Judicial roulette: Will the courts protect your rights or crush them?

0:00Music Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, this is the Constitution study on the America Out Loud Network with your host Paul Engel. As voters of summer vacation approaches and then there's plenty of work being lined up for them. And it's not just a Supreme Court with things to do. And fear your in-state courts are going to be busy as well. Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution study where we read and study the Constitution. Teacher Ashen Generation be free. Glad you could join me today. People are looking at the Supreme Court right there October they open their new session and we're already lining plenty of stuff up for them.

1:01So I thought I'd start today by looking at a few of the cases that the court is considering and probably will hear arguments on and well we'll be keeping us busy in the months to come. One case, Crowther versus Board of Regency University System of Georgia has been scheduled to hear the end of November. And the courts being asked to decide whether or not Title IX of the federal education amendments allows employees of federal funded schools a private right to sue for sex discrimination at work. Meaning, you know, can they actually sue the school interesting question. In other words, can they sue to get a job back or I mean, again, none of these if I go into details on the cases. So I'm just looking at some summaries from some articles that are being brought up. Thought that was interesting. There's another case couple cases actually involving gun rights early December the court will hear a very monty's versus cook and grant versus Higgins.

2:07They're going to they're basically being asked whether the second and 14th amendment protect the right to possess what they call an AR 15 style or similar semi automatic weapon. Again, these these these euphemistically called assault weapons, which is a term that that really doesn't have a good definition, but these are basically these are semi automatic weapons that looks scary. And that's the interesting question. The are they covered by the second amendment and the 14th amendment, which means. Staste of robbing people of their property without due process of law should be an interesting case or paracases. In fact, the US government is getting involved. The solicitor general john sour asked justice to overturn rulings from the appeals court for the second and seven and the seventh circuits that uphold ban uphold bands on AR 15s. So we've got the Trump administration is going to be involved in this as well.

3:07And I believe this is just arguing based on what's called the common use debate from I think was a brewing decision that said the second amendment. I argued by default covers weapons that are in common use and considering the AR 15, I think it's a best selling rifle. If I had to just building firearm in our nation's history, it certainly is in common use today. But there's also the myth versus reality of how these firearms are used. I've talked about this a lot before because these aren't really gun control debates. These are gun owner control to bait the debates. And one thing that's been controversial has been a lot of the CDC research. In fact, the Congress actually prohibited the CDC from doing gun research gun ownership gun violence research because their methods were so bad that even Congress said, no, this is propaganda. We can't do this. The things have gotten better. But I there's an interesting update to the CDC reports that I find interesting.

4:15So the CDC they've been doing some of these reports. They found they recently up the number of defensive gun users per year on average. They went from 2.1 million to 2.5 million times a year on average. That guns are used for legitimate defensive purposes. So when you talk about prohibiting or getting rid of these guns and the scary guns, what you find is you're not only preventing people from using, they're trying to bring bad people from using guns for bad things. Or let's forget bad people, they're trying to prevent guns from being used for bad things. The problem is the people who use guns for bad things are generally criminals, meaning they're not really going to likely to follow the law to begin with. So that doesn't really help them. What it does do is it prevents otherwise law abiding citizens from using a firearm in self defense. And if that happens 2.5 million times a year, that tells me that these firearms that these hoplifelbs are so terrified of and we have to get rid of them are actually used quite frequently to defend people's lives.

5:27And if that's the case, well then when you restrict access to these firearms, you're restricting access for their ability to be used to defend human life. That's an argument I think we need to have it's when I hope that that will come up before the courts will have to wait and see again that's happening I think in December. And also to consider that I think on average between 75 and 80% of defensive gun uses don't actually involve the firing of a firearm, meaning simply displaying a firearm is enough to stop what's going on. So these are going to be interesting cases that I'll follow and of course I will do deep dives definitely into the decisions. I'll probably do the or larger and so I have to see how the schedule goes, but these are types of things that that really caught my attention in the in what the court is going to be looking at going back to what the court is going to be going over in its next term.

6:28December 7th then 2026 may also be a day that will go down in his is an infamous day, not just the one in 1941 because that's when the court's going to hear the international partners for ethical care, eeg versus Ferguson about whether or not parents have the standing in the legal right to sue. A a Washington state policy that removes them from decisions about so called gender transition of their children. Again, very interesting something very important. Also early in December they're going to hear a case called the duty versus Alaska. In a case where a pilot had his airplane, his seized by troopers, after they found a six pack of beer on a flight bound for a drive village. Is this an excessive fine? I mean a $95,000 plane because the guy had a six pack of beer that is that on a flight to a drive village.

7:30Didn't say he drank the beer there. It was just going to that drive village and yet that that to me is a little on the is an interesting case. Another case said to be heard the early December is the Republican national committee versus me familiar vote. And it asked really two questions about Arizona voting rules. First, can the state require a passport, birth certificate or other proof of citizenship from people who registered to vote on a state form. And the second is whether 90 days before a federal election, can Arizona remove voters from a from their voting roles after officials confirm that they're not US citizens. All right, so voting been big issue. A lot of people talk about lady lately. There's a couple of things in there that are truly. It's truly interesting. So I expect to have a lot of content from or arguments and stuff this fall going into the winter. It also means it may be another interesting silly season come next June when the court puts out its most controversial and important decisions in these cases. Good content to look at. So like I said, the courts, they're on the right again. And it's not just the Supreme Court.

8:45So do you remember the dobs decision that's a decision the Supreme Court that said the road decision was wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that protects the right to an abortion. It's not a federal issue. It's a state issue. I agree with the first half of that statement, right, that it's not a federal that that there's nothing in the Constitution protecting the right to an abortion. I question the the point about whether or not it's truly a state issue since the 14th amendment says no state may pass any law that deprives any person of life, liberty or property. And an abortion deprives a human being of life, which gets in the question of when is it a person I've discussed this ad nauseam. If you'd like me to discuss it again, let me know be more than happy to, but we're still dealing with it. However, that has not stopped. Well, that's not stopped some judges from continuing with their political agenda. In this case, district senior district judge, B Lynn Windmill, he's based out of Idaho.

9:52He, how do you put this? He had a decision saying that Idaho pro, Idaho's pro life law violated the Constitution because the 14th amendments do process and equal detection clauses establish a narrow but fundamental right to abortion when a pregnancy threatens the woman's life for health. Okay, that's not exactly what the 14th amendment says either the equal protection or the due process clause. Right. The the equal protection clause that says that no state shall deny to any person within his jurisdiction, the equal protection laws, which doesn't pay to be here. And of course, the due process clause already quoted that the state shall no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. So that doesn't technically protect an abortion. In fact, I would say it protects people against abortion. Now he was pointed to the woman's life or health. And that's where the due process clause is explained that that's why due process is important. If you're talking about due process, the mother has a right to her life.

11:02Right. So if a pregnancy threatens her life and she simply has to say, hey, look, I've got a doctor thing. I have medical condition. This is going to cause me to die. Then, then this taken have a law that deprives a, an unborn child. And an unborn of their life because it infringes on the rights of the mother. That's a, that's a, that's a perfectly valid due process claim. Health becomes more interesting because health has been interpreted in many ways. For example, if it by health, you mean the major biological functions of the mother. Right. In other words, if it's something that's going to physically harm her, she'll extend the period of time. All right. If it's a threat, maybe, maybe she won't die, but maybe, maybe she'll lose a limb. All right. Maybe she cannot get treatment for a certain thing that may seriously shorten her home. There's a lot of scenarios. The problem is health has been reinterpreted to be well, it makes her feel bad. That's bad for her mental health. That's what a cause that that's a just cause. That lazy jama is not due process. It's again, it gets back to understanding due process, which this judge apparently,

12:14either doesn't or nearly just miraculously, I believe, doesn't care because he's pro abortion. He's pro death. Well, the ninth circuit court of appeals has put a temporary stay on that judge's decision. I'm assuming so that they can hear it, but I'm curious how the ninth circuit looks at this because the Idaho law has written into it exceptions for to allow abortions in circumstances such as rape, incest, and dangers to a mother's life. So judge windmills argument is already kind of half blown apart because it includes the mother's life. The question is meant going back to mental health is the judge trying to say, well, if you can't do it because it makes her feel sad, then that's an infringement on her rights. That's the crazy. So again, more courts are involved. I think this is going to be an interesting case. Certainly one with with which I'll be keeping an eye on.

13:17And there's another one. This one out of Illinois, where the Catholic Church is suing, let's see, the suing to block what's called the end of life options for termally ill patients actor, EOL. Now according to the church, this law would require their members to help termally ill patients kill themselves, which of course is in violation of both Catholic doctrine and Christian teachings. The law, I guess it was signed back in December of 25 by Governor Pritzker and is expected to go into effect September 12th. Now the church is being represented by the Beckett fund and their lead attorney, Mark Resney. And again, this should be an interest because you're saying that a does a person right to die as still I recognize it. Include the right to force people to help them. And that really is the question. It's when does your right, you know, I believe suicide is wrong. I believe that life starts a conception and then's it natural death.

14:31I'm not saying I don't understand why certain people do it in certain situations, but I think it's wrong. But the question is not does a person have a right to die. The question is does a person have the right to compel people against their will to help them. And that again is a very interesting question. One, I'm, we'll keep an eye on it says this makes it sweet through the courts right now. It's at believes the district court in Illinois that seeing this again, we'll have to wait and see how things go. OK. I have a break coming up before I go though. I do want to remind you, you know, like I said, my wife wants me to eat healthier. It's like she wants to be around for a while. I'm not entirely sure why, but she does. Now there are lots of supplements and vitamins because some report says much is 85% of the nutrients we used to get from our food. We don't get from our food anymore. It's a little bit of been formed out of the soil by commercial farming and what do you do? Do you take a handful of pills? Do you go on some some crazy diet?

15:38Well, our friends at the chemical free body have another option. It's called organic energy juice. You speak called green 85. It is a juice powder. You mix it with water before you eat twice a day. And it gives your body the nutrients it needs. It's 100% organic. It's it's probiotic and it's got the nutrients your body needs. It promotes natural energy and weight loss to help you sleep better helps build muscle helps strengthen your immune system all by simply drinking a juice twice a day. Find out more go to americaloud.shop and click on the organic energy juice formula. Do your own research. You know me. I want you to be an informed computer consumer. I want to know what's in it. I want you know what you're putting in your body. And I want you to decide whether or not this is the best solution for you. If it is or if you think it is, use the code out loud to check out and you'll get 20% off of your order.

16:40So if you're looking for a way to eat healthier, getting more, getting the essential nutrients your body needs, getting organic probiotic food without the hassle of crazy diets or funky supplements. Check out organic energy juice by going to americaloud.shop. Clicking on the organic energy juice panel and do your research. Be that informed consumer. Don't forget. If this is for you, if you're willing to give this a try, use that code out loud to check out and you'll get 20% off of your order. So you get saved money, you get to eat healthier and you get to do it with a simple easy to use, even tasty juice drink that you drink twice a day. Works for me and I think it will work for you. During treatment, city tap water molecules structure gets messed up so your cells can't fully absorb it.

17:43Yes, we have to purify our water, but what are we doing to fix the water structure so the body can actually absorb it? That is why we created our lab certified structured water devices. These devices restore water molecules back to their natural structure just like a mountain stream, making them highly absorbable. It's not how much water you drink, it's how much water you absorb that counts. Better hydration, better energy all day. Get one for your home or on the go at chemicalfreebody.com, forthslash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com, forthslash out loud. I'm Dr. Kelly Victory with the wellness company and I know this personally. I exercised a to healthy diet and had no symptoms when a routine mammogram resulted in a cancer diagnosis. It revealed a hard truth. Even healthy people can get cancer and much of modern medicine is reactive, not preventative. So I began asking a different question. What can we do daily to support the body before something goes wrong?

18:44That question led me to formulate shield. Shield is a two-part nutraceutical system designed to support immune balance, antioxidant defense, and cellular health. A chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels containing medicinal mushrooms, tumeric, green tea extract, olive leaf, burberry, and black seed oil. Prevention is power. Visit TWC.health-slash-out loud and use code out loud for an exclusive discount. We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth and washing our nose. Well, wait, we wash our nose. Yes, the number one place where bacteria, viruses, and pollen enter the body is through the nose. So the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day. That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses, and irritants to get into your nose and make you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear. That is clear. XLEAR. Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses, and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose.

19:52Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway, and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong. Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's x-lear.com. Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your family today. Well, did you see Google quietly updated its AI principles removing its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance? They promised they agreed to in 2018. When American people have seen Google's track record prompting the question, is Google an untrustworthy player in the AI race? Now is our time, my fellow Americans, America out loud dot news, liberty, and justice for all.

20:54Welcome back, every day Americans, you've been enjoying the Constitution study today. We're saying the courts shall ride again. Well, you know, it's an interesting day when you have a piece of state legislation that's named after you. You know, you've really made an impression when the name is trying to stop you. See California Governor Newsom signed a bill, AB 2624, that got nicknamed the Stop Nick Shirley Act. It restricts publication of purse some certain identifiable information, but only about workers that are involved in immigration related services. And only when those workers have been a written request that information not be published. Now, it's interesting because why are they only targeting organizations that provide immigration related services? Why not other services? My personal opinion is that well, people close to the politicians in Sacramento got exposed for what they were doing.

21:58And well, they're being done by Nick Shirley, so they had to go up with an act to stop it. Nick Shirley said in a post about a heap, well, for the first of Nick Shirley is filed a lawsuit suing California over the Stop Nick Shirley Act. He said in his post announcing it now in a world where we all want more transparency and not less, it is more critical than ever that we do not just sit back and do nothing. That's why I'm filing this lawsuit against the state of California. Again, because California is trying to hide information, I get, I understand this idea of doxing. Is there certain information that should not be exposed at any time, right? Personally identifiable information. When I worked in IT, when I worked in data centers, very often we were dealing with products that involved person identifiable information. We had to be very careful that that data was highly protected. Name, so security number, things like that, were really protected from outside viewing because of its critical nature.

23:05That's not what I understand this act is about. According to Mr. Shirley, it's about shutting him down because he was exposing the type of fraud in California that became such a big deal in Minnesota. Again, I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying this is what he's saying. But I find it interesting that we're going to have a lawsuit about what information can be exposed and under what situations, not again. Person identifiable information. Your name, your social security number, your phone number, your home address. I agree that should be kept secure. The fact that you work at a certain agency or you work with a certain group or activities you've done in public, not so much. So we'll have to wait and see. We'll see what this lawsuit goes. Here's another one that is going to cross the coast to New York, New York City, where Mayor Mondami is setting up his city own grocery stores.

24:05And as I said, there's going to be a lot of, there are a lot of issues with this, not the least of which is what it does to competition. See, an angel Raphael Nunez happens to own a full service grocery store just four blocks from where the New York City Economic Development Corporation plans to open their first city owned grocery store just next year. You can imagine with a grocery store which has a city mandate to price certain items 30% below market. In other words, to lose money and attempt to help people buy food. It's going to put other people out of business. See, Mr. Nunez had just purchased a new refrigeration display. He wanted to put fresh produce and meat at his, at his counter at his supermarket in the South Bronx. He's got a nice supermarket. He worked, he's been in the community for decades.

25:05And now he's concerned because with a city owned grocery store just four blocks away a store with a mandate to sell food, basic food items at 30% below market rate. How is he going to, how's he going to be able to make enough money to pay off the loan indeed took out to get the refrigeration display to provide fresh produce and vegetables and photos and meat to his neighbors. Neighbors, by the way, he's had, he's been for 40 years. He's been 40 years building this business in the neighborhood and he may lose it because of Mayor Mondami's socialist communist, a food takeover. See, these, these markets, not a zero sum gain. It's not like they're going into food deserts places where there are no grocery stores. They're going in with this competition. And that competition is going to be hard because you have a city subsidized store that selling food at a loss in order to take business from where from the existing stores.

26:15Now, what does that mean? Well, it may mean that that store has to lay off employees because they can't afford to continue when they're competing with, they lose customers. They're going to have to lay off employees. They may even have to close their doors because they can't sell. They can't raise the prices. Their competition just down the street will simply undercuts them. So what are they supposed to do? Right. What they're going to do is they're going to put those businesses, those locally owned grocery stores. Those probably are going to put them out of business. And that's that I don't know if that's the goal of Mary Mondami, but it certainly is a quite logical consequence, not only of his plan to put in these these groceries, but where he's putting them. See, if he was putting them in food deserts and places where there were no grocery stores, there was no food available. Maybe sort of kind of you come up with a weird twisted argument that would make sense. By putting your first grocery store just four blocks away from an existing business, what apparently is a thriving business since well, again, the owner said let's expand.

27:25Let's add some more just refrigerated display shelves. Then you're actually going after existing businesses. Is that really what he wanted or is that simply it was what's y'all saying to make an omni? You got to break some eggs. I wonder if Mr. Nunez feels like an egg right about now. I also want to mention Nunez is being approached about filing a lawsuit claiming that the city is committing unfair business practices by intentionally undercutting market prices. In an attempt to distort the market might be interesting. Here's another action that's likely to lead to legal action. A Trump issued yet another executive order. This time he's claiming he wants to expand markets for ranchers, small meat and poultry processors. Now part of the pilot I get nervous when President Trump's signing eos like this, but apparently part of the order is to

28:27more vigorously enforce the Packers and Stockyard Act of 1921. So again, the president's job is a faithfully executed laws United States. He sees a law that he believes is not being properly or a vigorous sufficiently vigorously enforced. He wants it enforced better. The law was enacted to what allegedly, right, because this is Congress we're talking about to promote fair competition in livestock meat and poultry markets. This is what happened when there were large companies that were alleged to have engaged in unfair trade practices at the expense of producers and consumers. That's what the law created. I say allegedly because again, we're talking about Congress, we're talking about politicians, how can you tell the politicians lying their lips are moving. So yeah, so what Trump has said is let's make sure that smaller and local meat producers have fair access to markets that includes meat processors. Now I have to be admit, I'm a little skeptical, even though if what the whatever heard report on this executive order is true, it might actually help me.

29:35You see, I don't buy beef in port from the grocery store, at least not usually. And let's except for special key unique occasions. I have a farmer not far from me who raises pigs and cattle and every few months he puts them for sale and I buy them from him. I go right to the to the owner, I buy the the animal. He takes into a processing plant that process the animal, I pay the processing plant for that processing and I have a freezer full fresh beef and fresh pork. In other words, I've got a small local producer beef in port. I have a small local meat processor and I want them to have a fair shot. I like getting my beef in port locally. In fact, if I could find a place to get chicken and poultry, I'd probably do that too. It's nice having again, I know what's in the beef. I know it's in the pork. I know the guy that's growing it.

30:35I like this. It's the way I've done this for several years now. It to me, it's the best beef and the best pork I've had in a long, long time. In fact, I think it's probably the best beef in the best pork since my or at least the best pork since my brother in law raised pigs. Many, many years ago and we got some of the pigs off of him. So again, fresh, not the big processors. Now, I know that everybody can do that. I understand that. I just want to make sure that the playing ground is fair. The thumb is not on the scale of the big producers and the thumb is not on the scale of the small producers. I want things to be open and fair. And again, I said I get nervous when when President are signing in EOS because sometimes even the even the thumb truck to goes way beyond their constitutional power. So a down Trump denounced Friday or last Friday, a previous Friday that. Here's a threat. He goes, oh, he said for a minute, I was from the Oval Office. What I'm saying is very, very simple is what we should be paying the lowest interest rate in the world.

31:40What is he trying to get at? He posted on truth social lower the rate or I'll stop trading with countries with which we have a deficit. He's talking about the federal reserve interest rates. Now, understand the federal reserve to me is a. It's a constitutional disaster. Right, because again, Congress doesn't have the legal authority to create a central bank. You've got the whole issue of the banks are the banks themselves are supposedly independent. Congress doesn't have the authority to create entities outside of the government outside the federal government. The board of governors is supposedly a branch of the garden, at least according to dot to a justice to Thomas. But it claims to be independent claims to not to not be under the executive branch. So it's kind of a rogue agency, which I do believe needs me. But now you have Donald Trump that says you're going to do what I want to do or I'm going to exercise a power I don't have.

32:44Remember, Congress controls foreign commerce, not the president. So unless the president has a law passed by Congress that allows him to interrupt trading with certain countries based on a federal reserve rate. And independent rate. Then it would just be another unconstitutional act done by this president again, one in a fairly long list of unconstitutional actions Mr. Trump has made. Now, I understand Donald Trump's frustration. He believes that the economy is being held back because of high interest rates and pretty much since. Well, since he was campaigning for a second term in president, he said that the federal reserve is hampering the economy holding interest rates unnaturally high. And he's demanded that they go down. But of course, since the Fed claims to be independent from the president, they don't have to listen to him.

33:45He can't order them to lower the rates according to the what they've said. Again, I have an issue Congress, if Congress creates an agency to execute that law must be done by the president, the president article to section one, the executive power of the United States is vested in a president of the United States. Only the president has the power to execute the laws, United States, not the branches, not the boards, not the bureaucracy, the president. And that's an interesting case I covered. I've written article recently about two cases decided by the Supreme Court that involved allegedly independent agencies. So keep an eye on them. They'll be on america.loud.news fairly shortly, I believe. But I'm also looking at the logic of the threat, right? Because the federal reserve is allegedly trying to manage the economy through interest rates. The interest rate it offers to banks and other entities.

34:45But Donald Trump says, if you don't do what I want, I'm going to destroy another part of our economy for trade. And again, where's the law that gives the president this authority? I'm not aware of it. Then again, how often have I seen Donald Trump writing executive orders? Is under the authority granted me by the Constitution of the United States? I'm going to do this when the Knights of the Law and the Constitution of the United States allows him to do that. Happens time and time again. And yet that's why I believe we the people need to read instead of the kind of we need to know we need to understand so we can look at what's going on and make a logical, logical, rational decision about whether the person we told our states to elect to execute the laws of the United States is actually fulfilling his oath to do so. And if he's not, what are we going to do about it? Because ultimately the states cast their votes for decided who which presidential electors to choose based on the votes of the people in the 50 states and the district of Columbia.

35:51So we need to be the ones deciding whether or not they're doing a good job or not. Okay, I have another break coming up before I go though, you know, you have choices. It's amazing. We still live in a mostly free market society, which means you have choices. Who do you choose to provide your wireless service? More importantly, not just wireless service. Are the people you're doing business with supporting the things you support? Or are they attacking the things you support? Are they protecting your rights or are they trying to violate your rights? Now, Patreon Mobile is America's only Christian server that wireless provider. That's not why I joined them. I joined them years ago, not because they're Christian and servu. Not because they've got great 4G and 5G coverage and all the same networks across the country. Same networks that the major carriers use. Not even because their customer support is 100% US based. It is nice to talk to a human being that actually speaks English as a native language. No, I joined Patreon Mobile because they take a portion of every dollar to support organizations that are fighting for your rights.

36:55First Liberty, turning point USA, students for life in America. They all support the sanctity of life, our veterans and our first responders. That's why I not only became a customer, I became an affiliate, which means now when you pay yourself, when you pay your Patreon Mobile Bill, you're all supporting the Constitution Study. So the time is now. Join me and others who have made the switch to Patreon Mobile and use the code Constitution to get your cell phone activation absolutely free. Use your cell phone to stand against those that are trying to turn America into a Marxist dystopia. Go to page your mobile.com.sit's Constitution, find a plan that works for you, see if you're eligible for a discount. NRA members, families with multiple lines, veterans, first responders can all get discounts and then use the code Constitution to check out to get free activation. Imagine taking your cell phone around the country and still be defending your rights with it. But only if you go to page your mobile.com.sit's Constitution, finding a plan in discount that works for you and don't forget you've got that code Constitution to check out to get free activation.

38:02I also hope you'll join me at americatloud.News. I go there each and every day for news and information. But Paul, you've got the radio program. That's true, but that's not why I go there. We live in the information age, information that are fingertips. But where do you go? What is your trusted source to give you that first cut of what information to see? For me, one of those is americatloud.News. I love you to join me. But I also like to do your part. Do like I do. Read the stories, read the articles, then share them. Watch the videos, listen to the podcast, share them, friends, family, neighbors, social media, civic groups, wherever you can. See, by sharing this information, by exposing the news that the corporate media doesn't want people to know, you're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us. I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book. I want to share something that's powerful. You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop. Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days. No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer. Just seeds, water, for under a dollar, a serving, you can grow nutrient dense packed greens anywhere.

39:18City apartments, dorm rooms, off the grid cabins. In a time when food prices are rising, Sprouting gives you control, abundance and peace of mind. Join the self reliance revolution. Go to the sproutingcompany.com slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. You've been looking for a healthy snack for on the go? Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary. Bear bars, or a crunchy savory bar, made from just six simple natural ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based, organic gluten-free, contained six grams of protein and are low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit, and are held together with serps or sweeteners. To learn more, just visit bearbar.com slash out loud. Welcome back every American. You've been joined the Constitution. Say, thank you for talking about the courts writing again.

40:24That's because we're getting closer to the next term of the Supreme Court. Of course, they've got cases they're looking at. They're cases in state court and lower federal courts, the inferior courts. There's a lot going on. But one of the things I always tell you is I love questions. And I got asked a very interesting question. Why don't I really dig into it? And it actually involves the state of Missouri, their redistricting and the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, what happened is Missouri is one of those states that created a new district map last year. It was adopted, and it's been used for the state's primary election just last month. However, not everybody was happy with that. And there has been an attempt, a set of petitions, to put a ballot referendum to ditch the new map and go back to the old map. But that referendum hasn't happened yet. That to me is really important.

41:24Okay, so the plaintiffs in the suit wanted the old map put back in place, which is kind of crazy because they've already had an election, but it gets weirder. So the court said, the state Supreme Court said that Missouri officials wrongly dismissed a petition with more than 300,000 signatures to let the state voters decide on the map via referendum before it took effect. Okay, here's a problem. How can you have a referendum that's going to happen in November for a map that took effect last year? Right, it was the law was enacted last year. It was reside last year. It took effect last year. And now they're saying there's got to be a referendum on it before it takes effect. I'm trying to figure out where they came up with that logic. But as I understand it, the Missouri Supreme Court has said that even though the primary was conducted under the new map,

42:28somehow now you're supposed to conduct the general election under the old map, which has, which means you have people that won a prize. I understand I was told by somebody at Los Missouri. They have candidates that won a primary that no longer live in the district, which means they cannot run for the in the general election. This is crazy. Now again, I and again, I'm still looking for more details on this because it again, it's crazy because here's there's a couple of things that I finally need to consider. So a court, the state law put this new map in effect. It is legally an effect. Nobody challenged, nobody in the way of at least one a challenge to the map before the primaries. Somebody might have challenged it, but nobody won a challenge. So there's no legal basis for the new, the old, the new map to you set aside. And there's no court decision that says it's unconstitutional. There's no law that says it's unconstitutional.

43:29What you have is a referendum that will be on the, that won't be held until November to decide whether or not the people want to go with the old map or the new map. But that hasn't happened yet. That's an important point that hasn't happened yet. But yet the court says they have to use the old map, even though there's no legal standing, there's no legal decision that requires that that's found the new map unconstitutional. Now, you would not be surprised that this seems to be more partisan gamesmanship, right? Because when the, when Missouri redistricted in 2025, one of the district, they have one more district that leans Republican, meaning, well, the Democrats are not happy. And so, of course, if the old map is put back in place, they believe that a Democrat contender will win reelection, which again, foils the Republicans plan to get another Republican amount of the house.

44:38And by the way, this is Donald Trump's and pushing this in several states. So it again, you to have is partisan gamesmanship. That's what this is all about. This person asked me the question. They said, can you please look at this? This is crazy. You know, it's going. And by the way, now this, the, I lose the state of Missouri has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in because the, I guess the, there I beat, they've asked the court to weigh in by September 14th, and just later this week, because there's a federal law that dictates when overseas and military ballots. And the military ballots have to be mailed out. And the state needs to know, are we doing the new map or the old map as part of that mailing? They've got to have time to, to print the ballots and mailed them out. Now, the Supreme Court's not going to hear this case. What they're really asking for is one of the justices to issue a stay on the Missouri Supreme Court's decision to allow the election to go under the new map, which the primaries ran under.

45:45And then once the ballot referendum has happened, then the state will have a decision from the people, new map or old map. Is it is a case going to happen? I don't know. I truly do not know. But I keep coming back to the fact there is even the, what the Supreme Court said, the Missouri Supreme Court said that. The state ignored petitions for a referendum that hasn't happened yet. Petitions are not votes. Petitions are not referendum decisions. This is merely saying you're going to have a referendum. The referendum doesn't have yet. I still have not seen a legal action, a legal document that says the new map is unconstitutional and you have to go back to the old map. Haven't seen it. Even what came out of the Missouri Supreme Court. So we're going to have to wait and see. But in doing my research and digging into this quagmire of nonsense.

46:47I found something very interesting. So I was looking through the the Constitution of Missouri. Now according to one of the articles I read, the claim is that Missouri's Constitution, once there's enough signatures for a referendum, it should, it would suspend the new map and replace it with the previous map authorized by 2022. But I looked through the Constitution of Missouri and I didn't find that anywhere. Nowhere. There's another point that was made and this comes to the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court. They noted that the Constitution of Missouri contains a list of prohibited legislations that can be targeted through the referendum process. And it does not in that, I'm sorry, let me say it again, prohibited legislation to be targeted through the referendum.

47:47There are certain legislations you can't do via referendum. And according to the Missouri Supreme Court says it does not include federal redistricting plans. So I went to the Constitution of Missouri and I looked under the legislation or more I looked at the details and I found article three section three, which is election of representatives legislative redistricting methods of housing dependent bipartisan citizenship. So this section deals with redistricting and it says things like this shall be nearly as nearly equal as practical in the population. The disheveled establishment of law so as to comply with all requirements United States Constitution, they're talking about districting and as I'm reading through this, I found this line. It's sub item item I know redistricting plans, so I'll be subject to the referendum. Let me say that again, no redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum.

48:50Now, I'm not an expert on the Missouri Constitution. I haven't read through it, but it seems to me that under the Constitution of Missouri, no redistricting plan is to be subject to a referendum. Which means the referendum violates the Constitution of Missouri, which means the Supreme Court of Missouri not only made a mistake, they got their decision completely backwards. If they say that the Missouri Constitution does not prohibit the sections prohibiting legislation that can be done by a referendum does not include federal redistricting plans. It seems to say so right there in Article 3, Section 3, sub item I that no redistricting plans will be subject to the referendum. To me, that seems pretty straightforward. Now, we'll have to wait and see because going to get attorneys and you've got the Supreme Court and it's a royal mess.

49:50I want to thank the person that brought this question to me and I appreciate it because she brought me says she thought I would find it interesting and I kind of do. I also find it a bit frustrating because to me, the answer was really I just simply searched for referendum in the Constitution of Missouri and in a couple of clicks found that. So it can't be that hard. I'm not illegal legal. It wasn't that hard to say, wait a second, I'll just shoot. So again, it's a mess. I can't wait to get a chance to enter. I haven't had the chance to talk to her since she asked me to look at this. I'm kind of looking forward to it because it's going to be. I think it's going to be kind of an interesting discussion because again, now you've got Missouri's basically been put into a constitutional crisis of its own Constitution by the Supreme Court of Missouri. They've made this mess and I guess they're going to have to figure out how to live with it because unless someone points out that excuse me.

50:57You can't the referendum is unconstitutional. The referendum itself is unconstitutional. So how are they going to deal with that? And since we're talking about voting and law cases, apparently there's a group in Michigan that has been gathering petitions, there's petition signatures to place an item on the Michigan ballot to require proof of citizenship. In order to register to vote. Now, you know, me first thing I did, I went to the Constitution of Michigan, did a quick search, article two, section one, which is titled qualification of electors residents reads every citizen of the United States, was paying the age of 21 years, was resided in the state six months, and who meets their requirements of a local resident provided by law, shall be an elector and qualified to vote in any election except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. So the Constitution of Michigan says that every citizen of the United States is, who's 21 years of age and resides in the state at least six months is entitled to vote and any or all of their elections. So there is a citizenship requirement in the Constitution of Michigan in order to vote.

52:14So why the big deal about actually proving that? Well, apparently Michigan has had an issue with people registering to vote that haven't proven their actually citizenship. So it's like, okay, let's add to that. In order to register vote, you have to prove your citizenship. You have to have some document that proves your US citizen seems reasonable to me. However, the Michigan Supreme Court said, well, the problem is, well, actually the problem started before that. Because according to Americans for citizens voting, they made this emergency petition in the Supreme Court because the Michigan Board of State canvassers refused to certify the petition for the November 3rd election, despite the group having more than 700,000 signatures and needing only 446,000. In other words, they have like 40% more signatures than they need to put on the ballot, but the Board of State canvassers refused to certify the petition.

53:17That's why they said we need emergency action because September 14th, big day, they've got to get this done. That's when they have to have the ballots printed. Now, again, the Supreme Court is not in session. So this went to Justice Kavanaugh. He covers that circuit. And he rejected the request by Americans for citizens voting for their emergency grant. The emergency request to put this on the ballot. By the way, the Michigan Supreme Court also rejected the group their measure at the state level. Now, again, I find this interesting. You have, you need 446,000. They got 700,000. All right. So not all of them are going to be effective. Why is the state board of canvassers, divorce, executive, why are they refusing to certify the petition? And why are the courts not granting a redress for the grievance? I don't know. I don't have the details. But again, it shows how you've got courts that get in the middle of all this because

54:21we've gotten to a point where a law isn't a law until a court says it's okay. And that's kind of the craziness that we've gotten to today. And it's also why I say the court shall rise right again because they are right over top of us in many cases. Now, I mentioned that one of the stories came from a person asking, I love when people ask questions. In fact, if I had more questions, I'd actually do a whole segment on them. Now, if you have a question, it doesn't have to be a great question. As long as it's as it's polite and it's about the Constitution, right? I don't want rudeness, something to do with the Constitution, the Constitution study or something we've done here. Well, then just go to a Constitution study dot cons slash questions and ask your question. You can also email me at questions at Constitution study dot com. Now, if you'd like me to answer your question on the radio, well, there's a checkbox in the form that says, please enter an American out loud talk radio, or you can just mention it in your email. I'll be more than happy to. Now, I do need your name and email address because well, I'm going to email you a response. But again, if you'd also like me to answer on the radio, I'd be more than happy to, but I'd love more of this type of content.

55:31I think it's, well, it's interesting for me. I hope it's interesting for you. And I hope is a type of content that shows, you know, these questions can be very helpful for educating you and me. But I also think it's important to see what's going out in the world, not just what I see in my little corner of it. Now, I hope you'll enjoy the program. I hope you come back and join us for the Constitution study every weekday for a PM Eastern time on America out loud talk radio heard on the I heart radio network. You can listen on media player. We've also got apps or Apple Android Alexa. And of course, you can always listen via podcast. It does take a day or two for an episode to go from talk radio to podcast, but you get to listen to your favorite podcast at. Do me a favor though. Subscribe to the show. Leave me a rating on Apple podcasts helps algorithm share the Constitution study with more people. You can find all the links need at the homepage at America out loud. New to please share those links share this program and help share the blessings of Liberty with everyone who calls this great nation home.

56:45You