so we're going to come back in just a minute. This is Caleb Collier with Church and State Dot Media. Laies and gentlemen, if you're not sleeping on my pillow, do you even patriots? I gotta tell you this is the most wonderful stuff from a man who's given it all for your freedoms. Whether it be the pillow, the sheets, or the slippers. I absolutely adore my pillow. My pillow has the greatest products around. I know when I want to shuffle around in my bathrobe and slippers and yell at the neighbors. Of course I'm buying from my pillow. I need you to head on over to Church and State dot Media scroll over too, shop because every single time that you purchase any of these products using the promo code Church and State, you ensure that we keep our message out on the air. I thank everybody for your support and using a promo code Church and State. You guys, go to you go to my pillow at dot com forward slash Church and State too, and then you get your own no platform right there. Everybody, and we're back in they of your student with us. You're over at Churchendstate dot Media. I'm gonna go right back to our guests, but real quick, gotta plug one of our great affiliates, and I'm just gonna go to Mark three seven dot com again. I love these guys, you know I work for them as well, but I am I want you to stop using your your iPhone, your your Android because these devices spy on you and the people that are in power. They are fundamentally opposed to everything that we hold near and dear, get yourself a phone that doesn't spy on you. Get yourself a laptop like the one I use that doesn't spy on you. Check out Mark three to seven dot com. They're using Graphios or Linux for the laptops. And use that promo code Church and State. You're gonna get a discount, and of course you'll help support us as well. And just real quick, one more time, hit the donate button for us. Keep conversations like this one alive. They're so important to restoring our republic. All right, With that, let's go back to our guest, and we were talking about the war powers and what we're currently seeing. And I agree with you, sir. You know when there were a lot of maga people that came at me because I was saying, look, kidnapping the president of a country is an act of war, and they were like, no, it wasn't. Like, how would you feel if Canada got up at the and kidnapped our president? Would you consider that an act of war? Well, it's different. It's the same thing. When I'm looking at I ran Look, I served in the Marine Corps, and I was in the Marine Corps when nine to eleven occurred. There's an entire generation that has not known this country at war, and I'm tired of it. And we don't need to seek these monsters abroad, you know, because we need America first policies. We have so many issues, our infrastructure, what's going on with our veterans, the homeless. We could turn internally correct a lot there before we ever have to go out and look into the world for another monster to attack. I love the reference to John Quincy Adams and James Monroe, like, we do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy good deployment of history. I will say that I think Trump probably agrees with all of that. Right, you don't have to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but sometimes monsters are on your doorstep, and sometimes, you know, monsters on the doorstep are terribly destabilizing, right, I mean, Venezuela and oil. Venezuela was like a beachhead for Russian and Chinese influence. And Russia and China are not our friends. They just aren't. And right, you know it just it's not America first to basically ignore, you know, those geopolitical realities. And so now having said that, was it inactive war on international law? Yeah? Probably, okay, but so was dropping a bomb on Kadafi. Now the there they'll say the United Nations resolution authorized you know, the use of force, and so that was consistent with the international law. But look again, international law is actually irrelev for purposes of constitutional power. Okay, So let me make that point. Congress could declare war on Mexico tomorrow because it wants the conquer it's territory. Don't recommend it, but like it could do it. And so again, international law is not the same thing as constitutional right or constitutional power. No, I would absolutely agree with that, And I mean, you mentioned Libya, you know, and we can go through and look at the history of when we stick our nose in business that perhaps we shouldn't be involved with. Look, nobody's going to argue that like in the case of Syria, assad was a good man. He wasn't, but he was a secularist and he kept the people in check and then we took out the straw man. Same thing with Iraq. I mean, we keep doing this over and over and over again, and then we create isis and we create these just this power vacuum to where now the people that unfortunately live in those countries, Man, they're getting just terrorized, brutally oppressed. Yeah, I'm not going to defend you know, interventionism and adventurism abroad and so on. What I will say is, historically, and again this is in a chapter in my book, I do think the president on his own initiative could protect American personnel abroad. And so there are historic examples in our Karagua, the Panama Canal Zone, Lebanon, and so on. But of course most other things would require congression authorization, which there isn't in a lot of these cases. Sure, so I think the question that everybody wants to know, is that in regards to Iran, is does this end peacefully? I mean, you know the headlines where the strait is open, the straight has closed. The strait was never opened, you know. I mean it's like, it's crazy trying to understand what's going on here. But do we come to a resolution? Do gas prices start coming down in the United States? Yeah? I really don't know. And what I will say is it seems obviously America first to ensure that Iran cannot promote terror proxies in the Middle East, It's obviously America first to ensure Iran does not have a nuclear weapons capability. Don't give me this, you know, moral equivalent equivalents. Bs. It's like, Israel is not Iran. Okay. Israel has had nukes for a long time and it's never threatened to use them on anybody. Okay. Iran every day says if we get nukes, we're going to use them, right, So, like, don't give me sort of this moral equivalents nonsense. Now, is there a way out? Is there a way to win without putting ground troops without congressional authorization? I don't know. That's the trick you're part of it, and you know, obviously we've gotten some objectives. It's better that Iran's nuclear capabilities are set back years. Possibly it is better that Iran's missile and naval capabilities have basically been obliterated. Those are all better than the world was before. But the regime is still there and they might still get nukes, and you know, the problem's not going away. So like, I really don't I really don't have a. Solution to it, but at least I can tell you about the constitutional legel. I think the real fear here is that if we did put ground troops into Iran, that it would become, you know, the next Vietnam or the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan, whereas just an absolute boondoggle and we get stuck there and more and more of our troops are sent home in body bags and coffins wrapped with the flag. Yeah. I don't disagree with any of that. Obviously, nobody wants that. That happened a lot with Iraq too. I will say that this is a good reason why Congress has to even under the modern Office of Legal Council framework, ground troops are the quintessential example the paragun example of nature scope duration, which even the modern frameworks recognizes that Congress would have to decide. And Congress is not going to want this on their hands, right, and so there's zero chance that they'll authorized ground troops short of an attack by Iran of unanticipated proportion on America or its allies. Yeah, absolutely, I agree with that one. All right, let's move over to freedom of speech, because this is I mean, this is essential right. I mean, here you and I are on a podcast that in many nations across the world world would not be allowed. But we've seen direct attacks against freedom of speech. And you know, specifically in States, there are things that you cannot really say anymore. How do we defend this essential god given right? Yeah, So the first thing I would say is the freedom of speech is not as all encomassing as people think. And so, like, one of the big controversies today is like, can you deny visas right to people who are like Prohamas or anti America? And like, my view is yes, actually you can. And it has less to do with the freedom of speech than it does with the fact you know that that immigration a visa is a public privilege. It's not a right, and so we could impose reasonable conditions on it. But to your immediate point, you know, freedom of speech is almost more threatened by private corporations today, you know, the ones that censor you. You can't you know, do you really have freedom of speech? And we talk about this on the podcast too. Do you have freedom of speech if you lose a job or if you can't bank, if you can't stay in airbn be right, if you can't post on social media? And so I think now, to be fair, what the libertarian might say is, well, the government is browbeating social media companies, the government is browbeating banks. And that's true, and that's absolutely true. But a lot of this is also on their own initiative, like especially the tech companies are so insanely woke, you know, that it's on their own initiative. And so I would say that that the government is still a threat to freedom of speech, largely in the way browbeats private corporations. But we should be cognizant of the threat to freedom of speech from private power and private corporations. I would absolutely agree with that, And you know, as an advocate for the free market, then the responsibility falls on the people stop using these these big tech companies as you put it, that are suppressing your free speech. There are alternatives out there. I mean, I'm an alternative media because somebody had to fill that void, and there's many people that are doing so. So yes, I agree with you, and it's definitely more nuanced than just throwing the it's all the government's fault or it's all the big corporation's fault. All right, So going through this, you know, this is a big issue, and obviously this would fall prey to your second book that you were talking about, but slavery, and certainly you know this is this is something that we've dealt with as a country and I'm not trying to shy away from that fact. Yes, this is part of our history. History is beautiful and ugly at the same time, but we also have modern day slavery going on as well. So let me say something because this does connect to my book, which again is behind me, and I hope your viewers buy it. I don't care if you read it, but you should buy it. That's fine. Like you know, so, a big reason that people dislike the Constitution is this myth that the framers were pro slavery, and the factor of the matter is they were not. So you don't have to believe their own statements, which there are many. What I show in the book is look at the statements of the Southerners on the eve of the Civil War. The Southerners in the eighteen thirties, forties and fifties, they said, we've progressed since the found We no longer believe Senator Robert Hunter said, Virginia, Okay, on the Senate floor in eighteen sixty, on the eve of the Civil War, we no longer believe what Jefferson and Madison in Monroe and Washington believed. All the leading men of Virginia believed that slavery is an evil to be exterminated. We now believe that slavery is a positive good, good for the master, good for the enslaved person. Right, there was a degradation, a deterioration, a devolution of the Southern state of mind and Southern society. They basically became oligarchic governments. That was not the Framer's conception, right. That was in eighteen twenties, thirties, forties, fifties innovation, when slavery had become so lucrative, you know, after the Cottingen and so on. So the Framers were not pro slavery, were some of the provisions they wrote in the Constitution had pro slavery effect? Yes, I think it was unanticipated. So the three fifths clause did give a bump to the South in the electoral College and in the House of Representatives based on their enslaved population, which maintained their grip on power. But at the time it was seen as an anti slavery compromise, right, which is kind of interesting because you could tax them, and the South wanted five fifths of a person for purposes of representation. So I just think the history is much more nuanced and much more complicated, and I hope that your listeners are willing to get the book and to get the argument. You know. I'm so glad you brought up the three fifths law because this has been coming from the left, just one of their talking points, one of their main talking points, and showing that this country was always racist. But the reality and I love how you phrased it there, that it was originally seen as an anti slavery work of art. Actually that if they had been given what they wanted a full person, the South would have completely overrun all of the power that they that they had just emerged through this constitution, the three fifths law. Taking away the talking points of the left that this proves that the United States has always been racist. Yeah, it's just not true. It's just amazing to me that the left has this narrative as if you know, it's one tone. It's a one tone narrative. America is racist, racist, evil. For two hundred and fifty years, all we are is racist. It's like, well, wait a minute, slavery had been universal in human existence, including racial slavery. By the way, at the time the Declaration of Independence, all the States had slavery in seventeen eighty nine, was the greatest abolition in world history up until that point. What about that, right, the Fourteenth Amendment, six hundred thousand white people died. You know, the Fourteenth Amendment was written by white people. It licen't just racism, racism, racism all the way down. And so I just think it's sort of a historically illiterate way to look at American history. All right, well, thank you so much for that. I know you got to run, but real quick, let's plug your book one more time, The Constitution of seventeen eighty nine, a new introduction. I want all of you not just to buy it, I want you to read it as well. Please buy this book, read it. It's so fundamental to restoring this republic, to understanding the original intent behind it. And so I have a plug this book. And then of course I want you to listen to the show as well, rationally based podcast. You can find that on YouTube, hit subscribe and be informed, be entertained. This is a good show. I so appreciate your time, sir, and I know you got a run. But any last words for the audience. Caleb, I love what you're doing here and I really appreciate you having me on. Thank you so much, Absolutely God bless you, sir. All right, Well, there you go, to ladies and gentlemen, by the book. Be informed, get to where you have a knowledge, a working knowledge of the Constitution of where we came from. Because without our history, without understanding it, well we're doomed. Church and State is brought to you in part by Colonial Life, Spook and An Agents, Finders Insurance and Mark three seven dot Com. I'm Caleb Collier. I was born for a storm. Welcome to the fire. Hey, this is Caleb Callier with the Church and State podcast. Ladies and gentlemen, I want all of you to go to Galileo dot com. You need to stay connected no matter what comes our way, whether it's government intrusion or a meteor fallen from the sky. Galileo has you connected. As a marine veteran, I can tell you that communications is essential. Galileo has you connected. Whether it's worldwide coverage, uncensored content, or real time alerts. Galileo is going to make sure that you're connected with your friends, family and neighbors. Just head on over to Church and State dot Media. Just scroll over to shop and hit Galileo dot com. Make sure to ask them for a free bibistick and make sure to use that promo code. Church and State. Are you aware that the Holy Word of God tells us to eat beef? Romans fourteen to two says one person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another whose faith is weak eats only vegetables. Look, it may sound kind of foreign, the idea of meat being an investment, but as you go to the grocery store, you can see that everything is increased. This is including beef. So buy something that's got a ten to fifteen year shelf life and make sure that your family is okay and that when there's a crisis, that you're not in the breadline waiting on the government asking police, sir, may I have some more? Have you read the ingredients in the meats that are now in the grocery stores these days. There's all sorts of synthetic products in it. We've got mRNA, they've got vaccine technology in it. Not for me. I don't want to eat that garbage. I know that I can trust the people at griddownshowdown dot com because it is one ingredient, and that one ingredient is beef. That the process is so simple. All you do is go down to your basement or your bunker if you're so lucky, grab the vacuum sealed package, go upstairs to your kitchen, open it up, add a little bit of water, wait a little bit, and boom, it's rehydrated and you can make anything you want, tacos, lasagna, hamburgers, whatever you'd like with the beef. Your family is going to be happy and you're going to be well fed. I need you all to go to griddownshowdown dot com and put in an order for this storeable beef that got lots of different options for you. Buy the seven hundred and fifty dollars one and you're going to be set for a year's time. Remember grid doownshoutdown dot com promo co Church and State. Hey, this is Caleb Callier and I know you're excited for the Church and State podcast. Now. As a Christian patriot, I love precious metals, whether it's gold, silver, palladium, and of course lead. And this is why I want you to go over to Ponderay Ballistics. Don't ask me how to spell it for all of your ammunition needs. Remember that's p E N d O r E I l l E Ballistics dot com. For all of your ammunition needs. I want you to head on over to Church and State dot Media, Forward Slash Shop, go to Ponderrey Ballistics and have a shoot in good time.