Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning before
Speaker 1: half to the Great Queen. You have found half out
Speaker 1: of suns of space. No mask, no Metro need one.
Speaker 1: We have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our
Speaker 1: part to keep the DC area moving. Find out more
Speaker 1: at well mata dot com slash doing our part, No no,
Speaker 1: do you picked a good hour of the arms drawing
Speaker 1: and get a shot to tune in because we have
Speaker 1: Tim the lawyer. Tim Standiford has been joining our show
Speaker 1: now for years. You were a child then. I can't
Speaker 1: believe it's been that long. I was just I was
Speaker 1: just looking at some things that feel like yesterday, and
Speaker 1: we're actually a long time ago. My wife and I
Speaker 1: have decided to start watching Star Trek the Next Generation
Speaker 1: on Netflix because she missed about half the show and
Speaker 1: it was originally on the first episode of that show
Speaker 1: was thirty two years ago now, which means that uh
Speaker 1: that the show was a lot closer to the original
Speaker 1: series than we are to that show. Now. That's an
Speaker 1: interesting The original Star Trek is only twenty years old
Speaker 1: than that show. Tim, aside from being a Star Trek historian,
Speaker 1: is the vice president for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 1: Tim Sander for so, Tim, we know you're working on
Speaker 1: some really exciting and fun stuff right now, and we
Speaker 1: want to talk about that, But we have a couple
Speaker 1: of general constitution e questions that we wanted to che.
Speaker 1: I wonder what you're just because you're a guy who's
Speaker 1: read a lot about the Founding and the Constitution, that's
Speaker 1: what you do. Um um, what are your thoughts on
Speaker 1: impeachment in general, not the particulars of this one, but
Speaker 1: just the removal of a president from office. I think
Speaker 1: that the Founding fathers expected us to use impeachment a
Speaker 1: lot more a lot more than we do. And of
Speaker 1: course not just presidents, but judges also, and uh, they
Speaker 1: would be shocked that in the history of the United
Speaker 1: States there have been so very few impeachments of people
Speaker 1: who have abused or arguably abused their offices. Because impeachment
Speaker 1: is a political process. Of impeachment is a constitutional political process.
Speaker 1: It really drives me crazy that partisans in the media
Speaker 1: referred to impeachment as a coup or as trying to
Speaker 1: undo the election. No, impeachment is a political process that
Speaker 1: if the if they're the constituents want it, then they
Speaker 1: should get it. And that's that's what the system is
Speaker 1: designed for. And and we have come close but not
Speaker 1: actually convicted presidents in in the impeachment process because there
Speaker 1: wasn't actually that kind of political pressure for it. So
Speaker 1: now judges, I don't know, I don't know what how
Speaker 1: many judges are judges for life are a lot of
Speaker 1: judges judges for all Article three. Federal court judges are
Speaker 1: jus for the the article for the good behavior, I
Speaker 1: should say the article the argument for impeaching them makes
Speaker 1: a little more sense than that. You know, the only
Speaker 1: way you can get them out of there if you
Speaker 1: think they're corrupt, whereas with a president h An elected
Speaker 1: officially you can wait till the next election. And it
Speaker 1: does happen that that federal judges are impeached, but you
Speaker 1: know when you can. When you just look at the numbers,
Speaker 1: it's just not plausible that we've been using impeachment as
Speaker 1: often as we ought to. So you think it would
Speaker 1: have been more I wonder if maybe we don't go
Speaker 1: through a period here where we just constantly or impeaching. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I and I and I don't see anything inherently wrong
Speaker 1: with that, because the system is supposed to balance parties
Speaker 1: against each other in order to protect the the individual.
Speaker 1: You know, the whole system of checks and balances is
Speaker 1: designed to keep the political branches at each other's throats,
Speaker 1: and that's a blessing, that's a benefit to us. You know,
Speaker 1: people talk about gridlock, they used the term gridlock, when
Speaker 1: gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The system is
Speaker 1: designed to to counteract each branch so that the people
Speaker 1: can go out there about their business in peace and safety.
Speaker 1: You want an efficient government where these the fools who
Speaker 1: are in office can get what they want done immediately.
Speaker 1: That would be a horrifying alternative. No, that that we're
Speaker 1: better off with the political parties duking it out and
Speaker 1: accomplishing nothing by the end of the day, because then
Speaker 1: we can go about our our lives, pursuing happiness and
Speaker 1: and and being with our families, and running our businesses
Speaker 1: and and minding our own business. I mean, that's what
Speaker 1: the Constitution was designed to do. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of discussion about what's an impeachable offense? We started our
Speaker 1: talk show roughly coincident with the whole Clinton impeachment mess,
Speaker 1: and there's there's bribery and treason and high crimes and misdemeanors,
Speaker 1: and everybody argues about what that means. Um, I understand
Speaker 1: they were vague, so it would cover things they couldn't anticipate.
Speaker 1: But what about incompetence. What if you just think in
Speaker 1: a lot of people think the president sucks. That's that's
Speaker 1: kind of what they did with Andrew Johnson was just
Speaker 1: the idea, he sucks, let's throw whole bunch of stuff
Speaker 1: at him. And he really did. I mean, he really
Speaker 1: should have been thrown out of office. No, absolutely, incompetence
Speaker 1: is an impeachbable offense. Of course it is. It has
Speaker 1: to be. You couldn't possibly have a constitutional system where
Speaker 1: a president, let's say, in the first year of office,
Speaker 1: goes crazy or something and just decides to randomly do
Speaker 1: all sorts of terrible things and there's nothing you can
Speaker 1: do about. Of course, impeachment exists in order to remove
Speaker 1: people who are unfit for office. Like switchness to the
Speaker 1: metric system, my card gets fifteen rods to the hogshead,
Speaker 1: and that's the way I like it. The impeach I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: gross incompetence is an impeachable offense because it's a political crime.
Speaker 1: It's a danger, a serious threat to the safety and
Speaker 1: security of the people of the United States if the
Speaker 1: president is dangerously incompetent, and so of course that is
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. But they specifically did not go with
Speaker 1: the term maladministration or whatever they were talking about at
Speaker 1: the time. That's true. But also, you know what, what
Speaker 1: the founders chose not to include is of limited value
Speaker 1: when interpreting the Constitution because there's lots of stuff they
Speaker 1: chose not to include, and there's a lot of reasons
Speaker 1: why they might have chosen not to include something. So
Speaker 1: perhaps they didn't include terms like maladministration because they thought
Speaker 1: that was covered sufficiently by the language that they did use.
Speaker 1: So it's always of limited value to say, well, the
Speaker 1: Founders show is not to include something. Maybe that's a
Speaker 1: helpful argument, maybe not. But what we do know is
Speaker 1: that historically speaking, and just as a matter of common sense,
Speaker 1: removing a person from office because that person is dangerously
Speaker 1: incompetent is obviously within what the Founding Fathers intended when
Speaker 1: they wrote the Constitution. I'm not saying that that's the
Speaker 1: situation today. I'm talking about what the Founding Fathers thought
Speaker 1: at the time. They were right in the Constitution. Tim
Speaker 1: Standard's VP for Litigation of the Goldwater Institute. The Second
Speaker 1: Amendment is also another aspect of the Constitution, part of
Speaker 1: the Constitution that seems to vex people for because it's
Speaker 1: it's vague. Would the Constitution have been better if they've
Speaker 1: made it two or three times as long or shorter.
Speaker 1: So at the found at the writing of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of people who were opposed to
Speaker 1: including a bill of rights, including James Madison and James
Speaker 1: Wilson are too, probably the two smartest guys at the
Speaker 1: Constitutional Convention, and Alexander Hamilton's They were opposed to including
Speaker 1: a bill of rights at all because they said, look,
Speaker 1: the Constitution only allows the government to do the things
Speaker 1: that we've listed on this piece of paper exactly. That's it.
Speaker 1: They all they can do is what's listed here, and
Speaker 1: if we put in there, if we write a bill
Speaker 1: of rights that say, by the way, you have the
Speaker 1: right to freedom of speech and the right freedom probably
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. Then what's going to happen is people
Speaker 1: are going to forget that the federal government only has
Speaker 1: the power to do the things that are listed on
Speaker 1: this piece. That's a pretty argument. It turns out that's
Speaker 1: right if if you and if you accidentally leave something out,
Speaker 1: people will think that you purposely left it out there.
Speaker 1: So they said, if we were at a Bill of
Speaker 1: rights that leaves out that you have a right to
Speaker 1: run barefoot through sprinklers on a hot summer day, you
Speaker 1: might have people out there who say, well, you don't
Speaker 1: have a right to run barefoot through sprinklers on as
Speaker 1: slumber day because it's not in the Constitution. And sure
Speaker 1: enough that is today how a large number of people
Speaker 1: read the Constitution. So it's arguable that we would have
Speaker 1: been better off without a Bill of Rights because that
Speaker 1: would have forced people to face the fact that the
Speaker 1: federal government has limited powers. That is really interesting. I
Speaker 1: don't by itself by that argument, but it's an interesting argument.
Speaker 1: Is there anything in the Constitution about becoming the world's
Speaker 1: largest insurance company read distributor of wealth? And there is
Speaker 1: nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to
Speaker 1: do those things, I thought, not all right, then, so
Speaker 1: let's talk about what you're doing these days about we
Speaker 1: have a big case we're gonna be asking the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to take this month that involves whether lawyers can
Speaker 1: be forced to join bar associations. And this is a
Speaker 1: this is a very important issue. So for a long
Speaker 1: time now, lawyers have been forced not just to pass
Speaker 1: the bar exam and not talking about the bar exam.
Speaker 1: You have to pass the exam and you get licensed,
Speaker 1: you get sworn in, then you're a lawyer. That's a
Speaker 1: different thing. A lot of states, about twenty states, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry about thirty states today now force lawyers to join
Speaker 1: bar associations, which are private clubs, are basically labor unions
Speaker 1: for lawyers. And I am a member of the Arizona
Speaker 1: State Bar Association they called the Arizona State Bar but
Speaker 1: it's a it's a private trade organization that I'm required
Speaker 1: every year to pay five dollars or so too, and
Speaker 1: they spend this money on political activities. They lobby the legislature,
Speaker 1: they take political positions on things. State bar associations do
Speaker 1: this all over the country. Even though I disagree that
Speaker 1: they're forcing me to subsidize political speech that I disagree
Speaker 1: with and you disagree with some of their positions. Oh yes,
Speaker 1: and this is now you might think or not. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure you should absolutely, and and listeners might think, well,
Speaker 1: who cares about the first meant rights of lawyers themselves.
Speaker 1: And this is very important because bar associations have a
Speaker 1: lot of political influence with state legislatures, because state bars
Speaker 1: lobby and they get a lot of influence, and they
Speaker 1: got listened to a lot at state at the state level,
Speaker 1: and then they may never notice that in corrupt the fornias.
Speaker 1: And then the media view of the media regularly throws
Speaker 1: around whichever bar association believes this as if well, but
Speaker 1: not subtles it as if that's they speak for the
Speaker 1: entire legal profession, and they don't. So we have sued
Speaker 1: over this issue in several states in Louisiana, in Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: and Oregon. There are cases going on in Wisconsin and Texas,
Speaker 1: and we're doing a case in North Dakota that we're
Speaker 1: asking the U. S. Supreme Court to take and to
Speaker 1: hold that lawyers cannot be forced to join bar associations
Speaker 1: and subsidize their political activities just like the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has already said you cannot be forced to join the
Speaker 1: labor union and subsidize its political activities against your will.
Speaker 1: How hard does that test? The bar? Uh, the bar
Speaker 1: exam itself, that it is, it's certainly the hardest test.
Speaker 1: I Ever, how long does it take you? Well, these kids,
Speaker 1: these kids that they have no idea how good they
Speaker 1: have it? When I took the bars and the California
Speaker 1: Bargsam is a three day exam, three days, and the
Speaker 1: Arizona Bar Exam was and still is a two day exam.
Speaker 1: I believe California is now only two days. But it
Speaker 1: is a very demanding test. And um, could you pass
Speaker 1: it today or is it the sort of thing you
Speaker 1: need to study up for? At that time, I would
Speaker 1: have to study up for it. And I was in
Speaker 1: a bad situation because I took it in California fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago, and then I had to retake it in
Speaker 1: Arizona two years ago when I lived there. So it
Speaker 1: is a uh, yeah, it was tough to have to
Speaker 1: go back over that stuff and relearn it. Is it
Speaker 1: like word searches two pictures? What's the difference between these
Speaker 1: two pictures sort of things? Well, the answer is no.
Speaker 1: But actually to get into law school you have to
Speaker 1: take another test, the l s AT, and the L
Speaker 1: set actually does have something kind of like that. The
Speaker 1: l SAT exam is a lot of logic puzzles. It's
Speaker 1: stuff like, you know, you have a chicken and a
Speaker 1: wolf and a bag of seed, and you have to
Speaker 1: cross the river in a canoe, and you can really
Speaker 1: have two in the same canoe at the same time.
Speaker 1: That kind of question is on the L side. Do
Speaker 1: you have to go to law school to take the bar? Uh?
Speaker 1: Not in every state, but some state could study up.
Speaker 1: There are some Sti Randalls like Lincoln call Jack. California
Speaker 1: is the is I think the only state where you
Speaker 1: can take the bar exam without having gone to law school.
Speaker 1: And every few year a few people passed the bar
Speaker 1: exam having studied on their own. Very few. And of
Speaker 1: course it's very hard to get a job if you
Speaker 1: do that, but it is possible. If you graduate from
Speaker 1: law school you are automatically a member of the bar
Speaker 1: in a few states. Among the fine books that Tim
Speaker 1: Senterver has written uh the recent The Ascent of Jacob Bronowski,
Speaker 1: which we talked to him about on a podcast right,
Speaker 1: that's right at some point. Uh yeah, very very good. Uh.
Speaker 1: Frederick Douglas self Made Man, which is absolutely terrific. The
Speaker 1: Permission Society, which we helped inspire, finally inspired something positive
Speaker 1: in the world. Um, and the right to earn a
Speaker 1: living one of my faiths about economic freedom, which is
Speaker 1: another forgotten notion these days. Very much so. Yeah. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we'll have a linked all that stuff for you. We'll
Speaker 1: be back with him to talk more liberty and constitution
Speaker 1: stuff like that in moments on the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep writers safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: novel before the Great Queen. You've found hands out of suns,
Speaker 1: of spaces, no masks, no Metro need one. We have
Speaker 1: a few extras at Metro. We're doing our part to
Speaker 1: keep the DC area moved. Find out more at will
Speaker 1: Mota dot com slash doing our part