When branches clash: Who really holds power?

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. We all know that the federal government is made up of three co-eval branches. That's not true. But what happens when the week or two branches disagree? Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution Study, where we read instead of the Constitution, teacher I can generation be free. Glad you could join me today. I've got several articles as popped into my newsfeed that, well, it mostly deals with disputes between

1:00the executive and judicial branches, the two weaker branches. Now, I know people aren't, what do you mean Paul? How could that possibly be? I thought we have three, we all know we have three co-eval branches. Well, you're correct they have, we have three branches, but they are in no way equal. Think about it, look at the Constitution. The largest article in the Constitution is Article 1. The one that creates and establishes the basic powers of the Legislator, Congress. Article 2, one of the next largest is sets up and establishes the power for the executive, the president. The third and one of the smallest articles sets up and sets the powers for the judiciary, the courts. So, yeah, okay, is the size matter? Well, how about this? You look at the powers delegate, the number of powers delegated that are actually delegated to these branches and you'll find almost all the powers delegated by the Constitution to the United

2:04States are delegated to Congress. And most of the powers that are delegated to the president, he can only do with the advising and sent of the Senate part of Congress. That's not enough, consider this. Neither the president nor the federal courts can remove a member of another branch of government. However, Congress can, they can impeach and try and remove a member of the executive or the judicial. So, we have three powers and again, they're not co-equal. And I think sometimes we lose that. It kind of gets lost in the rhetoric, but it's important to understand that. So, we've got the two lesser branches, the two less powerful branches, the executive and the courts. And sometimes they disagree. Now, if you want to understand this better, I go all the way back to the case, Marbury versus Madison. If you've dealt with Constitution law for an length of time, you've probably heard of the case, Marbury versus Madison. It goes all the way back to them.

3:09The early 1800s, when John Adams lost his race to repeat as president, his second to have a second to demonstrate his second term, he lost to Thomas Jefferson. Before he actually left office, he tried to pack the courts. He appointed all every court, everything from federal judges, district court judges to, well, justices of the peace. And he got them approved by the Senate, the advice and consent of the Senate, the Senate consented to these appointments, but there's a problem. You see, the Adams's secretary of state, don't remember who that was. He never signed the commissions. You heard the old saying, the job's not done, the paperwork is done. Well, guess what, the job wasn't done because the paperwork didn't get done. So Adams is out in his entire administration. Jefferson comes in and his secretary of state was John, it was James

4:15Madison. He walks into his office. He sees this pile of judicial commissions that have not been signed and sealed, meaning they haven't been executed. And he refuses to sign them. He refuses to affix the seal of the United States to these commissions, which means these people are not actually judges. Well, one of the justices of the peace, one who had our commission for the justice of the peace, a gentleman by the name of Marbury sued saying, we've been appointed. It's been approved by the Senate. This is a paperwork issue. We want the courts to force Mr. Madison to sign and seal these commissions because we've done everything we've needed to. And if you have spent any time looking at constitutional law, you've probably heard the saying, well, Marbury versus Madison, that's where the Supreme Court gave to itself the power of judicial review. That means they get to review any law and give their thumbs up and thumbs down, except that's not exactly what happened. I read the opinion in Marbury versus Madison. Two things

5:19that are important. First is, yes, they do mention judicial review. They say, yes, we obviously have you, when we're looking at a case, we have to review all the laws related to the case. And when laws are in conflict, we have to decide which law predominates. That's the, that was it. The second thing they said is, yes, what? Although Congress said we could issue a writ of mandamus and order to the executive branch, the Constitution doesn't give us that authority. Therefore, Congress's law is unconstitutional and therefore void. So as much as we agree that Mr. Marbury is correct, he has done everything necessary to warrant that commission. We don't have the legal authority to order and part of the executive branch to do that. I want you to think about that as we sit through today's news and you have judges, all sorts of federal judges saying, we order the the part of the executive branch to do this and do that. Well, if they actually read their

6:22impressive, they'd find that's not that's not the case. Because after, remember, courts are weak. The judiciary is weak to quote Alexander Hamilton in federal 78. He says, whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary from the nature of its functions will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. Lord, I wish that were true. The courts have gone crazy and they are very damn dangerous to our rights, but that's something else. Going back to, to Mr., to Mr. Hamilton, he says, because it will be the least in capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sort of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the country has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth

7:25of the society and can take no active resolution or whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm, even for the efficacy of its judgments. So when we have a, again, most of the powers in Congress, the president has some powers, but most of them he has to do with Congress. Not all of them, he can pardon, he can call an emergency session of Congress. He accepts foreign ambassadors and other public ministers, but pretty much everything else he has to do with Congress. But Paul, he's the commander in chief. That's correct, but it's Congress that sets the rules for the military. The rules and regulations are created by Congress. His job is to execute them. He's the chief executive. So what do we talk, when I talk about with these, these, these, well, the first one to look at actually deals with the sheriff. I've pointed out for years here on the Constitution study that the sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in the kind of

8:30days, the chief law enforcement has the most power. And most sheriffs, I know, well, they don't really understand their power. And well, I would say don't always exercise that. Well, except now we've got, we got an issue in all places, Las Vegas. Now again, this is a little confusing to me because it's a dispute between the metropolitan police and a court, but they keep referring to the sheriff. So let me explain. Apparently, there's this gentleman, a Joshua Sanchez Lopez, who, well, the court has ordered him to be released and placed on electronic monitoring. But there's a problem. See, Metro police told the judge that they refused to release Sanchez Gomez in defiance of his order. They cited the previous incidents where Mr. Sanchez Lopez failed to appear in court, violated the department's program. And in one instance,

9:33he actually mocked the police after posting a photo of his ankle monitor on Snapchat. Now, Judge Goodman was not happy with this. He, in fact, he threatened to hold the cops in contempt of court. And this is where things get interesting because Metro police are claiming that the decision to keep Sanchez Lopez is a power granted to the sheriff by state law. Now, police departments are generated by chiefs, not sheriffs. That's why I said, there may be something weird in Nevada that says, you know, the, the sheriff, maybe he's being held in a county facility. I didn't, I didn't see this. And of course, the, uh, Mr. Sanchez Lopez's public defender, he vehemently disagrees. He says that Metro's argument is flat wrong. This is the job of the elected judges side, whether someone charged with a crime should be released in under what conditions. He also said that the idea that that a Metro employee can overrule a judge's release order

10:35and keep someone locked up should worry anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. And I, I, I see his point that that, that is a concern. But we have to remember that this is a, you know, okay, he's an elected judge. Fine. He's still a judge. He decides cases and controversies. He does not enforce the law. As we've already said, a judge is ultimately dependent on the executive for the efficacy of their decisions and the executive arm. Well, that would be the police and or the sheriff. Now, according to the general counsel for Metro Police Department, he says, we have to take a look at that and say, is this somebody who our electronic supervision program can monitor safely in the community? There's absolutely competing narratives about public safety occurring in our community. There's different approaches to it. Now, the governor of Nevada, a Joe Lombardo, actually is backing the police. He made us, he wrote a statement where he said,

11:39Sheriff McMale and the man and women of Metro are doing exactly what they've sworn to do. Protect the public. When repeat, violent offenders are ordered back onto our streets, law enforcement has a duty to speak up and push back. I fully support, to support LV MPD's decision to take this issue to the Nevada Supreme Court and fight for public safety. I stand with law enforcement. The general counsel, Mr. Dickinson, also says the safety of our officers paramount. Well, there's problem number one, but yeah, he says the safety of the public is key and the key here is Sheriff McMale will not violate the law to appease the Las Vegas justice court and let out people who he deems to be dangerous. We have a system that's set up so people can get out of jail quickly and sometimes there just needs to be a little bit more thought given to it because labs are on the line. So let me stop and back up for a second, right? So this basically is a pissing match between a judge and a police department, including the sheriff. I'm not sure, you know, if he's

12:44an elected sheriff of the county, that's he's the chief law enforcement officer. But we also have to remember that Mr. was sentious Lopez. He has rights, right? Even though he's apparently he's in multiple, he's been a multiple convicted felon and has been convicted on by this court. Well, actually, he's not convicted. He's this is a question of bail. Sorry, almost forgot. So it's it's interesting. He's been he's been I'm assuming indicted. If you're talking about an ankle monitor, I doubt you're talking about a misdemeanor. Again, I don't have the details of this particular case other than this argument between two branches of Nevada government in a judicial branch and an executive branch. So to me, the question is, okay, he's been indicted. Um, if he posed bail is yeah, I'm torn because the one hand is a judge being lenient when you have

13:49somebody who has violated those orders before. It seems to me a little lenient that that but is he doing it based on Nevada law? I don't know. I'm not an attorney in Nevada. So maybe Nevada law says, yes, we have to to do this kind of like, you know, they've done in New York City where they release sometimes even violent felonies onto the streets because of jail overcrowding or whatnot. On the other hand, I do see the police departments. This is a man who has repeated, he has multiple charges. He has apparently repeatedly violated or at least been a problem with the the electronic monitoring. Um, to me that, you know, I kind of see both sides and without enough details, I'm not ready to come to to a decision yet. I because to me, there's just not enough detail in here.

14:50I don't know if Nevada law, if I don't know if the judge is following Nevada law or if he's just been given this discretion and it's his decision, but I know he's a judge not a ruler, meaning his decisions are not law. Now, I also know that in order for a law enforcement entity to take someone into custody, they must have probable cause that they've been involved in a crime. I mean, he's been charged with grand larceny of a motor vehicle. That's a crime. Um, you know, he's got and he's previous convictions for involuntary manslaughter and drug charges. It seems like a dangerous person. But I don't know if this is a problem that the legislature has created because of the vagaries of how they're written their law, or if you just got two branches of government with opposite opinions. To me, okay, he's going to go to the Supreme Court, really comes down to, well, what has the,

15:51what is has the legislature passed? What is the actual law of the land? Based on that, we could probably come up to a reasonable decision about which of these two are correct. Um, I see both sides, I might lean a little bit more towards the police, but I don't have enough evidence. I don't have data to make a firm decision one way or the other. And I think, I think it's important that we recognize sometimes we need more data. We need more information before we make a decision, because I'm sure there are a lot of people that are simply jumping to the thin blue line. We've got to protect the beliefs. They know best. While others are looking going, oh, no, no, we got to listen to the judges. The judges, the judges issue rulings. They're rulings their law, which they're not, they're neither ruled nor do they issue laws. So I wanted you to think about that to see we're dealing with that, with that battle, that conflict. And we'll see if more of news comes. We'll, I'll bring that along too. Now listen, I have a break coming up before I go, you know,

16:53I was talking to somebody the other day about proper preparation. You know, you do things where you hope you never need them. But when you need them, boy, you really want them. It's why I have a first aid kit and a trauma kit in my home, in my car. I have fire extinguishes in my home, because I never want to need them. But if I need them, I want to know I have them. Well, one of the things you can look at, again, a good emergency kit, a first aid kit or some emergency kit is really important. Now, I recommend you head to America at loud.shop, click on the emergency kits panel and take a look at the kits provided by the wellness company. They have first aid kits. They have travel emergency kits. They've got general medical emergency kits. They've got kids emergency kits. These, these are not the stuff you pick up at the pharmacy ladies and gentlemen. These are prescription level drugs and supplies that you need when you're really in an emergency, including a guidebook on how to use them. You can find out more,

17:56go to America at loud.shop and click on the emergency kit panel, do your own research. As I said, these include prescription drugs and you will be interviewed by a doctor before the prescription is issued. As I said, we hope never to need them. But on the day we do, we thank God we have them. And probably the best day of our life is the day we realized we had it, but we never actually needed it. Proper preparation prevents poor performance. So please head to America at loud.shop, click on the emergency kit panel and see which kit works best for you. Be prepared for every emergency. Pray that it never happens. But if it does, be the person that's ready to respond with the skills and the tools necessary. You want to be a hero? Be the person with the right supplies and the right knowledge at the right time. And that starts by getting the right kit, by going to America at loud.shop slash shop and clicking on the emergency kit panels and

18:59find the kits you need today. Don't forget, use the code out loud and check out, you get 20% off of your order. We'll get ready, my fellow Americans, July 2nd, 3rd and 4th, America out loud.News in partnership with Clear and the Wellness Company invites you to Nashville, Tennessee for a red, white and blue celebration you'll never forget. We're saluted 250 years of America and 10 incredible years of America out loud news. Stand in strong for truth justice and the nation we all love. Three days of high impact speakers, powerhouse voices, delivering dynamic unforgettable insights that will fire up your patriots spirit. And on July 4th, embrace yourself because you'll experience America's most explosive fireworks show, lighten up downtown Nashville and pure patriotic glory.

20:00You can reserve your spot with early bird pricing right now at america out loud.News oh it's slash Nashville it's America out loud news 2510 and Nashville even. Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body. Are you doing enough to keep it strong? Introducing the Wellness Company's Breakthrough Healthy Heart Formula, designed by Dr. Peter McCullough, now upgraded with touring. This 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 and muscular health, co-enzyme Q10 and selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease and a vitamin B complex with L carnitine for energy and muscle support. Endures by the wellness company's chief medical board. This formula is your ally for heart health. Reclaim your health now at twc.health forward slash out loud and use code out loud for 20% off your first order plus free shipping. In just two minutes per day you could reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in half with

21:04one simple convenient product. Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential nutrients stops hunger in its tracks and supplies your cells with what's missing in the grocery store food. Go to chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud today get nature's super multivitamin green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order. Welcome back every day Americans, you've rejoined the Constitution City. Today we're looking at the battle of the branches, the feuds between the executive and judicial branches of the United States and I got another one for you. We talked about what's going on in Las Vegas. This one involves the CDC. Now I reported before on how the CDC has updated their childhood vaccine recommendation schedule to remove things from recommended to talk to your doctor and of course

22:12if you're making a lot of money off of vaccines that's probably a problem. So it's not too surprising that this led to a lawsuit. This was filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and surprise, surprise, it was filed in the district court for the district of Massachusetts. Why? Because one of the judges there is Judge Brian Murphy. We've talked about him before and some of the crazy ideas he's come up with. Now the judge, again Judge Murphy, he said in his decision, Congress has required ASIP, this that's the advisory committee on immunization practices. Congress has required ASIP's involvement in the issuance of the immunization schedules. The CDC must at least consider ASIP's recommendations before adopting an immunization schedule and following or failing to follow the requirement is reviewable by this court. See that was the

23:14first question. Could the decision by HHS actually be reviewed? Could the CDC review? Could this decision be reviewed by a court? Now it should not surprise you that the officials at HHS said, no, the court can't review this, but of course Judge Murphy says, oh yeah, I can review this. I can review anything I want, but I want you to see what's going on here. So first of all, Mr. Murphy has a bit of a misnomer, okay? Because notice he says the CDC at least must consider ASIP's recommendation before adopting an immunization schedule. Well, it's not an immunization schedule, it's a recommendation schedule. In other words, these are the CDC's recommendations. There is nothing in the CDC's document that requires people to get this immunization, which of course begs the question, then why is the American Academy of Pediatrics suing? This is simply a

24:16recommendation. It doesn't compel parents to do this. Now, there are a lot of school districts and other functions that require you follow the CDC's recommendation in order to go to school. That's a whole other issue, but you have how does the American Academy of Pediatrics have standing? How are they harmed by a change in the recommended schedule for these immunizations? Unless they're getting kicked back, kicked back, I don't know how they're harmed. So they shouldn't have standing, but we're not going to let that little technical detail get in the way. Now, he also said, well, the update was was arbitrary and capricious because it abandoned the agency's longstanding practice of getting recommendations from ASIP before changing the immunization schedule without sufficient explanation. Now, hopefully won't be surprised when I remind you that Judge Murphy cited in a previous case with the American Public Health Association over Kennedy's

25:20Remaking of the ASIP. By the way, the ASIP, which is on record as ignoring the recommendations of qualified physicians in their recommendations to the CDC. They were on record as, you know, I think it was Dr. Peter McCullough was saying, you know, hey, this can cause heart issues. We're just going to recommend it anyway. It became a rubber stamp. But I go all the way back to the beginning because I want to remind Judge Murphy of something you took an oath to support the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to recommend a vaccine schedule to make any medical decisions for anyone. So this is all a deal about it. This is an unconstitutional agency created to do unconstitutional things that this judge is putting in place. Again, it's a recommendation. I'm still trying to figure out where the American Academy of Pediatrics is harmed by the fact that the CDC recommends that doctors talk with their patients or their

26:25patients parents because it's child anonymization. Why? Also, it notices that the CDC must consider their recommendations. Not that they follow their recommendations. So they look at the ASIP recommendations. They say, yeah, I don't think so. That's perfectly legal. It seems to me, Mr. Kenney just just heard that the tyrants in the CDC are not following the tyrants in the ASIP to have the government dictate to people what drugs are going to stick in their children's arm. I also want to remind you that Mr. Murphy does have a habit. He's got a lot of decisions that were overturned at the circuit court. I think rightly because his decisions seem to be more political than legal, right? ASIP made a recommendation. We disagree. You can't disagree. They said you're supposed to follow the record. No, they make recommendations. We decide whether or not to follow them. By the way, my family, we ignored the CDC's child vaccine schedule. And I know a lot

27:31of families that do because it's a recommendation. It is not an order. It is not a law. It is not a requirement. Let's look at another one. There's another federal court this time out in, I think it was a Colorado. So the USDA, the US Department of Agriculture, illegal unconstitutional agency does not legally exist. It was created by an unconstitutional law. They regulate the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the SNAP program, often referred to as food stamps. Now, the USDA ordered the state of Colorado to re-certify their low income families receiving SNAP or risk losing money from the federal government. Why did the US do this? Well, they say we're worried about fraud. Did they have evidence of fraud in Colorado? I don't know. The article doesn't say so. At least not what I've read so far. So the USDA says you need to re-certify, which again,

28:36they got like 100,000 SNAP recipients. And this involves no small amount of work. I mean, they've got to carry out in-person interviews and to re-certify in five different counties to re-certify that these people are eligible. And they only got 30 days to do that, which coordinated state attorneys, it's impossible. Now, a district judge, our Brooke Jackson issued a preliminary injunction preventing the USDA from requiring this re-certification. Reading from the judge's order, confronted with a choice between, in its view, attempting to comply with USDA's impossible and unlawful demands or face devastating and unlawful sanctions, Colorado filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which the judge gave. He said, yeah, I think this is a problem. And in fact, the judge says that Colorado is likely to win the overall case,

29:36which is why he issued the preliminary injunction. Again, I look at this going, okay, I want to see what Colorado's basis was for requiring the re-certification and the logic behind the 30-day time limit. I mean, this could, again, just be, I remember, you had Minnesota, and you had the billions of dollars in fraud in Minnesota. A lot of it in their their Medicaid and Medicare, but was there also in SNAP, is the USDA kind of knee jerk reaction to that, or is there something else going on? I'm not entirely sure. I don't have all the information that the judge did. So I'm not, I'm not really sure, but it does seem like 30 days is not a lot of time to re-invue 100,000 people. And unless the USDA has a reasonable, articible suspicion that there is fraud amongst these 100,000 recipients, what is the basis of this demand?

30:40So I'm, I kind of leading towards Colorado as far as the time frame to require re-certification. If they gave them 12 months to do that, maybe that'd be a less of an issue. Even six months to do that, maybe that'd be a less of an issue. Maybe it's a time issue, but not having seen color, or the USDA's evidence of their reasonable, articible suspicion. Again, I'm not entirely sure. And remember, this is not about giving an answer. Sometimes it's about asking the right questions, and whether or not the argument between the two branches has merit. And understanding, maybe sometimes you just need some more information. Here's another one. I kind of like this. So the Department of Veterans Affairs, apparently, said they were terminating their collective bargaining agreement with the National Veterans Affairs Council, which is part of the American Federation of Government

31:40Employees Union. And the Council represents about 300,000 employees in Veterans Affairs. Now, why did the VA do this? Because remember, VA gets a lot of bad rap for a lot of things. They often get the bad rap for all the bad things that happen in VA hospitals with our veterans. But here's what they said. The VA employee said that they wanted to terminate their collective bargaining agreement with these bargaining unit employees to make it easier for VA leaders to promote high-performance employees, hold poor performers accountable, and improve benefits and services to American veterans. That sounds like a good cause. Listen, we want to promote those who are doing a good job. We want to get rid of those or at least hold accountable those who are not doing a good job, because you want better benefits and services to American veterans. Sounds like a wonderful goal. Now, they did this following Trump's Executive Order 14251, which excluded

32:46some federal agencies from labor management relations programs. I don't know that it had the legal authority to do that. I haven't dug that deeply into it, but again, I think that public employee unions are terrible, because you basically have this incestuous relationship with the people looking for these collective bargaining agreements are also the ones funding the politicians that keep putting these people in these positions. So I think there's a basic conflict of interest. Now, a federal judge, Melissa Ardubois of Rhode Island, issued an injunction temporarily requiring the department to honor its master collective bargaining agreement with the National Veterinary Affairs Council until the case could be heard and completed and decided. Now, again, I don't have all the details of the case. So I don't know, you know, the judge is looking at this. Do the the the the National Veterans Affairs Council. Do they truly have a good

33:50chance of winning? Or is this just another example of a judge placing their thumb on the scale and ordering an executive agency to do something, which I thought the Supreme Court said in Marbury versus Madison something the courts couldn't do order and remember the executive branch to do something. I guess they forgot that over the years. So that's that's old when it's inconvenient. It's important when they need it, but it's old when it's inconvenient. But again, this is not what I don't have all the details. I can't give you a nice clean answer. And I think that's important is sometimes the issue is not the details of the case. It's the the overarching idea of courts ordering the executive agencies around and is are being done based on true legal issues. Is it being done on precedents, tarry, decisis, or is it being done merely for political

34:51agendas? And that's the important point, right? It's it's it's the same thing with the Las Vegas case where the judge says you have to release them and the police say he's dangerous. We can't release him. That makes no sense. Again, a lot more details would be needed on the individual, but I want you to think about what happens. Can a court supersede an executive branch? Do courts rule over the executive or not? Because if Mr. Hamilton was correct and the courts require the executive arm to even make their their decisions happen, how do they get to rule over them? It seems like a a conflict right there. And one that I do think needs to be explored more by well, we the people. Because ultimately these people work for us. Now listen, I have another break coming up. But before I go, I want to ask you, who do you do business with? Do you look at

35:53and vet the companies you do business with? Do you look at who they support and what what policies they're promoting? I do. There are several companies I don't do business with anymore. Because they were supporting policies I could not abide by. Now there is one that I did join a few years ago. It's called Patriomobile. America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. I didn't join them for the 4G and 5G coverage, which is great by the way. I didn't join them because their customer support is 100% US based. It is. No, I joined them because we share values. They support organizations fighting to protect my rights, my family's rights, and my neighbors' rights. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of security from unreasonable searches and seizures. Freedom to be to require due process before you deny life, liberty or property. By the way, they also support the sanctity of life, which I do. They support our veterans and our first responders. Join me today by going to Patriomobile.com's constitution,

36:54find a plan that works for you, and see if you're eligible for a discount. Everyone from veterans and first responders to families with a multi-line are eligible for a discount. The best part, when you pay your cell phone bill, a portion will go to the Constitution study to keep us up and running. Oh, by the way, use the code Constitution to check out. You'll even get your new line activated, absolutely free. So join me in helping to protect our rights by supporting organizations that are protecting our rights, silly by using your cell phone. Go to Patriomobile.com's constitution, find a plan and discount that works for you. Don't forget, use that code Constitution to check out, get your new line activated, absolutely free, and defend and protect your rights with your cell phone. I also hope you'll head over to america.loud.news. Yes, I go there each and every day for news and information and not just for the radio program or for the website, but because corporate media has been lying to us and it keeps being exposed is lying to us. We live in the information age. We have access to more knowledge at our fingertips

37:57than all of human history. But where do we go? How do you know who to trust? How do you know who's worth the time verifying? For me, america.loud is one of those sites. america.loud.news is a place I go because I trust the stories I get. I still go and verify them. They're still human, but it's a trusted place for news and information. But I want you to do a bit more. Sure, read the stories and articles, but share them as well. Listen to the podcast. Watch the videos. There's great content there. Share what you find. You'd be surprised how often someone will say, I never knew that was going on. Yeah, that's why it's so important that we share this information. It helps secure the blessings of liberty for all of us. Have you 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.

38:57Bear bars are plant-based organic gluten-free, contained six grams of protein and are low temperature dried for 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. Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but our diet and the way we eat has. Creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums. For better oral health, get Sprite dental defense and oral care line designed to combat acid creating bacteria. The toothpaste, mouthwashments and gum all contain xylitol and natural ingredients shown to dramatically improve oral health. Sprite can be found online and at all find natural retailers. I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sproutbook. 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

40:00ordinary 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. 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. Welcome back, everybody. American Jubilee. Join the Constitution setting. Today we're talking about the Battle of the Branches. What happens when the two weaker branches of the federal government fight? There's an interesting story here. I hadn't really thought about it, but I wanted to spend a little time on it. It actually involves the president's power to pardon. Now, nobody I know of

41:00questions that the president has the power to pardon anybody for federal crimes. It got to be federal crimes, but they cannot pardon for an impeachment. But that seems to be so shortly after he was reelected and he took office again. Donald Trump pardoned people involved with the January 6th. It was controversial. A lot of people got very upset. A lot of people thought it should have been sooner. But this happened. I thought the way that so many January 6th people had been treated, I thought it was appropriate. That was my opinion. But again, he had the power and he made the pardon. But that's where the gentleman by the name of Brian Cole Jr. comes in. You see, he was indicted on January, and I said, I'm reporting January this year, January 26th

42:05in federal district court of planting two IEDs, improvised explosive devices at the headquarters, of the Democratic and Republican national committees. Now, here's where life gets a little interesting, because Mr. Cole says that well, his offense is covered by Donald Trump's blanket clemency of January 6th suspects. I did look at the executive order and part B says that the grant in full a complete non-conditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred out or near the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Here's Mr. Cole's problem. That executive order was signed on January 20th, 2025. It's a full year before he was indicted. So he's claiming that Donald Trump's pardon was a cover thing that had not been

43:09charged yet. That's problematic from my standpoint. I mean, how many people complained when Joe Biden issued pardons for offenses that hadn't been charged yet? People haven't been convicted yet. It was a lot of people complain about that. I'm wondering if people are complaining about Mr. Cole trying to effectively do the same thing now. How can be pardoned when the pardoned issued? You were not even accused of a crime at the time. It seems to be, well, to me, it seems to be a bit of a stretch. Now, part of it is the way Trump wrote the executive, the pardon itself, right? Because it's again, one section one pardon specific people or section A pardon specific real section B grants a full and complete non-conditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States capital on January 6th, 2021. Well, how near? I don't know how far the DNC and RNC headquarters, I don't know how far

44:17from the capital it was, whether or not to be near, but it says individuals convicted of offenses. So in order for Mr. Cole to get the pardon, he must first be convicted of the offense, which hasn't happened. Yet his attorneys claim that the charges should be thrown out, well, because Trump gave clemency to anyone convicted of or charged with crimes related to the events occurring near the capital, but he hasn't been convicted yet. So he's not, he doesn't qualify, right? So he would have to be convicted to get the pardon, this kind of what I'm saying. You know, I look at this again, it's legal shenanigans, right? It's what an attorney's job is not to find the truth. The attorney's job is to get the best outcome for their client. So I understand the attorney saying, hey, you know, he's got clemency. It was given to him by Trump back in January of last year, but in order for that to be true, he has to have been convicted of a crime. And that hasn't happened.

45:20Yet that doesn't stop the, Mr. Cole's attorneys from making a motion where they write, applying governing law to plain, unambiguous language of President Trump's pardon, demonstrates that the pardon applies to Mr. Cole because his alleged conduct is an extremely tethered to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Well, he's correct in that they certainly seem tethered, but the problem is in order for him to get to get the clemency, he must be convicted of a crime, which he hasn't happened. So sorry. And even then, the question of can you get a pardon before you've been, can a pardon apply to you if what you did happen after the party was issued or if you're convicted after the pardon is issued? It's a mess. It's a bit of a mess. I'm kind of curious to see how the courts handle this. I think it's also a warning case to say, hey, you know, maybe when

46:23you're writing these clemencies, these broad sweeping clemencies should be a little more tailored, right? We don't want, I mean, we understand if someone is being maltreated by the justice system, yes, we want them to be to get a redress of the grievance. On the other hand, we don't want it so broad that it sweeps into people who we otherwise wouldn't want them to. I doubt that Donald Trump meant to have a alleged pipe bomber at the two headquarters of two major parties. I don't think he plan to include the bomber again. So it has to be a bit more specific. Okay, I've got one more I want and this is interesting because this is another lawsuit. This time, it's anthropic filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Now, I've talked about this situation before, but now we've got a lawsuit. Anthropic is one of these, these AI companies

47:27and the Pentagon, in fact, I covered that Secretary of Defense. No, he's not the Secretary of War. The president cannot change is still the Department of Defense. The president cannot change the name of a department created by the Congress. So as a Secretary of Defense Hegseth, basically threatened anthropic because, well, they wanted the DOD wanted access to features in anthropic that they had disabled for their own purposes. No, you need to give us unfettered access to your code or else. And apparently the RLs included black listing them from government contracts. I mean, it certainly sounds to me like extortion up along the levels of, you know, what you expect to see in the Godfather. You will do this for me or else. Now, again, it'd be one thing if they actually found a national security risk. They said, oh, you're a supply chain risk

48:30to national security, not because of anything, they, not because anything, but because they refuse to comply to give up control of their property, because a government actor told them to. Now, the company's complaint states that they're already losing their federal government contracts that are already being terminated. That it impacts not only their, their current, but perspective private sector agreements because of the need to be involved with with the government in the, in the some of these contracts. They also could play which the the supply chain risk designation, which was confirmed a week or two ago, represents an extraordinary measure generally reserved for foreign adversaries. So under this designation, defense contractors, defense vendors, they much certify that they do not use anthropic. Their, their AI model known as Claude in order to work for the Pentagon. So it's not something that anthropic can't work for the Pentagon. Nobody that's

49:32working on a, on a DOD contract, they have to certify that they don't use any of anthropics or at least this anthropic product. Again, not because they've shown themselves to be dangerous, but because they wouldn't capitulate to an unconstitutional demand, a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the deprivation of property without due process of law by the, the, the Secretary of Defense. You know, maybe Secretary of War is a better title for him because he certainly is acting more like a warlord than an actual servant of the people of the United States. And of course, Hegseth didn't work on his own. A Donald Trump has already made his stance clear. He posted on social media that he was directing agencies to immediately seize use of all anthropic technologies. He said, we will decide the fate of our country, not some out of control radical left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real world was about. That's a joke.

50:32You're, you're, you're, you're already run by a radical left companies. They may or may not be AI. You have Facebook and, and X and all these companies that have shown a, a severe leftist bias. You have no problem with them and their products. Now, this seems to me simply, you won't bend to my will. Therefore, we're going to, you know, we're going to punish you not because you did anything wrong because you refused to capitulate when we made an illegal demand of your company. That should be an interesting battle between the courts and, and the, the executive branch. And I, I look forward to seeing how it works out in the court. Because again, it, you know, show us what we've done that, that makes us a supply chain. The fact that we wouldn't put in features, we've deemed dangerous into our product just for you. Yeah, that's not a supply chain issue. That is a, that's a tyranny issue. And it's a tyranny issue at the Department of Defense.

51:36And it's also a tyranny issue at the White House. Oh, I know a lot of people not going to be happy with that. But these, the, what Mr. Trump is doing, those are the actions of a tyrant. You will manipulate your product to meet my needs or we will shut you out. So let me go back to the opening premise, right? We have three branches of government. They are not equal. Almost all the powers delegated to the United States are vested in Congress. The president takes the laws of Congress and he puts them into execution. That's his, that he, he will faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's his job. The judicial power vested in the courts is a power to try cases and decide controversies. It's not to make law. It's not to a rule over others. They're given a case. They're given a controversy. Their job is to, through their judgment, determine what should be, but they have no power to actually enforce it. And I find it very interesting when we have two, these two weaker branches of the federal government

52:38when they're going head to head on some of these issues. Sometimes it's a direct confrontation. Sometimes it's, you know, we're asking what, the, the, the courts to look at what the, the executive is doing based on the court question with third party as an anthropic. But I want you to consider how, how do our founding fathers design this to work? And they, they designed it, I think, very simply the court offers an opinion, but they're dependent on the executive branch to actually put it in place because the courts are supposed to be, as Alexander Hendler said, the least able to harm or injure our rights because they have no power. They can issue all the opinions they want, but they have no power. And I've got a couple of other stories coming up to, that will, well, I think we'll feed into this a bit more. But I want you to think again, the two weaker branches of the federal government, when they fight, who wins, legally, constitutionally. And,

53:39and is that, is that the best thing or should we consider modifying the constitution to change the balance of power between these three branches of government? Something for you to think about as we, as we head off. The other thing I want you to think about is, I get, I'm often asked question, what are you going to do next? What's your study process next? I mean, I keep saying, we need to read instead of the constitution. It's not something it's, that's one and done, it's something we should be continually doing to some extent. And what plans do you have? I get asked that question all the time. Usually my answer is, well, it depends. And it's not because I'm trying to dodge. It really does depend. I need to know, you know, a little bit of your education, a little bit of your history. I need to know what your goals are before I can begin to give you a, a suggestion that'll be truly meaningful. Now, if you'd like to find out more of your likes and ideas, I suggest you try my constitution study wizard. Go to constitutionstudy.com slash wizard. And it'll ask you for your name and email address, because I'm going to email you

54:42suggestions. And then it's going to ask you questions. You know, when did you last read the constitution United States? Have you read any of the ancillary documents? What are your goals? And based on those, the system will start generating suggestions. Of course, I'm going to look at the whole thing. And I'm going to send it. If I see anything interesting, I'll send suggestions as well. But the point is, these are meant to be suggestions ideas. Things you may not have thought about as to what to do next in your study process. As I said, I've been doing this for years. And I still spend time reading and studying. I still discover things about the constitution that I need to bring into my understanding and use and apply both here and in my life as a whole. So again, give it a try. Go to constitutionstudy.com slash wizard. The wizard is absolutely free. Many of the suggestions have free options. And take a look at what's the worst that happened. You wait. You spend a little bit of time. And maybe you don't get any suggestions. It really helped. That's really though. If that's the worst, it can happen. I think you can give it a try.

55:46Again, constitutionstudy.com slash wizard to find out more and see what suggestions we have for your future studies. Now, I also hope you come back here and join us for the Constitution Study on America. Allow talk radio heard on the I heart radio network every weekday for PM Eastern time. You can listen on a media player or apps for Apple Android or Alexa. And you can also listen via podcast. No, it does take a day or two for an episode to go from broadcast to podcast. But you get to listen to your favorite podcast app. Do me a favor though. Subscribe to the show. Leave us ratings, especially on Apple podcasts. It helps the algorithm. Well, show us to more people. So more people will collect the link and hopefully join us here for the Constitution Study. Speaking of links, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at americavlog.news. Please share those links, share this content, share this program and help share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation home.