Hi, this is Pastor Greg and you're listening to Chosen Generation Radio. Get more at chosengenerationradio.com.
That's Chosen Generation Radio, where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. My passion is the fight for freedom. My father fought for World War II defending our country. Today, we are no longer fighting with guns.
Instead, we are fighting an ideological battle for control of our country by contributing to causes that support your constitutional rights. I am Patriot Mobile. We thank and praise God that God has enabled us to put the board well here in this community with the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry. And this community is so grateful because now they are getting pure and fresh water in their home and they are doing well and their health is doing good. Therefore, we would like to request all our supporters and Pastor Greg Young and their Chosen Generation Ministry that there are many villages in Punjab.
Those who are really having big problem of getting pure and fresh water in their villages, in their communities. And if God is putting in your heart to donate anything to do or to put the board wells in a needful and poor villages, then you can directly contact Pastor Greg Young or Chosen Generation Ministry. And we pray and we bless all the people, those who have been doing and supporting this board well through Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry. And this pastor is doing the ministry in this community and please keep us in your prayer. And we are praying for all those who have been supporting to put this board well through Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry. God bless you and God be with you all and always keep us in your prayer. We are also praying for you. Thank you.
And you can see the board well that we have put here and it's giving water for the people. Thank you very much Pastor Greg and thank you very much to Chosen Generation Ministry. God bless you. Thank you. Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host Pastor Greg Young.
And now Chosen Generation where no topic is off limits and everything is filtered through biblical glasses. And now here's your host Pastor Greg. And welcome to the program. Great to have you with me. Thanks so much for being here. I know you have a choice of where you can listen each and every day. And thank you for keeping it tuned here to Chosen Generation Radio.
I've got a great program lined up for you. Tiaran Rose Mandelberg will be with us today. We'll talk about the fake news. We'll talk about the news and how they're covering trans. And my goodness, you would have thought that a trans person was killed. Not that three innocent children were murdered or three adults serving in a Christian school were murdered. Not that specifically a Christian school was targeted. That's not in anybody's news story. This is a Christian school and this individual specifically targeted a Christian school to go and commit this heinous act.
And, yeah, well, we're not going to talk about that. And we're not supposed to identify this person as trans, I guess, because then that's, you know, transphobic, except that this person identified themselves as trans. And God forbid that we didn't identify them as trans in any other circumstance at any other time when any other trans person is walking around in costume pretending to be something that they're not. And the more critical issue is the indoctrination and what they're doing to our children. My goodness, if you've listened to Chloe Cole, if you've listened to the detransitioners and I have and I've interviewed and I've spoken with and every one of them to a person, including the clinical psychiatrists and psychologists that work with individuals who have gone through this, every one of them says, trying to pretend to change, mutilating my body, permanently injuring myself does not solve anything.
It truly only makes matters worse. The psychology, these trans, quote unquote, activists that have been brainwashed into telling us that, well, you know, you just need to be anyway, we'll get into that. I'll get into more of that in the next hour and in the hour to follow. Rick Manning is with us.
They invoked a strategy in Virginia that successfully won Youngkin's governorship and winsome Sears and and swung the Virginia House to a conservative Republican majority when all of the pundits and when the GOP establishment said, can't be done, we've lost this state, and they pulled out and gave up. We'll talk to you about what Rick did there and and how we can take that blueprint and apply it across the country in these states, even even in a place like Michigan. And we'll talk about that with Rick coming up next hour. All right, I'm very, very excited to welcome my next guest as as we do each and every Wednesday, and he is our constitutional originalist. I welcome to the program, my good friend David just focus David welcome Good to have you great to be here, Greg. It's great to have a break from what we've been doing the last week here we've had a wedding my sister's, my sister's son got married over the weekend, but that meant that a week ago today, family started coming into town, and just yesterday the last of them left town incredible incredible week in so many ways and that we just had an exciting time and it's always nice to have them.
A new union, you know a new a new union take place. Now, there was an interesting thing and in the way my sister put together an incredible cruise on Lake Michigan for the pre wedding post rehearsal dinner post rehearsal event. And strangely enough I was asked to make a toast. Sometime I'll tell you about it but I was able to talk about Thomas Jefferson and the law of nature nature's God during a wedding toast, which was just, you know, special moment for me because I certainly I'm Alex, her son is the closest thing Oliver after son. And so it was a special special weekend and a special week and so it's, it's, it's kind of nice to be back in a regular situation with you. After, after that whole time on the other hand, there's after having so much hubbub and having the family and everybody close from Arizona and California and Florida and Minnesota and Ohio and whatnot.
It's so quiet. There's something missing after all of that, you know, and so we'll now we got to get back to back to regular life, you know, and so it's great to be with you to have that they have that launch my return to your life. Well, congratulations to your nephew and and your new niece in law. That's awesome. Yes.
Thank you. Well, there's, there's obviously there's a great deal for us, you know, to go over and talk about one of the things that you and I have talked about in the past is called the Chevron doctrine. And, you know, we, we talk quite a bit about the administrative state and the power of the administrative state the the ability of the administrative state, really it, it runs so much of our lives. And, and yet, you know, how do we unwind it right how do we how do we strip it of its power because it's rogue it has, they, they really don't report to anybody Congress can say well, but at the end of the day, because of this Chevron doctrine. These administrative agencies have their own kangaroo courts and and they make their own rules and and and they're running amok over the Constitution. There's a case right now that is sitting on the docket of the Supreme Court that could potentially play a role.
It's loper bright enterprises versus Raimondo. David, give us, I guess just a brief background on the Chevron doctrine itself, and then how this case potentially gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to write a very long standing historic wrong. First thing for people to understand is the very first sentence of the actual Constitution, not that not counting the preamble because the preamble is not law when you get to actual Article one section one of the Constitution. It starts out with the legislative authority shall be vested in Congress of the United States.
It doesn't say it will be vested in the EPA and the FDA and the CCD or CDC or CCP for that matter. It will be vested in the Congress of the United States. And that's since around the beginning of the New Deal is when they started putting together all these administrative agencies and giving administrative agencies, theoretically delegating legislative authority from the Congress to these executive agencies that have this alphabet soup of the federal government. And over time, for whatever reason, the Supreme Court has basically said that it's okay for the Congress to delegate the legislative authority, which of course no place in the Constitution says that they can do that. It begins with that first sentence that we've said, the legislative authority shall be vested in the Congress.
But nevertheless, despite that, the Supreme Court has said that Congress can delegate such authority. And then so they have created these agencies. And what's interesting about the agencies is, of course, within the Constitution itself, we have separation of powers, right? And we have the judicial branch that decides the law and we have the legislative branch that makes the law and the executive branch that enforces the law.
They have given executive agencies legislative, judicial and executive power all in one package. The EPA can make up regulations, which would be the equivalent of making law. And then they can enforce the regulations, which would be the purview of the executive branch. And then they have their own courts where they decide whether somebody has violated the regulations that they made.
And this is the problem. The whole system runs amuck, runs afoul of the Constitution itself. And over time, the courts themselves, first of all, of course, the Congress advocates its authority when it gives power to these agencies. The second thing, when it gives power to the agencies to make law. When the EPA issues, or in the case of Loper, the National Fisheries Service issues a regulation that it has the full force and effect of a law that Congress had passed.
And so that has the equivalent. And over time, the Supreme Court has not only said that they can do these things, but that the courts of the United States have to defer to the expertise of the agency when the agency interprets the laws that created them. So now the Congress gave up its power. The courts said it's OK for Congress to do that. And then the courts themselves said, you know what, we're going to give up some of our power that's been given to us by the Constitution. And now we wind up with these unelected bureaucrats that are making law, executing law, and interpreting law, none of which allows them to do this in the Constitution. The principle where they allow them to interpret the law that created them is, in fact, arises out of a case that was involved, Chevron Oil, and it's called the Chevron Doctrine, where the courts are supposed to, in fact, defer to the agency's interpretation.
Little by little, in recent years, since, of course, the majority of the court has become conservative, they have pulled back on the Chevron Doctrine and started to indicate that it's more limited than it's been interpreted in the past. In Wilkes' case, they said only when there's major questions can they do these things, that the Congress has not clearly delineated. And so now they're saying, you know, now the Supreme Court has little by little started to say, no, it's actually the duty of the courts, oh, I don't know, let's say, let's go with Marbury v. Madison, to say what the law is. That was decided in 1803, and that's what Chief Justice Marshall said in the first place. It is the duty of the courts to say what the law is. To interpret the Constitution, right, David? In other words, to say that a law that has been passed is, in fact, constitutional. Obviously, we've had a couple of cases where presidents have determined that, wait a minute, I don't agree, I don't think that the court is viewing this correctly, and in some instances, you know, I mean, I think about the, I'm not going to get there. Let's go with Andrew Jackson. Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it.
Sure, sure. Well, I was thinking, too, about the Jim Crow laws, for example, right? I mean, obviously, we look back at some of the decisions the courts made relative to those issues, and we say, that wasn't, that should not have happened. We, that's our, the intention of our founders was that all men are created equal, and so a law enforced that would have changed that was not the meaning or interpretation of our founders. And that's really, from a constitutional originalist perspective, that's what we are supposed to be looking back at. The Federalist Papers, the documents sent by our founders, what was the original intent of the founders of this country? How closely can we construe what is being presented to the ideas and the thoughts and the intent of the founders, not the 1950s guys or the 1920s guys, but the 1700s guys that actually wrote this document and put it in to defend our rights.
Am I right? That's true, how closely we can follow the intent of the drafters and the ratifiers of the Constitution, which also, strangely enough, includes not just the original Constitution, but also the amendments. In which case, let's say the 14th Amendment situate, the 14th Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War. And if you interpret the 14th Amendment, you have to interpret the 14th Amendment not as the guys in 1789 who wrote the Constitution may have meant it, but rather the folks in 1869.
1869, when that was gratified. But David, weren't they looking back at, you know, because I mean, we know, historically, from their own writings, that the founders of the Constitution initially, I mean, the movement was towards a completely free nation. No slavery in the United States, we were the first ones that said, we're not going to allow any more slaves to come onto our shore. The whole purpose of it was that every man would be free. And something that people don't recognize is that they went out of their way, despite the fact that they were dealing with slavery as an established institution, they went out of their way to make sure the term did not appear in the Constitution.
To make sure that the concept of slavery was not constitutionalized, that it in fact allowed for its abolition, so that it was not installed into the Constitution. And I only make that point to suggest that even the 14th Amendment itself was an addendum or an amendment that was added, because the people at that time were saying, were looking back and saying, look, this is the intent, this is what we wanted to do this, so we're going to take it to the next step and make sure that everybody understands that this is how life is supposed to be and all men have always been intended to be free. Well, one of the important things of amendments from time to time is in fact, amendments are utilized to overturn the Supreme Court. But when the Supreme Court goes awry, in fact, like the Dred Scott decision, that black people were not citizens, could never be citizens, the 13th Amendment in the aftermath of the Civil War, that abolished slavery, and in fact said everybody was a citizen. That was natural-born, there was some details, but the fact is essentially the 13th Amendment was utilized to overturn Dred Scott.
And that's not unusual. The amendment process often is utilized to overturn mistakes of the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court makes mistakes. And when we come to the Chevron situation, at the moment it appears as though the Supreme Court is trying to overcome some of its own previous mistakes, and they've made some. So now, of course, Dobbs was intended to overturn a previous mistake of the Supreme Court. A substantive due process.
Yes, absolutely. And so that's what's exciting about the prospects of Loper. And I mentioned the EPA because recently the Supreme Court reined in the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret its own enabling legislation and started to say that, nope, Congress has to give you authority. And we, the court, will say what that authority is, which is, of course, what John Marshall said in the first place way back in 1803. And so now it looks like we're returning to some of the original aspects of the Constitution. It's a long trip back, Greg.
It's a long way back, but there seems to be some movement and effort to do that. Well, and that's what Loper is, and I think we can talk a little bit about Loper with that introduction. Absolutely. All right. So let's take a quick break.
Let's come back. Let's talk about the Loper case and the Chevron doctrine. And then there was another case that I had sent an email over to you about, and that had to do with the Gorsuch and judiciary power. And I think that there's some parallelism between these two issues to a degree. Again, you know, the administrative state has become essentially a fourth branch of government.
Certainly that's what Michael Dougherty argues in his book The Devil Inside the Beltway and the battle that he fought with the FTC. So I think, you know, we're hopefully, to some degree, looking at trying to rein some of this in and get back to the balance that should exist between the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judiciary. We're in a long ways, but, you know, we'll take little victories where we can get them. Let's take a quick break.
We'll be right back. Are you or someone you love struggling with an addiction to drugs or alcohol and want to be set free from the chains of addiction? Then call Addiction Helpline America right now to get the help you need from drug and alcohol addiction to dual diagnosis treatment. We provide a confidential helpline to help people like you get sober and live happy, substance free lives. With one call, you can be on the phone with addiction specialists across the country who will guide you on the next steps to find the freedom and healing you desperately need. Call Addiction Helpline America at the number below. We provide a confidential helpline to help people like you get sober and live happy, substance free lives. One phone call today can change your life forever.
Don't wait another minute for that right moment to be set free. Take that bold step and call Addiction Helpline America at the number below or visit www.addictionhelplineamerica.com Hi, I'm Kim Schaff, a certified natural health practitioner for over 40 years. I want to introduce you to a product called UltraShot. This is a healthy alternative to the other heavily caffeinated energy drinks out on the market today.
Available at cgrwellness.com. UltraShot has four powerful blends to wake up your senses. One ounce of UltraShot is about six hours of clean energy for me with no jitters or cries at the end. UltraShot has seven different B vitamins and its formulas that work synergistically with each other.
The minerals chromium, manganese, and vanadium are specifically selected for its sports cellular energy and healthy blood sugar level. UltraShot also contains exotic herbal. UltraShots available in a 32 ounce bottle for home use are a handy one ounce travel packet for life on the go. When I'm driving, I've got another three hours to go to get to my destination, I reach for an UltraShot.
Thanks to UltraShot, I keep my focus and stay safe on the road. Get yours today at cgrwellness.com. Enter coupon code ChozenGenRadio at checkout to receive $20 off your first quarter of $50 or more. That's cgrwellness.com, coupon code ChozenGenRadio.
Get yours today. These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Need the products to not treat, reduce, cure, or prevent disease. Here's an important message from the Diabetes Solution Center. Diabetics understand all too well the pain of pricking your fingers. But now, by wearing a small remote device called a continuous glucose monitor or CGM, you can immediately reduce your pain. It's easy to use and helps you make more accurate diabetes treatment decisions. If you are testing your blood sugar four or more times daily, injecting insulin three or more times daily, or using an insulin pump, call the Diabetes Solution Center right now to learn about this groundbreaking new CGM technology. And if you have Medicare, you can get a new CGM at little to no out-of-pocket cost.
Shipping is free, and we'll even bill your insurance company for you. If you are testing your blood sugar four or more times daily, injecting insulin three or more times daily, or using an insulin pump, call the Diabetes Solution Center right now to learn how you can get your own continuous glucose monitor or CGM at little to no out-of-pocket cost. Hi, I'm Tim Scheff, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I went under usage to a product that changed my life. The product is called Vibe, available at cgrwellness.com. I thought I was on a good nutritional program before I discovered Vibe. I was taking the traditional vitamin and mineral tablets.
I wasn't really feeling any different. So I tried Vibe. Vibe is an all-in-one vitamin and mineral supplement. It's a liquid multivitamin. It's cold-pressed, whole-food sourced, non-ray-aid, gluten-free, and has no pasteurization. Vibe is like fresh juicing without all the work.
It supports four areas of the body, cardiovascular health, immune health, anti-aging, and healthy cell replication. Vibe is available in a 32-ounce bottle for home use or a very handy one-ounce travel packet for life on the go. For the first time I tried Vibe, I had more energy in about 20 minutes. I started thinking clearer.
I even believe I slept better. Get yours today at cgrwellness.com, coupon code chosenjinradio at checkout, and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's cgrwellness.com, coupon code chosenjinradio. Get yours today. These statements have now been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Naked products do not treat, reduce, cure, or prevent disease. Did you know you can do your tithing and love offering right from your computer? Visit www.chosengenerationradio.com to support Chosen Generation and make a tax-deductible donation. Now back to Chosen Generation with Pastor Greg. And welcome back to Chosen Generation Radio where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses.
This is my special guest David Shostakos. And so we're talking about this Lopez case which is, you know, the Chevron doctrine which we went pretty in-depth into in our last segment. Really explaining what it is and essentially how it created a fourth branch of government. And now there is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rein that back in. There's nothing in our Constitution anywhere that would allow for a fourth branch. We were designed to have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. And the administrative branch through a judicial ruling has usurped an authority that is autonomous from all of that, no balance of power whatsoever. And hopefully we can get the courts to fix that.
Tell us how Lopez might be able to do that. Yeah, this pending case versus Ramundo, a regulation was passed by the National Fishery Service. The National Fishery Service certainly, apparently, has the authority to inspect ocean vessels and inspect vessels that are involved in fishing in the waters of the United States. But the Fishery Service, in addition to issuing the regulations related to the inspection and the safety of the, say, the safety of the sailors and the brisket and the catch and other kinds of technical aspects of conduct of fishing, said that, oh, by the way, we're going to be able to do this. But guess what? We're going to be able to conduct these inspections. But guess what?
We're going to bill you and you're going to pay us for the cost of doing the inspections. And that's effectively assuming a power, again, that was given the United States Congress that is to tax. Nothing in the enabling legislation of the National Fishery Service says that the National Fishery Service can impose or create a tax.
And so the fishing industry has, in fact, opposed such regulation and said that this is outside their authority. And the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said that, you know what, relative to Chevron deference, the National Fishery Service has interpreted their enabling legislation to give them the authority to impose these fees.
That is, that if you're going to, we're going to impose it, we're going to conduct the inspections, and the fishing industry is going to pay us for conducting the inspections. And the D.C. Circuit said, you know, relative to their interpretation of the act, pursuant to the Chevron doctrine, they can do that. Now, recently the Supreme Court has cut back some on the Chevron doctrine and its breadth by what they call the major questions doctrine. The major questions doctrine says that unless Congress has spoken clearly on an act or action by an executive agency that has national and far-reaching economic impact, the courts do not have to defer to the interpretation of the agency.
And the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this pending case said, you know, this is just one little thing. This is just watching them, making them pay for us to watch them is a small thing and doesn't have any national impact. And this does not fall within the major questions exception to the Chevron doctrine. And so the people on the other team, the people in the fishing industry said, no, no, no, this is a huge question, should not have Chevron deference. And if the Congress wants to give them the authority to impose such a fee, Congress needs to speak clearly on it. And that's basically the issue in front of the Supreme Court, as Congress spoke clearly to give these people the authority to impose a tax. And if so, then there will be another crack in the Chevron doctrine of the where they defer to the agency's interpretation and then further say, no, no, no, no.
This is the job of the courts pursuant to the Constitution. So let me ask this question, because what I'm hearing is, is is a very narrow piece of the Chevron doctrine, per se. Can the court do a broader look at the doctrine as a whole and deconstruct it through this case, or or is the only thing that there are going to be able to look at this one specific instance and this one specific type of power, which is the taxing power, as I understand it? Yeah, no, the court has the opportunity to do away with the whole Chevron doctrine should they decide to do so.
It's rather curious. Almost every case itself turns on one particular issue that's decided between the parties that are in front of the court. Seldom is it a situation where there's an actual broad issue, but nevertheless, it can have broad meaning once the court speaks. And so they have an opportunity to say, basically, courts do not have to defer to the agencies for their interpretation of the law. Then, in fact, it is the court's authority and the court's duty to, in fact, say what the law is rather than the executive agency. And that would be huge in terms of saying to it, because right now the agencies exercise, all three authorities exercise legislative, executive, and judicial. To put that crack in there and say that the agencies no longer get to exercise judicial authority in interpretation of the law would be tremendous.
And the court often does this, makes changes in incremental steps. It's not unusual for the court to take a crack at something rather than, or put a crack in some armor, rather than now all of a sudden just completely overturn a previous doctrine, as the Chevron doctrine is. And they actually introduced this consideration of what they call the major questions doctrine.
It's only about eight or ten years old now. And the major questions doctrine was, in fact, the first crack that was put into Chevron. And now they're going to have an opportunity to expand it. And when they do that expansion, that will further pare back the administrative state. We can only hope that that's a course that they stay on.
Well, certainly. Hopefully they will make that decision. I guess the other question then becomes, what do you see as the net result should the powers of these administrative agencies, I guess it would be returned back so that there would be congressional oversight over them once again. And would individuals that have been attacked or are in the process of being attacked by the kangaroo courts that these agencies have set up, would they then have some form of recourse?
I would expect so. I would expect there to be more active work to appeal, because you do have, in fact, that's how this case arises. The agency made a decision. Within the agency, the fishing industry appealed that decision that the agency made. And then they were still not happy with the agency decision.
And then they took the agency to court. And then the court would go beyond. But you would see more successful appeals, because then the courts would not be deferring to the agency. But the courts would have the obligation to, in fact, oh, I don't know, execute their Article 3 authority under the Constitution. You know, this is the problem everywhere, where the Congress has abdicated its lawmaking power, and the courts have abdicated their legal interpreting power. And that's why we wind up with this huge, massive bureaucracy, and that's why the presidency is so outgrown, so outgrown what it was established to be in the first place.
It's interesting as we frame that now, okay, so we're talking about the administrative state. We're talking about getting Congress to live up to its Article 3 duties, oaths, and responsibilities, which, by the way, just as a quick aside, is what the Lloyd Brunson case is about. It's about demanding that Congress fulfill its Article 3 oath, and since they didn't fulfill that oath, in light of evidence that they potentially, that there was a potential foreign entity that invaded and interfered in our election process.
Go ahead, you had your hand raised. Oaths are found in Article 6, not in Article 3. The Congress exercises authority under Article 1. When I refer to Article 3, that's the judicial article that defines the authority of the courts. When we talk about Congress reclaiming its Article 1 power to legislate and make law. We're talking about the court right now working on retaking its Article 3 authority to interpret the law. Now, so let me ask this question then, because as I understood it, I thought you were saying that you were interpreting Article 3 for the legislative side, so thank you for clarifying that. Relative to that then, the issue of the courts now, we have another case that's sitting here that they didn't take up. But Neil Gorsuch wrote his displeasure with them having not picked up this case to bring some clarification as it relates to another potential rogue activity that again creates an imbalance within the three branches. And that is the judicial tyranny, which we've talked about, you and I have talked about for the years that you've been coming on the program.
Michael Connolly and I, before his passing, talked about this quite frequently. There's a huge issue with how the radical left has used the courts to overturn legislation and executive intent to forward their agenda. Which, by the way, just again is very similar, this is exactly what's going on in Israel, and why Netanyahu and the conservative majority were trying to get some reforms in their court system, because the courts over there are essentially running the country. We have had some of that issue under Clinton, we had some of that issue under Bush because of what the Clinton machine did in putting in judges, and we certainly have had that issue since Obama. So talk to me about how the Gorsuch commentary kind of falls into alignment with Article 3 and putting the judiciary back where it belongs. Yeah, of course that has to do with the whole concept of what the Constitution is.
The Constitution is supposed to be one of limited power, limited authority, and separated powers among them. I would suggest, however, the situation where the liberal or leftist portion of our political body has been trying to achieve through the courts what they can achieve through legislation probably dates to Franklin Roosevelt. This is about an 80-year process that we've been undergoing, where they've been asking if they can't get a law passed by the legislature, then they ask the court to make up law, and this becomes a problem.
Now there's a situation relative to, there's also a particular historical separation where the executive branch prosecutes or enforces the law, and then the judicial branch decides whether or not somebody in fact, whether or not the executive branch proves that somebody broke the law. And currently there's a situation where a court has decided that since the legislature, or excuse me, since the executive branch in the form of the United States attorney has declined to prosecute a case, the courts, the local district court has appointed its own prosecutor. And that appointment was appealed, and they asked the Supreme Court to say that the court did not have the authority to do such. The court declined to hear such a thing. Justice Gorsuch excoriated the court for declining to do so by basically saying the Constitution says that the Congress may pass a law allowing the appointment of special prosecutors, but if the Congress, and Gorsuch says that if the Congress has passed no such law, the courts have no such authority.
And he's absolutely correct. There is no, we do not have a system. Many foreign countries have a situation where the courts actually prosecute the cases that they decide as well. We, given our circumstances and given the history with King George, who appointed the judges and appointed the prosecutors all in the same bunch, said you can't have that. You have to have a neutral magistrate deciding what it is that the executive branch said somebody did, was a crime. And these are all about taking back, or cutting back authority according to, so that it meets with, taken by any element of the government, so that it comports with the limits placed upon that branch of government by the Constitution. And when the court says it's going to prosecute, it's going to appoint its own prosecutors if it doesn't like what the executive branch does. That's just, I would say, constitutional insanity.
You know, I mean, it's just, I mean, that's a basic principle is that you separate those functions. And Gorsuch is absolutely correct when he excoriated the court for not taking that case and not utilizing that case to clearly delineate the differences between, when it comes to criminal prosecutions, the difference between the authority of the executive branch and the job of the judiciary. So by not doing that, essentially, that question is then left unanswered. And by pushing it back to the appellate court, which essentially, I mean, this is, you know, exactly what Dr. Wormser and I talked about relative to Israel. It's the court giving the court permission to do whatever the court wants to do. And in the case of Israel, it's the court giving the court permission to be able to select their successors. So each justice in the court in Israel can choose the guy or gal or whoever is going to replace them. So essentially, you have a perpetual power lock via the court. This isn't quite that yet, but it certainly is giving the courts and talk about because this specific issue has to do with contempt. So essentially, what it's saying is, is that if the, this is my layman's understanding, if the judge feels that the actions of the person presenting themselves before the bench is insulting to them, then they levy a contempt charge against them. And now in this instance, there's not anybody that can stop that.
Because they now have the ability to be able to say, well, if the prosecutor won't take it, I don't care. I personally was offended. And I personally am going to get some attorney that I choose to prosecute. And then that case is going to come before me. And I'm going to adjudicate whether or not I over here believe that I over here was offended.
I mean, am I? Yeah, no, you're describing that very, very accurately. You're essentially saying that the judge has decided to make himself a king. And strangely enough, the Supreme Court in allowing that decision to stand has agreed with them, you know, when it comes to that circumstance. They've essentially, by allowing it to stand, they've agreed that the court has that authority. There is, generally speaking, a limited authority for the court to have inherent power to punish things that happen in front of the court.
But it is in fact limited. Typically, it's what they call civil contempt. And generally speaking, people are given an opportunity to purge. That with an apology, they might spend a couple of days in jail, they might pay some sort of appropriate fine or whatever. But it's not a huge, it's not an actual criminal charge. An actual criminal charge is brought by the executive branch of government. And they're saying, you know, they can now appoint authorities to prosecute crimes that they don't like. And that's a slippery slope to move from contempt to saying that, you know, somebody insulted my wife and so we're going to prosecute them for that. As a criminal act, right? Not just a slap on the wrist, but as an actual criminal act.
And so this is a danger. So in Article 3, it says the judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior. This doesn't sound like good behavior to me.
No, it doesn't sound like good behavior. But of course, the response that I have in good behavior is a process that we've become all too familiar with in the last few years, and that's impeachment. You know, that's how you remove a judge for bad behavior, and that is impeachment. Strangely enough, that's a much lower standard than high crimes and misdemeanors, by the way, is just bad behavior.
The Congress can't remove a judge for bad behavior, although it's only happened, I think, three times in the 204 years that we've been, the Constitution has been involved. I haven't calculated 1789 to 2023 in the recent past, but it's about, what, 234 years, I guess. So, 44? I don't know. We'll have to test my math later. But they don't do it often.
They don't do it often. Well, so, you know, so while the initial conversation that we've had about the Chevron doctrine can bring us potentially a glimmer of hope if the courts move correctly on that particular case, this particular situation is more of a move towards the tyranny that we're already experiencing, because now, you know, initially you had handed the judiciary the nail. Now you've handed the judiciary the hammer to drive the nail in, in the instance that, for example, the tyrants that are running D.C., let's say that they failed in their ability to block us from electing someone that we want in office, like the situation that happened with President Trump in those four years. They weaponized the legislative branch to basically destabilize his ability to be able to govern. And now you've handed the lower judiciary courts the hammer necessary to drive the nail into any executive orders. And in addition to that, to put fear into the hearts of those that might come into those courtrooms, because simply being there representing something that the judge is against might well cause the judge to say, now I find you in contempt simply because you're in my court representing something that I don't agree with, and now I'm going to assign a prosecutor to criminally prosecute you, and there's nothing you can do about it, because just like in the administrative state, you have to appear before me and I get to decide if I was offended by you being here. That's the danger. That's the danger of the situation.
Yeah, you're exactly right. They're kind of two sides of the same coin, except that it looks as though they're going to scale back the administrative state by taking some of the judicial authority that they've exercised away from the administrative state and yet allowing or approving the expansion of judicial power that is at the moment not given by the Constitution. So it's a difference. It's an exchange. Well, I don't know about an exchange, but they're saying, yeah, this one thing that's been created is exercising too much power, but by the way, yeah, we're not exercising too much power. Strangely enough, that's the whole, the best thing about Dobbs for folks that enjoy the Constitution has got nothing to do with abortion. It's got to do with who decides, and it was one of the greatest givebacks of judicial power in the history of the country where the judiciary said this wasn't our job, and that's what Dobbs was about.
It had nothing really to do with abortion. It had to do with who gets to decide those questions, and the courts, according to the Constitution, the decision maker on that basis is the legislatures of the people. Which has a lot to do with the case that you and I talked about last week, that Missouri case, right, where you had them coming in and saying, hey, wait a minute, you know, Missouri overstepped. Well, no, the state, the people of the state of Missouri elected representatives.
Those representatives acted in accordance with what they believe the will of the people of Missouri was on that particular situation. And so it was a state's power by the will of the people, and in order to defend certain rights of the individuals, and of course you had, you know, the radical left saying, no, wait a minute, we want the federal government to step in here and fix this. So many things that get characterized as about the issue involved in a case are not about that issue. So often the case itself is about who decides the issue, you know, how we divvy up the power and authority, and who gets to make a decision on a particular issue. And that gets obfuscated by so many people whose interests are in the political issue rather than the distribution of authority. But the distribution of authority certainly has an impact on the issue, which brings us full circle to how it is that the liberal folks have tried to utilize the courts to make decisions to usurp legislative authority when they are unable to get through elections and legislation policies that they want. They go to the courts and say, you know, the legislature decided this wrongly and we want the court to change it. And I think if people understood the basic issue that so many of these cases are about who decides the issue and not about the issue itself, like Dobbs itself was not about abortion.
Dobbs himself was about who gets to decide the issue of abortion. I think people would better understand the whole system, the whole law. They'd better understand this thing with the legislature or the administrative state. They would like to think that when they elect somebody that they're electing people to decide what they want, you know. They would like to think that the legislature is deciding things, and that's why we vote for them.
Because we have all the rest of these folks we don't vote for. Well, and when you look at that then in perspective relative to the Constitution, Article 1 is one of the longest articles because it is expressing all of the powers and the authorities and so on that are given to those who most closely represent the will of the people. Both the authority that they have and the restrictions on that authority as representatives, then you move to the executive, then you move to the judiciary. And it's the reason why, you know, if you ever go to the original hall where the original Congress met, the rotunda, you would see, and you may not unless you know it's there.
But there's a little staircase that goes down about three or four steps and a little tiny door. And when you open that door, you walk into what used to be the building or the room that housed the Supreme Court. And that was so members of Congress could slip in there, even during proceedings and make certain that the Supreme Court was not doing anything that they were not authorized by Congress to do.
It was to really maintain because our founders understood that a rogue judiciary could in fact upend, and I'm sure that they would be absolutely appalled, appalled to see the Supreme Court having its own building. I mean, they would just look at that and go, you fools, you have done exactly what we said not to do. And this is a huge portion of the problem. And of course, the other portion of the problem is, of course, constitutional ignorance in the population as a whole.
And it's also why the government doesn't teach these things, because they operate better when there's constitutional ignorance when there's not. They want they want blind. Yeah, they want blind. No, I understand they want blind.
All right. Well, David, thank you for not letting us go blind. Chistokas.com, our constitutional originalist. He's got constitutional soundbites. He's got annotated constitution there. He's also got a very significant expounding on the Declaration of Independence as well. Chistokas.com, get educated, understand who you are, understand that you have the rights and you delegate to the states and federal government the power, but they don't have rights.
Only power delegated in accordance with the rights of the individual. God bless you, David. Appreciate you very much. Thanks so much, Greg.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-03-31 21:14:13 / 2023-03-31 21:33:39 / 19