The constitutional questions Washington keeps ignoring

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. Are you familiar with the game show Let's Make a Deal? Well, it seems there are those who think that the game show is actually an instruction manual for governing. Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution study where we read and instead of the Constitution, teach rest generation free. Glad you could join me today again. This idea let's make a deal. Of course, if there's one thing Donald Trump was famous for before becoming president, it was this idea of the deal. He wrote a book, the art of the deal. He was a real estate and Taiko. I mean, he was all about making deals. In his second administration, of course, there was this whole deal with Greenland.

1:10First, you wanted to buy Greenland. He started all this in order to get control of Greenland. Now, from a defense standpoint, I kind of understand the idea. If you understand a little bit about global navigation, most of the routes from our greatest enemies to the United States proper involved going over the North Pole, which the Greenland is close to the North Pole, it gives us it's a strategic point on the Earth. So I kind of understand it, but you had this whole thing of, oh my God, we got it. We got it. Why don't we got to buy it? Why don't we got to own it? Why don't we got to run it? Of course, that I think was more, let's make a deal in order to come to a negotiated agreement that, well, let's say, is a little less insane than the United States buying Greenland. It involves a lot of areas around defense, right, about military installations and access to property and the ability to use it as a defense platform.

2:14But what I found most interesting was the number of stories about the deal, which is again, recently signed by the US by President Trump and the Prime Minister of Greenland and of Denmark about this agreement about how to treat Greenland Greenland will still be a self governing province of Denmark that doesn't change. The United States basically we take a, a previous agreement, we kind of extend it for a while, pat it out a little bit. But here's the interesting thing I thought that I haven't heard anybody on the news mention. A lot of people mention that this is a great deal. Look at all the signatures. This is wonderful. Oh, by the way, it doesn't mean anything until it's ratified by the governments of Denmark and Greenland. What happened to the Senate? You see this quote, quote, agreement. It's a compact. It's a agreement between two or more independent nations.

3:15IE, it's a treaty. And we have in the Constitution something called the treaty clause, but says the President shall have the power, buying with the advice against the Senate to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senate is present. It's a great deal to occur. So this agreement is legally not worth the paper is written on unless and until the President gets the advice and consent of the Senate yet in all the news reporting effort about it. Now one person has mentioned center ratification of this treaty. Now why is this? What's going on here? And I have my own theories.

4:29I have my own theory of control of the media and say, oh no, we can do this. Certainly it's not the courts that are paying attention to the law. I've talked enough about the Supreme Court and as often as they've basically ignored the Supreme Law of the Land for their own political agenda. They don't always get it wrong and not all of them get it, not all the just to get it wrong. But again, this document is not legally binding. In order to be legally binding in the United States, it must be a treaty ratified by two thirds of the Senate. Then it now becomes legally binding. It becomes a Supreme Law of the Land. Now this is important for multiple reasons. One is, well, it's the law. I know it's maybe a radical concept, but following a law, especially one that's the Supreme Law, well, that would be something I'd consider rather important, especially in an employee that's representing the American people. IE, a member of Congress or a bureaucrat or anything like that. But to me, there's a more important scenario. See, the more the president can make deals that are not supported by Congress, they're not ratified by the Senate.

5:33The more the president acts like a king. Again, I talked about this under under Biden. I talked about under Obama. I've been talking about this for years. In fact, well, even before this program, I was talking about it. It's our fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concept of the Constitution that leads to this frightful dust of itsism that George Washington warned us about. This, this seeking of an individual to effectively treat like a king. Whether it's an executive order or an agreement that's not a treat that's not treated like a treaty, these are all examples of the president assuming dictatorial powers they doesn't have the president doesn't have the legal authority to bind us in any foreign escape. Without the approval of Congress. That's why the Constitution says remember, Congress was designed to represent the states, the parties to this compact called the Constitution. So in order for the president to bind the states legally to it to some foreign agreement, it's got to get the approval of the Senate.

6:45And I don't know which just serves you more the fact that this agreement that I was focusing on this agreement with Greenland or that nobody and again, nobody I've heard in the media, I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Nobody I've heard has once mentioned the need for this to be ratified by the Senate. Now what can we do? Well, from what I've seen most of the agreement has to do with military access and I don't know who in the military is going to sue the federal government saying you can't build that base or expand that base or implement that in Greenland because that's not legally binding on the United States. There's nothing that actually comes into the United States that is part of this. There is some talk of investment and rare earth minerals and mining and stuff up in Greenland. But again, if you're a company that wants to mine for earth minerals, you're not going to complain because you're getting what you want.

7:45Who's going to complain who's going to sue who's going to point out, hey, wait a second, this is not legally binding on the US in order for that to pop up, you'd have to have somebody and we basically have what the only way I see this happening is something goes on in Greenland or Denmark says, hey, you know, the United States, you've violated this agreement and they try to sue. And then what the Supreme Court says, oh, sorry, there's no treaty here. This is not legally binding in the United States. You don't have standing to sue. I don't know. But to me, and again, I don't know if this is a good deal or not. I'm not, you know, when it comes to international diplomacy, military upstanding, it looks like it's got some good stuff. It certainly is not what Donald Trump promised, but then again, I'm not an all surprised because Donald Trump's not a politician, how can you know, in a politician lying, their lips are moving. You know, so again, to me, this is more, you know, bombash, right? You, you, you, I gasped for the moon, you settled for low earth orbit. I mean, it's kind of the way the way deals are done.

8:50But I am somewhat disturbed that not a single news outlet I've seen mentioned that by the way, this doesn't legally bind the United States to anything. Not legally, not until it's ratified by the Senate. I don't know if the Senate's even looked, I don't know if they've been going to cut it on. Tell me, where's the center saying, hey, wait a second, Mr. President Trump, you do realize that this isn't legally binding until we okay it. Don't you? And get another example why I tell people they need to read instead of the Constitution for themselves. It's understanding the limits of these powers. This says the president can't, any agreement the president signed is just an agreement between him and whomever. It has, it's not legally binding on the United States until it's ratified as a treaty, not with foreign actors. So what could happen? Let's say, let's say, um, uh, 2028 elections and, um, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, some other, uh, you know, Marxist, wackadoodle wins a presidency, they can turn on say, no, we're just going to pay no, pay no attention to this agreement, uh, because again, it's not legally binding. It's not the Supreme long land because it wasn't ratified as a treaty. Now again, once it's ratified as a treaty, it's not just legal.

10:11It's not legally binding. It becomes a Supreme long land as long as the action was in the authority of the United States. So again, we're talking about setting up military bases, mining agreements. Is this all, you know, interstate commerce or should say foreign commerce. That's within the authority of the United States. I don't see this as questioning the, the authority of the United States, but it's not legally binding. It becomes a scream lung land when two thirds of the Senate agrees to it. When they ratify, when they consent to this and, uh, really, do you think that's going to happen right now? Is it simply people are ignoring it because you don't think it's going to happen? In other words, is this just more political shenanigans? Oh, you see, we don't want this. You know, we don't think it's going to pass. We're not going to mention that. We're not going to talk about that. But again, I'm surprised even the senators that are maybe opposed to this deal. And I'm sure they're out there. Why are they not mentioning it? Have we just completely lost the point, the plot of the American Republic, the constitutional public that the president is not the, you know, he's a commander in chief of the military. He's not the king.

11:20He doesn't get to make deals. He gets to propose deals. He can make deals with the advising and center of the Senate, but not all on his own. Why is this idea lost? Could it be that our civics education is so flawed in this nation that we don't eat most Americans don't even realize they don't see the problem here. Now, whether you think this is a good deal or not, I don't know. Right. You're free to your opinion. What do you think it's something we should do or not do? That's an interesting debate. And that's a debate I'd like to see happen. But the fact that people aren't even talking about this going before the Senate. Well, that concerns me. I mean, I've been went to the Senate website sent.gov and I searched for Greenland. And there's literally nothing about Greenland on the agenda anywhere. In fact, the only mention of Greenland is described in a painting entitled leave Ericsson discovers America AD 1000. So the Senate isn't looking at this and Paris nobody else is again, I wonder why what did what can we learn what can we learn from this? Well, it learns that the frightful despotism apparently is alive and well because not the American people are once again treating the president as a king and pretty much letting him do whatever he wants to.

12:41There's two. All right. Yeah, there's the lawsuits about things, but I find it again, partly just finds it interesting that people will get all bent out of shape and sue about certain things, but here you have a president acting like a king signing a treaty. All right, they call it an agreement, but it's a treaty. It's an agreement between nations and everyone's thinking, well, this is now true. This is going to happen because well, the president signed it without the advising and sent to the Senate. Again, to me, this is a concern. Am I the only one? Are there other people out there that are concerned? If so, hey, please let me know. This will post on the website in a couple of days. You don't comment. Let me know. What do you think? Am I missing something? Is there a clause of the Constitution? I'm not thinking about or is there some other scenario where this Greenland agreement becomes legally binding without the advising and sent to the Senate? And what does it say about our federal government? What does it say about the American people that they're willing for this to pretend to go into effect, even though it's not legally binding because it was never ratified by the Senate?

13:52What does that mean about the American Republic? Because I see no good answer. I see no good outcome of this ignoring of the Constitution, even for whether it's political games or foreign affairs games, any of this. I don't see it. Again, it's nothing new, but it's the latest issue and it's one that's well, it's top of mind because people I'm talking about it. Now, I have a break coming up before I go, you know, the other people have been talking about, they're still talking about COVID and the impact of COVID. Of course, I talk about the impact of what government did under COVID. Would that be the shutting down of businesses to the mandating of experimental treatments? Yeah, the so-called COVID vaccine, which is not, doesn't meet the legal definition of vaccine, it's gene therapy. See, they, the government tried to convince you to put something in your arm that would teach your body to make the spike protein. That's the toxic part of COVID-19. That's the part that actually makes you sick and they wanted to teach your body how to make it.

14:59There's a certain logic to that except, well, they didn't teach it to make a dead version of it. Now, they didn't teach your your body to make something that was inactive. They tried to to inflame your body to react to something that your body created and it's causing all sorts of problems. Long COVID vaccine injury, even shedding of the spike, these are all concerns. I know a lot of people are concerned about this. So what do we do? Well, if you're looking for government to solve the problem, I think you got a long way to head. Now, what I like is what our friends at the wellness company have done. They've created a product called daily spike support that can be taken to protect against the effects of the vaccine of shedding and of COVID itself. It's a combination of agreements designed to block and dissolve that spike protein that that toxic part of COVID-19. Now, I'm not a doctor. I don't play one on TV. But when doctors I've talked to and that explain things in ways I can understand, tell me that this works, this combination works well that they've got documented research to back up their statements that the experts on their on the chief medical board of the wellness company, they have vetted the science behind this.

16:14I think it's worth giving a try. Now, how do you find that? Well, head to americatlaw.shop and go to the spike support panel, click on it. And then please do your own research, right? I want you to be an informed consumer. I don't want you to buy it because you're heard to hear. I want you to buy it because you did your research and you're willing to give it a try. By the way, when you do use the code out loud to check out to get 20% off of your order. So if you're concerned about the spike protein or whether it's COVID vaccine, shit, whatever, and you want something to try and protect yourself, well, check out spike support from the wellness company by going to America out loud. shop. And click on the spike support panel. Do your own research. Check the the research. Check what's being said by the people who have developed this and the people who have used this. And then because you're American out loud listener, when you check out use that code out loud and you get 20% off of your order. So how about we stop letting the government run everything? How about we take control over own lives, including protecting us from that nasty spike protein,

17:19by going to America out loud. shop, clicking on the spike support panel, doing our research, and then purchasing the product using the code out loud to get 20% off of your order. Are you tired of struggling with low energy? We get it. That's why we created organic energy juice. In just one minute, you'll have clean, natural energy all day and never struggle with low energy again. And it tastes amazing. And there's no toxic chemicals or stimulants that make you crash. You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy and with organic energy juice, you won't. If you're struggling with low energy, then buying organic energy juice is the right decision. With our double your money back guarantee, there is zero risk to try it. Go to chemicalfreebody.com, Ford slash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemical free body.com, Ford slash out loud. Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body. Are you doing enough to keep it strong? Introducing the wellness companies break through healthy heart formula designed by Dr. Peter McCullough now upgraded with Torin.

18:28This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health and works to protect cells against oxidative stress packed with D ribos to boost heart function, touring to help maintain heart muscular health. Cohen's I'm Q 10 and Selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease and a vitamin B complex with L carnitine for energy and muscle support endorsed by the wellness companies chief medical board. This formula is your ally for heart health. Reclaim your health now at TWC dot health, Ford slash out loud and use code out loud for 20% off your first order plus free shipping. Have you been looking for a healthy snack on the go, but all of the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar? Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary. Bear bars are a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based organic, gluten-free, contains 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 syrups or sweeteners, but bear bars are a simple and delicious combination of veggies, nuts and seeds.

19:34It's a perfect snack for hikes, workouts or busy mums and dads. To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get a special offer just for listeners. That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R dot com forward slash out loud. A man's country is not a certain area of land of mountains, rivers and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyal to that principle. I'm happy to report that American patriotism flows freely once again. America out loud dot news is that place to awaken your hearts, soul and mind to the out loud truth. Welcome back, everybody. Americans, you rejoin the Constitution. Today we're talking, let's make a deal. And I'm looking at some of these deals that are being made that completely divorce themselves from the supreme long land.

20:38I'm talking the first segment about the Greenland deal. And again, whether or not the deal itself is a good one is not the point. It's fact that nobody's talking about the fact that it doesn't legally bind the United States unless and until the Senate ratifies it, consents to it via two-thirds majority. So that's one thing. Well, here's a new one. This one actually was reported by CBS News first broke this one. And I'm actually reading it on the daily call and it's funny because they talk about the title of Trump invokes rare authority canceled nearly a billion dollars in congressional approved spending. And the White House, it was last Friday announced that they're going to rescind roughly 800 million dollars in appropriated funds through what's called pocket rescission, which is just a fancy political term for the executive doing what the executive does. Now, as a bit of a reminder, under the Constitution, Congress appropriates money. It's Congress that appropriates the money, but it's still the executive that spends the money.

21:45I know it's a bit of a thing, but it's important to understand is part of the checks and balances. So under Article 1, Section 9, we read, no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. So before money can be pulled from the Treasury, the Treasury is part of the executive branch. So before money can serve the Treasury, there must be a law appropriating the funds, but the appropriation of funds is not the requirement to spend the funds. I know it's a little crazy here, but remember, there's permission and there's action. For example, right, let's say a husband decides that he wants to buy a new car. And he talks to his wife and he gets permission to spend the money to buy a new car. The wife appropriated, but the husband goes out and writes the check and actually buys the car, or I guess signs alone nowadays, but it's kind of understanding that that's how I know that's kind of strange for Americans nowadays.

22:48But yeah, there's a difference in appropriation and actual spending. There's permission and action. Now, why is this important? Well, again, since Congress appropriates money, does that require that the President spend that money? And that's always been, that's been especially lately an interesting argument. I mean, first, like I said, you got the separation of powers. You have checks and balances. One body appropriates the other body spends. I think, like I said, I'm on the board of a nonprofit, right? The nonprofit, the board may approve the spending of money, but it's still got to be spent by somebody. We don't actually cut the checks in the government way. The Congress can appropriate the money, but it's still up to the President or the, or the should say the executive authority vested the president to actually spend the money to draw the money from the Treasury. That's done by the President. Now, why is this important? Well, we've never seen Congress approve money that isn't needed anymore.

23:52We've never seen them appropriate money for things that are politically stupid or politically motivated. We've never seen it right? No, it always happens. So here's where we're sitting now. So the Trump administration says it's roughly $810 million is no longer necessary. In fact, most of it was a property for health and human services to fund nonprofits serving refugees and a silies that, but we don't have as many anymore. In fact, officials in the Trump administration said we don't need the money because illegal crossings have fallen so sharply under the Trump administration that we don't need so much money. So why should we spend money? We don't need isn't that wasteful and harmful to taxpayers. Now, there's other money, right? There's what the administration calls the woke international education fund for the housing and urban development grants for migrant student education that includes therapy for Latinx workshops.

24:55Yeah, there's a whole lot of crazy political nonsense and yet it's one thing to appropriate the money. It's nothing to spend the money. See, here's the interesting question. The question I have as a constitutional scholar. Is this really a rare budgetary tool as some people describe this pocket rescission or is this simply the president actually doing his job saying listen, as a as a constitution created office with the with all the executive authority of the United States vested in me. Should I be spending money on this now he can't spend money the Congress doesn't appropriate appropriate, but does he have to spend all the money that Congress appropriates. I've told the story before see when I worked in in corporate America. I had a lot of customers that were most state and local agencies and yeah every year right about this time usually. I'd be getting a phone call or an email from somebody saying hey, I've got money I haven't spent for my budget. I have to spend it otherwise I get my budget gets cut next year. So what can I spend money on.

26:02That was common and that was that was I mean, I had in New York, I had here in Tennessee. Everywhere I went, this was a common occurrence. It's this mentality of once as a pro money has been appropriate, we have to spend it otherwise we get less next year and again to me that's last problematic. So when I talk about the deficit and the debt, you know, I most frequently focus on Congress because Congress has the power of the purse they had the power to appropriate money to authorize the spending of money. Can they compel the spending of money? That's me an interesting question. Do they have the power to tell the president you must spend this money? I don't know maybe because it's law and he's required to faithfully fulfill the laws. The question is does the simple appropriation involve the automatic you have to spend the money. And to me, the answer is no. And I'd even go so far as the Congress as a as a separate branch of government.

27:09Their ability to compel the president. I can't say it's absolute right and the only reason I say that is yes, he's required to faithfully execute the law. United States, but only laws that are actual, the Supreme law land that are actually made pursuant of the Constitution. So if Congress were to sell the president spend money on something that's blatantly unconstitutional, I think his oath of office required him to put the Supreme law land above an act of Congress and not spend the money. But I rarely see those types of arguments mainly because I don't even know the most people, much less most politicians understand these particular powers and their limitations. Speaking of powers and limitations, let's talk about the Department of Energy. Again, I've said it before I'll say it again, the Department of Energy does not legally exist. Why? Well, because Alexander Hamilton in Federal 78 and the Supreme Court and at least three cases have said that legislative acts contrary to the Constitution cannot be valid. They are void. They are empty. They're meaningless.

28:17And since nothing in the Constitution delegates United States the power to regulate energy. Well, then the Department of Energy is that when Congress passed the act to create it, that was not a power delegate United States. That was an unconstitutional act that acted there for void. The Department of Energy therefore does not legally exist, even though it is it exists is there. But it's legal powers are well, shaky at best if we actually follow the Supreme law of land. Now, this is where life gets interesting though. Since current energy secretary Chris Wright has been ordering certain coal plants to remain in operation past their planned retirement date. Now, the Department of Energy announced on September 19th that they were ordering Indiana's RM Shaffer and FB Colley coal plants remain open and available through December 18th. Now, this gets interesting over a couple of reasons. First, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated a previous emergency order for Michigan's J.H. Campbell coal plant, which the Secretary issued back in May of 2025.

29:27Again, the plants had planned a retire and that you now have the Secretary ordering ordering private companies to keep these plans these plants open. Now, if the DC Circuit for has already vacated his order for the Michigan plant, why would the issue in order for these two Indiana plants? Well, the Department of Energy disagrees with the decision and as the statement made is working with the Department of Justice to assess repealing and he has been in operation. So, we don't think the court got it right. We want to appeal. We want this to be re-heard. Now, according to a press release, the Department of Energy says forcing coal generation off the grid would compromise energy reliability and lead those legal energy costs for Americans. Again, that's an interesting point. I heard a report. I haven't been able to fully vet it yet, but the report claimed that Americans pay on average 12 cents a kilowatt hour for our electricity.

30:32Now, what's interesting is China, which builds something like a new coal fire plant every month or something like that, they pay four cents a kilowatt hour to burn coal, which then used to make solar panels that they sell to Americans so that we can generate power at 12 cents a kilowatt hour. It sounds like they're making quite a deal. Now, again, I understand the concerns about pollution. I lived in upstate New York. I dealt with acid rain. There are technologies that can help mitigate that. I understand that. But I have a problem here. And the problem is where in the Constitution, does the United States get the authority to order a corporation to keep a plant open for their own benefit. And again, it's not just these plants are other plants that are impacted by this whole brew ha ha about whether or not the the Department of Energy has the authority to order a private company to continue operations past their planned retirement date. Now, looking at the Campbell plant in Michigan, it reported that it was supposed to shut down in May of 2025 as such a retire. The fact that it kept open because the federal government illegally demanded that they do so has cost for almost 260 million dollars. In other words, according to the financial filings, this company is losing money because of the other plant.

31:56Now, I understand the concerns about the the energy grid. You know, we don't you know, the part of the problem is you don't produce enough energy part of the problem is we don't have enough great infrastructure to my understanding of of the roof. But here's the interesting thing. You see the judge in the case a Cornelia Pilar said, Beijing, you know, what the states have the responsibility to plan for an overt risk to the state. And you were liability on an ongoing basis. In other words, we want this plant closed and it's up to the state to figure out how to fund power without it. Again, I understand the dichotomy here right there. There's what when I was in IT, there was no saying you can have it quick. You can have it fashion, you can have it right pick to. You can't have everything you want. Now again, our our beer of coal, I think is is there's a rationale for it that is no longer maybe as rational as necessary. I mean, I think it's kind of gone too far. I think it, you know, it doesn't deal with modern technology.

33:05But there's also the concern of, you know, we are a power hungry nation. And we have done everything we can to prevent the development of nuclear power, especially safer, more reliable versions of nuclear power. We've, you know, we've we've demonized coal, we've demonized oil and natural gas, you got to get your power somewhere. And I don't know if this judge made this decision because she hates coal power plants and wants them to shut down. Or if she actually looked at the Constitution, so wait a second, the, the executive branch doesn't have the authority to order a private company to keep operating. They have a contract I'm assuming when that contract expires and expires. And I do like the fact that it was up to the state, not the federal government to deal with availability. But, you know, I keep coming back to this where in the in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate energy.

34:06Where they authorized to tell private organizations to remain open. And we're not, you know, are we talking a national emergency? No, what is he saying? It's going to cost more for your electricity. Well, guess what? If electricity cost more, maybe these coal file, this coal file plant, this Campbell plant wouldn't be losing so much money. Again, you, this is a kind of a backhanded tax, you know, you can't shut down. You're losing money, but we're not going to let you shut down. So you got to pay a tax so that you, we get what we want. Only not really paying a tax. You're paying to operate something at a loss. That's what communist countries do, ladies and gentlemen. Is that really what we want for this country? Is it, hey, let's make a deal. We'll sell our rights in order to get to get electricity that includes the right to say, I've had enough. I want to quit. I mean, just imagine a situation where you're unhappy with your job. You don't think you're making enough money. You go into the boss and you say, you go to your manager and you say, hey, I'm going to quit. You know, I'm, here's my retirement date.

35:12Pick a date. I'm going to retire then. And then the boss comes in and says, no, you can't retire. Yeah, but I'm not making enough money. Doesn't matter. You can't retire. You can't quit. If you don't quit, we're going to, I don't know, sue you, you know, put a lien on your home, whatever. That's kind of what's happening here at the federal government level. But again, that's the problem with let's make a deal is when you don't power in a central government like we have you end up with the tyrannical central governments. Okay, listen, I have another break coming up before I go though, you know, I want to remind you, you have a choice of who you do business with. You look at what's going on around you and you say, oh, you know, we've got the craziness going on here. We've got the Greenland deal. We've got this. We got elections. We got all these craziness and what are we going to do? Believe it or not, you may be funding some of the craziness. What do I mean? I don't mean you're cutting them a check. I mean, you're doing business with companies are supporting organizations that maybe trying to shut down all the coal plants or, or, you know, are trying to do to kill the Greenland deal.

36:22So you're buying, you're doing business with companies and they're funding these organizations that you disagree with with your money. Now, how do you make sure you buy from companies that you believe what you and I believe? Well, it starts a little bit of research. For example, I joined Patreon mobile years ago, not because America's only Christian conservative while it's provider. Yes, I'm a Christian. Most people would say I'm conservative, but that's not why I joined them. I didn't join them for the great 4G and 5G coverage all over the nation, which by the way works really, really great. I didn't join them for their 100% US based customer support. I joined them for the simple reason that not only share my values, they put their money where their mouth is. They support organizations that are fighting for your constitutionally protected rights, freedom of religion, speech, press to be secure from unresolved searches and seizures, not be deprived of due process. By the way, they all support the safety of life or veterans and our first responders. And now, they all support the Constitution study, which means you can get free activation if you switch to Patreon mobile today by using the code Constitution to checkout.

37:27Just go to patreonmobile.com.ciss constitution, find a plan that works for you and don't forget to code Constitution to get free activation. Oh, by the way, are you a veteran or first responder or family with multiple lines? You may be eligible for a discount as well. Find out more by going to patreonmobile.com.ciss constitution, finding a plan in discount that works for you and don't forget to use that code Constitution to checkout to get free activation. Now, I also hope you'll swing by America out loud.news today to pick up some news and information. I go there every day. And not just for the radio program or the website. We live in the information age. But where do we go to get our information? Who can we trust you to verify? For me, one of those is America out loud.news, which is why I want you to join me. Yes, read the stories, read the articles, but then share them. Friends, family, neighbors, maybe a list of a podcast to watch a video, share that with the social media, a community group or some community leader. Yeah, it's important that we not only gather this information, but we share it with people who otherwise wouldn't find out.

38:30That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we secure the blessings of liberty for all of us. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, are you ready? Because your nose is about to witness the biggest breathing breakthrough on planet Earth. Introducing Clear nasal spray, built on saline, fueled by xylitol. It rolls through your sinuses and crushes congestion into dust, bacteria, viruses. They don't even make it past the starting line. Clear, shuts them down. No drugs, no rebound, just raw, unstoppable, daily breathing power. Go to Clear.com. Right now, that's xylacr.com. Before your nose misses out on the greatest spray in the universe. Clear, breathe, better, live better. 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.

39:39Just seeds, water, for under a dollar, a serving, you can grow nutrient dense packed greens anywhere. City 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 thesproutingcompany.com. Slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. Feeling off lately, bloated, brain fog, low energy? It could be parasites. The sound invaders so we can your gut immune system and mental clarity. That's why Dr. Peter McCullough and the doctors at the Wellness Company formulated an Ivermectin and Mebendizoclens. A medical grade solution designed to help eliminate parasites and restore balance. No gimmicks, just real medicine trusted by top doctors. Go to TWC.health-for-th-lash-out loud and use code out loud for 20% after your first order. Take control of your health today.

40:39Welcome back everybody, Americans. You rejoined the Constitution today. We're talking about let's make a deal and well sometimes that deal is just um... It's just plain goofy. It's just plain strange. It just plain makes no sense, at least as far as I'm concerned. Let's go back to Missouri. This is kind of a... is a three-straction year out. So for the third time, Missouri has gone to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the State Supreme Court. Let me back up a little bit. So in 2022, the Missouri legislature passed a redistricting map. This is 2022 is when they passed the map. Um... that's called... we call it the 22 map. Now, the... in response to Donald Trump and several other states, Missouri went through another redistricting process and passed a new map in 2025. Now, not everybody in Missouri is happy with that map. Why? Well, under the 22 map, it's expected that the Republican seats of the eight seats available to Missouri in the House of Representatives, six would go to Republicans and two to Democrats.

41:55Right? So the way the maps laid out, six districts are heavily Republican, two are heavily Democrats. The 2025 map would change that to seven districts heavily Republican, one heavily Democratic, meaning they would... Republicans in Missouri would pick up an extra seat in the House of Representatives. So of course, I'm sure the groups that are not happy about this are Democrats. I understand completely. So what did they do? Well, um... interesting. They didn't sue... or in this case, the issue is the sue. The issue is they proposed a referendum for the people to vote on whether or not to adopt the new map. Now, the Missouri Supreme Court decided unanimously back on September 3rd that the State had to use a 22 map for elections until the people had a chance to vote on this referendum. One friend who got enough petition signatures to be on the ballot, then according to the Supreme Court of Missouri, that map cannot take effect until the people vote on it.

42:59There's... there's just any big little problem. And I'm going to get to that problem in just a minute, but here's what happened. So this group called... what do they call them? People not politicians. They sued... they petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the... or to stay the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Now, here's the interesting thing. I have no clue where they seem to think the... the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction. Or in fact, any federal court, because Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution says the judicial power sucks into all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the Loginized States, and treaties made which shabby made under their authority. To all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, to all cases of abralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies to which the United States will be party, to controversies between two or more states, between a citizen, a state, and a citizen of another state, or between citizens of a different state, between citizens of the same state, claiming the lands under grants of different states, or in between a state that are a citizen that are of an affluent state, citizens are subjects.

44:03In other words, nothing about citizens suing their own state. This is not within the federal jurisdiction. So, I questioned why they went to the Supreme Court in the first place, and I haven't seen actually anything that actually explained what where they seem to get... the Supreme Court gets jurisdiction. Now, the first couple times that this went to the Supreme Court, they simply said, no, we're not hearing this, and they didn't explain why. The third time though, well, they offered an opinion that again, was unside. Nobody put their name on this, so we don't know anything about it. But it reads, in 2022, the Missouri Legislature enacted Redistricting Map for the elections to the US House of Representatives. In 2025, the Missouri Legislature enacted a new map. But under the Missouri Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, a new law, such as the 2025 map, does not take effect, unless and until approved by the voters in a referendum in the next election, or at least whereas here, the number of voter signatures on the Petitions Fices District or a referendum.

45:10So, in other words, the Supreme Court says, listen, the Supreme Court of Missouri has decided this. This is state law, this is state constitution. They've decided this. There's just, of course, a little problem here. Actually, there's two problems. Problem number one. The Supreme Court of Missouri got it completely wrong. Article three, Section five, subsection, I believe it says, no redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum. Let me say that again, the Constitution contrary to what the Supreme Court of Missouri said, the Constitution requires the map be suspended until approved by vote. The Constitution of Missouri actually says that no restricting plan shall be subject to the referendum. So, the Supreme Court of Missouri just plain ignored the state constitution and got it completely wrong. So, now this goes to the Supreme Court and they said, listen, the Supreme Court of Missouri has already decided this. What I had didn't see, and again, I only took a quick look at this opinion.

46:12Where do they really what they should do? The Supreme Court says, listen, it's not a jurisdiction. It doesn't fall on the Article three jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no say in this. This is a state problem. Now, what's interesting is this situation first came to me because somebody asked, somebody I know in Missouri asked me, hey, Paul, can you take a look at this and kind of give me your point of view on it, which I have. And as far as I can tell, again, the Supreme Court of Missouri completely ignored the Constitution of Missouri and the state of Missouri should follow the 2025 map. Here's a reason why I can't let me give you two reasons. One is again, the Supreme Court of Missouri, they got it wrong. They violated the Constitution of Missouri. The other thing is there has been no legal decision as of yet to invalidate the 2025 map.

47:15The 2020, the led, they said, well, it's got to go to the referendum. That's a that violates the Constitution of Missouri. And the Supreme Court of Missouri didn't say that the 2025 map was invalid. They said, because there's now a referendum, you have to wait for the referendum, but they've gotten an old legal basis for it. They made that up. They pull it out of their back sides. So it's a complete mess. And I think it's time for some impeachment proceedings for the Missouri Supreme Court. I think it's time to legislate your of Missouri. It's time to say, wait a second, the Constitution says it can't be subject to the referendum. Therefore, the Supreme Court got it wrong. It's only, it's only your opinion. You can put that stay on it, but guess what? It's based on a false information. So it's wrong. So what you have is now Missouri is probably based on what I've seen is probably going to use the old map, not because they're legally required to. But because of this idea of let's make a deal with the court and the courts decided we're going to place our understanding either they don't understand the Constitution of Missouri, which case I think they feel qualifications, at least in my mind, or they're placing their own politics above the Supreme Law of the state, the Constitution of Missouri.

48:30And either way, this is not good, but this is what happens when we pretend like a courts are full of kings and queens that they rule, right? Because keep it for any of this is the Supreme Court rule. The Supreme Court was already didn't rule anything. They should stay, but courts don't rule not in a republic. The people rule. And they rule through their elected representatives, not the courts, not the unelected bureaucracies. This is the problem. And to me, this is the, the less make a deal. Now while we're at scotis, let's take another look at another, let's make a deal. This time it involves elections. I'm talking about the Save Act, but not the Save Act that's been in the newslet lead. So in 1986, Congress passed what's called the systemic alien verification for intelligence program or the Save program. And what it was, it was a system by which federal, state, and local agencies could query a database to find out if a person was their citizenship and immigration status.

49:41Right. So you know, you've got somebody's coming in and they're requesting benefits. These benefits may be limited to citizens or lawful permanent residents. This is a place where they agency could check and put in their name and find out if they were actually a citizen. Now, okay, that's fine. The problem came along in March of last year, March of 25, when Donald Trump, by executive order, expanded the Save system to include using the Social Security number. The, the, the Social Security Administration make a truck that's available to the Department of Homeland Security for the Save system. When DHS launched their modified Save program, now in addition to giving the name, first and last name of an individual, they also have to give the person Social Security number. Right. So now that caused, that caused concerns for several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and others.

50:51They sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration and other agencies claiming that there were three violations in the modified Save Act. First, that it violated the confidentiality provisions of the Social Security Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other Social Security Act records. Second, that it violated the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non-Central disclosure of certain information regarding requiring agencies to notice before you reveal certain information. And third, that it was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. So they are showing that this lays down a separate phone, VHS asking for voter rolls, which is another part that gets folded. This has to do with the requirement of Social Security and other private data to be used to verify citizenship.

51:52Now, this went to the Supreme Court, which actually first it went to a district court and it was said, no, you can't put this new thing in place. It made its way up to the Supreme Court, which recently decided that the government's request for a stay on the lower court decision would be granted, meaning the expanded data can be used. Now, I have to, I'm kind of interested in this for a little more details. First of all, yes, I don't know about you, but I don't like giving up my social, I don't even like giving up the last four of my social, right? Because that's frequently the way I do it only when it makes sense for financial reasons, right? If I'm creating a, if I'm wanting a bank account that has to have tax reporting, they need the Social Security number to report, that makes sense. But let's say I'm applying for something, right?

52:52Some at a state or local level. And in order to verify that I'm a citizen and therefore eligible, they need my Social Security number. Again, okay, I'm sure there are more poor, poor, Angles in the country than just me. So how do you determine, I just think it's between me and maybe someone else who may or may not be a citizen. But the other hand, that Social Security number was always supposed to be kept private. It was not meant as an ID number because it was attached to certain critical information. So I'm kind of torn there. So I understand the desire to accurately identify does this person, are they a citizen or not? But I also understand our right to have certain financial information, private information kept private. This case is not done, right? So the case hasn't been heard. This is merely a DHS ask for a stay on a lower court decision. And we'll have to wait and see the lower court decision said, no, you can't expand this data.

53:55Again, we'll have to wait and see. But again, it's actually this, let's make a deal. The Social Security number, when it was created, was never supposed to be used as an identification number. It was supposed to be an account number, like a bank account number. That obviously has changed. And in my opinion, not for the better. But what do I know? I'm only a guy who studied the Constitution for the better part of the last 15 years. Now, speaking of studying the Constitution, you know, I, I, I, I said, no, this for more than 15 years. And I, back in 2020, I published my book, where I took my study, clause by clause, through the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, all seven articles, all 27 amendments. And I wrote them down and plain conversation in English. This is my study. And I published it as a book, the Constitution study, returning the Constitution to be the people. It, I've gotten a lot of great reviews on it. People love it because again, it's in plain conversation. If an 18th century farmer could understand the Constitution, I believe a 21st century American could.

54:55We should. And it's important that we do. So find out more. You can find the book, the Constitution study, anywhere books are sold. You can buy it on Amazon. Or you can buy it from the website. Just go to Constitution study.com slash shop. You'll find it under the book section with my other books. These are great tools to help everyday Americans reading study to understand the Supreme Law and the Land. And how they can defend and assert their rights, the rights they claim to, to care so much about. And by the way, nobody here gets a salary. So every time you buy a book or donate to the cause, all the money goes to keeping the Constitution study up and running and to allowing me to do events at other locations without charging them a fee, which I think is important. It's been a guiding principle here is I don't want to charge people to have me come speak to them if I can avoid it. So again, you help when you buy the book, you help when you donate. The best way to do it is go to Constitution study.com slash shop. Buy a book, donate to the cause, help keep the Constitution study up and running. In fact, I hope you come back and join us here for the Constitution study.

55:57I heard every week they have four PM Eastern time on America, I love talk radio heard on the I heart radio network. You can listen via our media player or our apps for Appalain, right in Alexa. And of course, you can also listen via podcast. It does take a day or two for an episode to go from pop radio to podcast, but you get to listen in your favorite podcast app. Do me a favor though, subscribe to the show. Leave us a rating on Apple podcast. All that helps the algorithm show us to more people, the more people that see the links, click the links and join us here. The better speaking of links, you can find all the links need at the homepage at America out loud. Please share those links, share this program and help share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation. Oh.