S1: You're invited to take a deep dive into the founding
S1: principles of the United States. Join Mark Levin and Larry Arnn,
S1: the president of Hillsdale College, as they present Liberty and Learning.
S2: Hello, America. This is Mark Levin, and I'm here with
S2: the president of Hillsdale College, my dear friend Larry Arnn.
S2: This is Liberty and Learning, our joint podcast between Westwood
S2: One and Hillsdale College, episode six already. And by the way,
S2: I want you to check out Hillsdale's website. They have
S2: all kinds of things going on in there, a lot
S2: of free things that you can do. Educate yourselves and
S2: family members. It's a lot of fun. It's very entertaining
S2: and interesting. You go to Hillsdale.edu Hillsdale.edu Larry Arnn a
S2: lot going on these days, my friend, and a lot
S2: that requires your thinking and understanding of the Constitution. We
S2: have a lot of federal judges out there who think
S2: they run the executive branch. Everything from what language should
S2: be on a website to how many people can be
S2: removed and so forth and so on. So let's start
S2: at the beginning. Let's start at the beginning. What are
S2: the powers of federal district judges, and are they even
S2: in the Constitution?
S3: Yeah, the federal judges, the district judges are created by
S3: the Judiciary Act of 1789. John Marshall decision. So they're
S3: old and they're created by Congress. That's what the Constitution says.
S3: The Supreme Court and such lower courts. And they you know,
S3: they have intervened in the in the in the history
S3: of America. The second case ever declared unconstitutional by the
S3: Supreme Court was Dred Scott versus Sanford. The first was
S3: one part of that 1789 Judiciary Act. The Supreme Court
S3: can do that because the Constitution is supreme. And if
S3: a statute is passed that violates it, they can't enforce
S3: it against an individual or a party. And that's the
S3: key power of the court's separation of powers means if
S3: the long arm of the law reaches out and gets you,
S3: you get hauled in front of somebody that can't be
S3: fired by the other branches. And he judges whether your
S3: punishment is lawful. That's the independent courts. It's fundamentally important.
S3: And then an implication arises because of that, because that
S3: means that if the Supreme Court says this thing is unconstitutional,
S3: it's likely to say that again. And that gives it
S3: an authority over statute law. And that that is written
S3: in the system in the way of the system. It's
S3: not explicit in the Constitution, but it's a necessary implication.
S3: And then what's arisen in its it's strictly modern. There's
S3: only one case in the 19th century or before, where
S3: a district judge declares an act of the executive nationwide unconstitutional.
S3: And that case is Roger Taney, who was the Supreme
S3: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as a circuit judge.
S3: So he was a very bad overreacher that guy. And
S3: after that, such cases are rare. There's one in about 1950.
S3: There's another one in about 1960. And now they've become common.
S3: And so now the 677 federal district judges, each one
S3: feels empowered to disrupt the whole operation nationwide of the
S3: actions of an executive. And that's what's wrong. And that's
S3: what's happening. It's happened 4 or 5 times now to
S3: Trump in his first month.
S2: Let's dig into this doctor Aaron. First of all, you
S2: have what are called, as you said, federal district judges.
S2: They're not federal national judges. Correct. So they they have
S2: rulings in historically, their rulings impact the district in which
S2: they're in. These districts are created by Congress, not the Constitution.
S2: These judges are created by Congress, not the Constitution. The
S2: Constitution gives Congress the power to create both. So when
S2: a federal district judge issues, say, a temporary restraining order,
S2: a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction, and does that nationwide,
S2: they're really operating outside their lane, aren't they? They're grabbing
S2: power that a federal district judge does not have. Correct?
S3: Yeah, it violates practice. But also obviously it violates common sense. Right.
S3: How can you do business if one of 677 guys
S3: becomes the national authority on some major national level of policy?
S2: And so it's really going to take the US Supreme
S2: Court Itself to put this back in the box, isn't it?
S2: It's going to take the Roberts Court at some point.
S2: And Justice Clarence Thomas has raised concerns about it. Justice
S2: Gorsuch has raised concerns about it. Justice Alito has raised
S2: concerns about it, that it's really out of control. And
S2: unless these federal district judges and we get a ruling
S2: from down high on the Supreme Court are told, no,
S2: that's not your place. They're going to keep doing this,
S2: aren't they? Because there's really no way to stop them.
S3: That's right. And, you know, both Republican courts and Democratic
S3: courts have done this, Democratic courts more. But that's right.
S3: And see, Congress has powers here. Right. It could pass
S3: a law that says they may not do this. And
S3: what can it not do? Remember, judging is an awesome power.
S3: And district judges have an awesome power and they need it.
S3: And that is a bunch of parties show up in
S3: front of them. Let's take the case of these fired
S3: officials who got an injunction that they can't be fired
S3: if they show up in court. A judge could rule
S3: that in their case, they can't be fired pending appeal.
S3: What they can't rule is that the president may not
S3: do such things. That has to go to the Supreme Court.
S3: So they need to get back in their lane. And
S3: you know, this guy in New York, Engelman, I think
S3: is his name.
S2: Something like that.
S3: He actually ruled that the Department of Government Official Efficiency,
S3: which is a appointee of the president of the United
S3: States and acting on his authority, not only they their
S3: members cannot see the data of the Treasury Department. The
S3: appointed and confirmed Secretary of the Treasury may not see
S3: the data, and they he ordered them to destroy the
S3: data they had collected it. And that just directly cuts
S3: off the president from management of. You know, one of
S3: the four departments of government that are actually named in
S3: the Constitution. There are way too many departments of government now,
S3: but the Treasury is one of the original ones. Alexander
S3: Hamilton was the first Secretary of Treasury. And so Scott
S3: Bessent is under court order not to supervise the operation
S3: of his department from a New York judge.
S2: Well, let's get into this, because, you know, I wrote
S2: a book many years ago about the courts, and I
S2: indicated many of the things that these federal district judges do.
S2: They run federal prisons, they run school systems. And you
S2: go on and on and on and on. It was
S2: bad enough back then, 20 some years ago. But now
S2: there's a direct constitutional confrontation, isn't there? Not between Trump
S2: and the courts, but the courts against Trump. And that
S2: is basic HR decisions, basic restructuring decisions. Basic employment number decisions.
S2: Judges now are intervening on what can and cannot be
S2: on the CDC's website. And as you point out, this
S2: judge and there's another one, too, telling Trump and his designees,
S2: you don't even get access to information to determine if
S2: there's waste, fraud and abuse. So my question to you
S2: is this. Let's let's start at the basics. What is
S2: the executive branch under the Constitution? Who runs the executive
S2: branch under the Constitution? And aren't these the basic functions
S2: of the chief executive of the executive branch?
S3: The reason politics are so interesting and promising right now
S3: is that the new administration has taken on the question
S3: of who is sovereign in America and their claim and
S3: their very explicit and clear about this is that when
S3: article two of the Constitution says the executive power shall
S3: be vested in a president. that's what it means. And
S3: the reason it's right for the for it to be
S3: vested in one person. There's a big argument about why
S3: that's better in the Federalist Papers is that he is
S3: elected by us and we are sovereign. Right. And so
S3: the alternative claim is that this administrative state, which is
S3: purportedly in the executive branch, that they are sovereign, they
S3: are outside politics, above politics. That's one, you know, the
S3: progressives who invented this whole thing and has grown up
S3: in our government over the last 100 years. They actually
S3: argued that take it out of the hubbub of politics,
S3: which means taking it away from the authority of the people,
S3: because the great thing about the president is not just
S3: that we elected him. We can also elect somebody in
S3: his place, and that means he must be responsible to us.
S3: And that's consent of the governed. It's the most fundamental thing.
S3: And there's a question about that now. And what this
S3: judge in New York appears to think is that they.
S3: These officials, whoever they are, and by the way, they're innumerable.
S3: There's a. Scholars have been arguing for years how many
S3: independent agencies there are. And I once spoke to a
S3: high official in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and I.
S3: Know him a little. And I said to him, I
S3: hope you're not mixed up in all that mess. And
S3: I meant, you know, them intervening in two elections. And
S3: he said, I'm just trying to keep the agency independent.
S3: And I said, independent of what? And he paused. He's
S3: a very good guy. Retired now. He said, I don't
S3: think I've ever been asked that question before. Isn't that interesting? And,
S3: you know, independent of you know, I commented, I said,
S3: do you have the authority to shoot me? And if
S3: you do, where'd you get it? You know, and that's
S3: the question, isn't it? And, you know, consent of the
S3: governed means that for the massive monopoly power of government
S3: to do something to somebody, it has to have consent
S3: from that somebody. And that's what's at stake in this argument.
S3: And and the progressive arguments don't work. And, you know,
S3: they're they first of all, they've near bankrupted the country.
S3: And second of all, they've made it terribly inefficient. And
S3: third of all, we're not very good at fighting our
S3: wars lately. And that's because bureaucracy, right. This divided this idea.
S3: It's not even really divided the idea that experts should
S3: rule instead of ordinary people.
S2: When we come back, I want to pursue this and pursue, well,
S2: what do we do about it? Seems to me Donald
S2: Trump's trying to do a lot about it. What does
S2: Congress do about it? What are the courts do about it?
S2: What are we the people do about it? This is
S2: liberty and Learning episode six. I'm Mark Levin, he is
S2: Doctor Larry Arnn. It is a Westwood One Hillsdale College
S2: podcast partnership. On both of our networks. We'll be right back.
S2: Welcome back America, this is Mark Levin, and I'm here
S2: with the president of Hillsdale College, my dear friend Larry Arnn.
S2: This is the Liberty and Learning Podcast episode six partnership
S2: with Westwood One and Hillsdale College, our podcast networks. Now,
S2: Doctor Arnn, I mean, Congress has a role too, other
S2: than sitting there and watching what's taking place between the
S2: executive branch and the courts, isn't that right?
S3: Yeah, Congress has a role. Of course it has a role.
S3: This weekend I've started posting on X to give me
S3: something to do because I don't have any time, and
S3: also a whole new opportunity to make a fool of
S3: myself and And on the weekend, Mike Lee, a very
S3: good senator, came up with the idea that there should
S3: be a three judge panel with immediate appeal to the
S3: Supreme Court, and that would be better than what we've got,
S3: but much better than that, because that presents a danger to.
S3: And the danger is the Supreme Court will then become
S3: a standing body to judge everything that goes on in
S3: the executive branch, but the branches are co-equal. Lincoln makes
S3: the point in the Dred Scott in his speech about
S3: the Dred Scott decision, the second law ever overturned by
S3: the Supreme Court, that each branch takes an oath to
S3: the Constitution, and they must follow it as they understand
S3: it and not as somebody else understands it. And so
S3: conflict among the branches is bound to happen, and the
S3: courts only decide them finally, in some cases. And that
S3: means we all have to have an opinion about the Constitution.
S3: And this conflict between the branches, as is going on now,
S3: is a clue to the people that they should pay
S3: attention and vote for the people they like who are
S3: on the right side of the conflict. That means we
S3: get to govern ourselves still. But anyway, Lee's opinion is
S3: better than what we got. The best opinion I know is,
S3: of course, the very great Clarence Thomas, and what he
S3: says is the district courts should be confined to deciding
S3: the matter. For the people who are in the room,
S3: the ones before them, the parties to the case, they
S3: should decide that subject, of course, to appeal and then
S3: whatever they decide will be consequential and decisive for those
S3: people until an appeal. And then higher courts can get
S3: involved and sort it out. And in the meantime, work
S3: can go on in the executive branch and the Congress
S3: can continue to legislate. I think it's true. You're the
S3: lawyer and you know more about this than I do.
S3: But I think it's true that Congress could pass a
S3: bill that said that, and that would because they defined
S3: the lower courts under the Constitution.
S2: They could abolish the courts if they wanted to. But
S2: here's my question to you about the proposal as you
S2: explain it. I'm a little perplexed by this. Number one,
S2: Congress won't do it. Number two, it depends who's on
S2: this new court. So we're back at that again. And
S2: number three, how does that fix anything? In other words,
S2: I guess the argument is, well, at least the other
S2: courts aren't doing it. Well, then the other courts aren't
S2: doing it because somebody stepped in and told the other
S2: courts not to do it. Why don't we just tell
S2: the other courts not to do it?
S3: That would do just fine. And that it's better to write,
S3: in other words, the Supreme Court when it becomes a
S3: legislative body. It's not very good at it and it
S3: loses prestige. Whereas if what it does is outside politics,
S3: according to the law, strictly decide the cases that are
S3: in front of it. And then there are appeals up
S3: to the Supremes. And, you know, we have to remember
S3: what the Dred Scott decision did is horrific, right? The
S3: Republican Party was born with a plan to forbid slavery
S3: expanding into any of the land not yet organized as
S3: states that I'm very proud to report and claim all
S3: the time. It's true that that idea was partially invented
S3: here at Hillsdale College in a building that still stands.
S2: That's amazing.
S3: Isn't it great? I just love that. And, and and,
S3: you know, it's one of the greatest acts of a
S3: political party in history because it devised a constitutional way
S3: to fight slavery without abolishing the authority of the states,
S3: all the new land, and that was most of the
S3: land of America in those days, would come in as
S3: free states, and slavery would be placed in the course
S3: of ultimate extinction. And then in 1857, Dred Scott was
S3: a slave who'd been taken first into a federal territory
S3: where there was no slavery, and then into Illinois for
S3: a time when there was no slavery. Slavery. Then back
S3: to Missouri, where there was. And he sued that he
S3: should have his freedom. And Roger Taney, the aforementioned Supreme
S3: Court chief justice, ruled in a very divided court that
S3: the federal government had no power to regulate slavery, including
S3: in the land not yet organized as states. And that's
S3: just a horrific decision. And then, you know, it just
S3: so happened Abraham Lincoln was alive, and he got to
S3: answer that. And his speech on the Dred Scott decision
S3: is one of the profoundest of his speeches and explains
S3: the rightful and great authority of the courts and the
S3: limits on that authority. And his argument is that when
S3: the Supreme Court, these district court things are just crazy,
S3: by the way, and outside all practice for the first
S3: 150 years of America, he said, is it a consensus Opinion.
S3: Does it fit with the legal expectations that prevail at
S3: the time? Are the historical and factual claims that it
S3: makes true? Does it violate common sense? And if it does,
S3: then it's worthy of great respect. But he says if
S3: it's not, if it doesn't meet those criteria and the
S3: people submit to it, quote, they shall have ceased to
S3: be their own rulers. So and now it's much worse
S3: than that horrific Dred Scott decision. Now, ordinary district judges
S3: 677 of them are doing it, and we can't govern
S3: the country that way.
S2: Mhm. And who are these people? We don't even know
S2: who they are.
S3: The guy in New York.
S2: There are lawyers who who got lucky.
S3: Yeah that's right. Got the guy in New York got
S3: appointed by Obama. Another lady I think another female judge,
S3: I think also an Obama appointee has taken over the
S3: case now and sustained it so far. So in at
S3: least four big cases, things that Trump has come in
S3: to do, like a whirlwind, are in suspension right now.
S3: And and you know he's and you know that's the
S3: tactic right. Delay let time pass hope for relief in
S3: the midterms right. And Trump was elected to do a
S3: bunch of stuff. And Lord is he not sitting about it.
S2: And I think people need to understand it's not just
S2: Trump's responsibility, which is I think what we're getting at here,
S2: it is a key responsibility of his. But this other
S2: elected entity, the United States Congress, I mean, they created
S2: these courts. The Senate has to give its rubber stamp
S2: on anybody that's going to serve in these courts. And
S2: they ought not just walk away from their responsibilities here.
S2: I mean, I don't even know if somebody put a
S2: bill in the hopper that already says that. Excuse me,
S2: you don't get to issue nationwide anything. Whatever you do
S2: is in your district, period. And that would go a
S2: long way in curtailing a lot of this abuse of power.
S2: So why don't they just do that?
S3: You know, I don't know if there's a bill. There's
S3: a bunch of smart senators. Tom Cotton should do such
S3: a bill.
S2: Yeah, he'd be great.
S3: And, uh, I don't who's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee? But, uh,
S3: you really.
S2: Want to know? I think it's Lindsey Graham.
S3: Okay, well.
S2: If I had to guess.
S3: He's imaginative.
S2: He could.
S3: Do it.
S2: That's a good way to put it. Yeah.
S4: If, uh.
S3: Yeah, they're.
S2: Busy in Saudi Arabia these days. But anyway, go ahead.
S2: I'm listening.
S4: And see, you know, the what's.
S3: Happened in this building of the bureaucratic state. I was
S3: in the course of saying maybe didn't finish it, that forever.
S3: Scholars have debated. Are there 150 or more or fewer
S3: of these rule making agencies because it's hard to count them, right.
S3: And nobody can name them. You can't even count them? No. Well,
S3: the Doge has been saying lately that they have found 450,
S3: and that's plausible, right? Because they grow up over time,
S3: there's no central record of them. They pass these regulations.
S3: They've got you know, we now know look at USAID,
S3: that they effectively have unlimited budgets. One of the things
S3: that Doge has reported is like, you know, Hillsdale College
S3: is a business and your radio show is a business,
S3: and Westwood One is a business. And that means that
S3: it goes through three simple steps. It decides what it's
S3: going to spend money on, and then people spend the
S3: money or apply to get a payment made. And then
S3: somebody checks to see if it fits with what's been decided.
S3: Three steps. Apparently they don't do the third step in
S3: the federal government. As I say, their appropriations bills and
S3: the massive amounts of money. And if one of these
S3: agencies presents a bill to the Treasury, they just pay it.
S3: And that's one of the reasons why they've not been
S3: able to complete an audit of the Pentagon for five
S3: years because the records are not there. They don't keep them.
S3: That's why they're not there. So it's just limitless money
S3: and it just flows. Right. And of course, the people
S3: who work under those conditions, that two things follow from that,
S3: by the way, being in an unaccountable position. The first
S3: is you. You treasure it. You like it. The second
S3: is it does not make you happy, right? Because where's
S3: the achievement? Where's the accomplishment? Right. If all you've got,
S3: there's no deadline. You just. I mean, what is it?
S3: I it's been in the papers that 6% of the
S3: federal workforce shows up for work every day. That's amazing.
S4: Crazy.
S3: And check in by the month. Right. And we need
S3: to get some discipline over this, because we're $37 trillion
S3: in debt. For what? What do we get for it
S3: except interference? So that's that's the argument we're having today.
S3: And these district judges who've intervened, four or 5 or
S3: 6 of them. They're on the front lines of that.
S3: And they're exercising a power they ought not to have,
S3: do not rightfully have.
S2: When we come back, ladies and gentlemen, Elon Musk. The
S2: Democrats keep saying he's unconstitutional. He doesn't have this power.
S2: He's unelected. What's all that mean? We'll be right back
S2: with Larry Arnn on Mark Levin on liberty and Learning.
S2: Episode six A partnership between Westwood One and Hillsdale College
S2: and our podcast networks. We'll be right back. Welcome back America.
S2: This is Liberty and Learning with Doctor Larry Arnn, president
S2: of Hillsdale. I'm Mark Levin here, the joint podcast of
S2: Westwood One and Hillsdale College. We love this partnership. It's
S2: so important that we convey to you real constitutional notions
S2: and ideas about your rule of law. And that's the
S2: purpose of this program, among other things. Now, Larry Arnn,
S2: Elon Musk, the Democrats, who, by the way, despise the Constitution,
S2: they've spent years telling us they despise it, that it's
S2: too white, that it's too old, that the framers, their monuments,
S2: need to be torn down. And then they keep waving
S2: the Constitution in front of us. Pretty, pretty pathetic. But
S2: they're telling us Elon Musk is unconstitutional. How do you
S2: reply to that?
S3: Well, I would say that Elon Musk is in his
S3: role as the Doge is plainly and clearly constitutional, although
S3: as a personal figure, he transcends any document. He's an
S3: amazing guy. True enough. You know, he's going to Mars, but.
S3: And he made my Cybertruck and I really like it. Uh, well, it.
S2: Drives it, you know.
S3: Yeah. It does. Yeah. It drives itself. Amazing. Anyway, so
S3: that guy, you know, is not constrained by much of
S3: anything except in this role. And that is to say,
S3: he doesn't actually have any power except to find stuff
S3: out and report it. And only Donald Trump and his
S3: long established agents, key among them, a really great man
S3: named Russ Vought, who's the director of the Office of
S3: Management and Budget. Only they can do anything. And the
S3: Duchess comes in and finds out stuff, and they seem
S3: to be really good at it. And, uh, you know,
S3: hee hee, the way it's like, it's it's fun to
S3: listen to the debate on both sides, by the way,
S3: because both sides are making fundamental points now. But what
S3: Musk does is compare it, what he sees to what
S3: a business is like. And it's just different as night
S3: and day and it's corrupt or unaccountable or both. They
S3: go together, those two things. And so like that thing
S3: about how they don't reconcile what's been approved with what's paid,
S3: they don't take that step. And that's crazy that they don't.
S3: And it means they can't be audited. And that's unaccountable. Right.
S3: And and then, you know, the way he runs his company,
S3: I saw a really funny thing. Somebody, you know, they're
S3: saying it's Elizabeth Warren. I think the senator said, uh,
S3: it's dangerous to have a guy like Musk messing around
S3: with the air traffic controllers. And somebody replied, hey, the
S3: dude caught a rocket in midair.
S2: Yeah, yeah.
S3: So so that was pretty good. I think he's a
S3: historic human being, and he really knows how to run
S3: a business, and he seems to really know how to
S3: analyze one. And so I think just the transparency of
S3: all of this. My friend Roger Kimball keeps writing, and
S3: I may have said it to him first. Maybe this
S3: whole state is like vampires. They die in the sunlight.
S3: And I hope so.
S2: Mhm. Mhm. Now, how is it possible that a GS 13,
S2: a mid-level bureaucrat in the Department of fill in the blank,
S2: has all kinds of powers to make decisions about employment
S2: funding policies and so forth. But his boss, the president
S2: of the United States, as you note, who was actually
S2: in the Constitution does not.
S3: That's that's the thing, right? I mean, you have to
S3: go back to the early days. So progressivism comes into
S3: America in the late 19th and early 20th century, and
S3: it comes into America by a bunch of people who
S3: were very influenced by German thought, German historicism. And they thought,
S3: you know, Woodrow Wilson is the most successful politically of them.
S3: He was president of Princeton before he was president. And
S3: he writes in the most telling essay that the Constitution
S3: was written in a time accountable to Isaac Newton. And
S3: they thought of it as a mechanism. But now we
S3: have Darwin, and we know that everything must evolve. Government
S3: must be a living and changing thing. And he and
S3: John Dewey and Frank Goodenough and those guys, Herbert Croly,
S3: you can read about them all in the Constitution, reader
S3: of the Hillsdale College, what they thought was, we're going
S3: to build a new kind of state run by experts,
S3: and it will still be under the authority of the people,
S3: but it will propose everything, and the people can veto it.
S3: And the president becomes a national spokesman for what the
S3: bureaucracy recommends. And that's laid out in their early writings.
S3: And now it has come to be. And there's a
S3: man named James Landis who's an important author, and he
S3: writes that you won't need separation of powers anymore because
S3: these people will have guaranteed tenure and guaranteed salaries, and
S3: so they won't have any interest against the public interest.
S3: And you just have to put that statement against the
S3: best statement in the Federalist Papers, to my mind, written
S3: by James Madison. You have to have controls on the
S3: government because men are not angels, and angels do not
S3: govern men. If you just compare those two claims by
S3: Lantis and Madison, then you can decide which side you're on.
S2: Mhm. Where do you see this going? I think at
S2: some point the Supreme Court is not going to allow
S2: this judicial chaos to go on under it. It's not
S2: going to allow these federal district judges to act like
S2: rogue individuals, Supreme Court type justices, who can just make
S2: these decisions for everybody. I mean, at some point, I
S2: think Roberts and the majority of the court are going
S2: to have to step in. Don't you?
S3: I do. I predict that they will, but who knows?
S3: I think we know how 4 or 5 of them
S3: are going to vote, maybe six, probably because they're on
S3: record about this. Four of them at least. And you know,
S3: it's a it's a it's a very important thing. It
S3: can't ultimately depend on them. I like to say in
S3: a crisis like that, like the like the Civil War,
S3: this is like the Civil War crisis, right? In the
S3: Civil War. It was very difficult to think that we'd
S3: be able to get rid of slavery, and it was
S3: very difficult to think that it could continue. Both were hard.
S3: It's very difficult to think that we can overcome this
S3: massive mess, and it's very difficult to think that it
S3: can continue and that we won't overcome it. And so
S3: right now, we're at a moment of crisis, which means
S3: turning point, right? One thing or the other. And we
S3: have to we have to choose now to. That's another thing.
S3: One of the things that caused the Civil War was
S3: that it really couldn't go on anymore, because we were
S3: trying to settle the Western lands and, you know, Kansas
S3: and Nebraska was the big there was an actual war
S3: in those places. The little mini civil war, a lot
S3: of big body count. Because are you going to take
S3: your slaves there or not? Right. And so finally, something
S3: had to be done. And this is like that. Uh,
S3: we are apparently generating $1 trillion in deficit every hundred days,
S3: and the pace is quickening. Something's got to be done.
S3: And and so because something has to be done, probably finally,
S3: at last, something will be done. And one can hope
S3: a restoration of constitutional government is what's possible.
S2: All right. Fantastic. We can go on hour after hour
S2: after hour. But time is limiting. I want to thank you,
S2: doctor Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, as usual, for
S2: your incredible insight. I enjoy just listening to it. Um,
S2: and you folks, you're listening to Liberty and Learning. This
S2: is episode six. If you want to learn more about
S2: Hillsdale College, it's actually quite simple. Go to hillsdale.edu. They
S2: have a fantastic website, hillsdale.edu. They have over 40 courses
S2: that are available to you for free. They're absolutely fascinating
S2: and a whole lot of information in there right at
S2: your fingertips. And they take the time and put the
S2: resources in collecting all this information and bringing the sort
S2: of the brilliant constitutional scholars and others to you. It's
S2: the only college I know that does this sort of thing.
S2: So it's very, very important. Hillsdale.edu. Doctor Larry Arnn, until
S2: next time. God bless you and be safe, my brother.
S3: Thank you very much. You're a great man.
S2: Take care and see you next time.