Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
Speaker 1: George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe, Getty.
Speaker 2: Arm Strong and Jettie and he Armstrong and Getty Strong.
Speaker 2: And so I got a couple of stories. One of
Speaker 2: them I told before, and I got to be vague
Speaker 2: about them because they're They're real life stories people have
Speaker 2: told me, and I don't want them to get in
Speaker 2: trouble for you know, passing along more or less confidential information.
Speaker 2: But I told the story a while back about somebody
Speaker 2: who was talking to a group of working class assault
Speaker 2: of the Earth gentlemen, the last kind of dudes that
Speaker 2: you'd ever think that this would be a thing for.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about like some Berkeley androgynous poetry majors.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about like work in class, work with their
Speaker 2: hands guys, blue collar guys, talking about how much they
Speaker 2: enjoyed the companionship of the female chatbots when they came
Speaker 2: home from you know, a long day in the field
Speaker 2: at night, and how you know they listen to them
Speaker 2: and understand them and they look forward to it all
Speaker 2: day long, and that sort of thing. And I thought, wow,
Speaker 2: I mean, if that crowd can fall under the sway
Speaker 2: of this in its current form, mankind is doomed. No,
Speaker 2: I've never tried it, but I almost don't want to
Speaker 2: because I have some concern but with like a lot
Speaker 2: of other things that I've dismissed and joked about, and
Speaker 2: find it more appealing than I'd like it to be.
Speaker 3: You know, I would hope that your oogie factor would
Speaker 3: overcome that temptation, but your illustration of the sort of
Speaker 3: fellows who r like it is troubling.
Speaker 2: Although I'm luckily I'm not. I don't feel trapped in
Speaker 2: a lonely world like a lot of people do. And
Speaker 2: if you feel like it's you know, you're lonely and
Speaker 2: it's really difficult out there to meet people and everything
Speaker 2: like that, then this answer comes along. It must feel
Speaker 2: good to you. So a slightly different version of this,
Speaker 2: and also a real life story a mom was telling
Speaker 2: me the other day, and it's a troubling story from
Speaker 2: the beginning, as the daughter involved as twelve, but let's
Speaker 2: go with thirteen because it's they're close enough to thirteen
Speaker 2: but still are actually twelve had ended up in a
Speaker 2: situation by being in a friend's house or whatever. This
Speaker 2: seventeen year old boy was hitting on this young girl
Speaker 2: in a way that they wouldn't if they weren't a creep,
Speaker 2: but they were, and apparently they are a very handsome,
Speaker 2: smooth talking dude, so really got the attention of this
Speaker 2: quite young girl.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: Anyway, mom gets contacted by the school saying, hey, we
Speaker 2: are taking a look at your kid's search history and
Speaker 2: computer use because maybe you know this, maybe you don't.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've had kids in the public school. They
Speaker 2: allow you to use the Chrome book or you buy
Speaker 2: your own Chromebook, but you have to be on the
Speaker 2: school system and they have the right to check and
Speaker 2: see what stuff you're doing on that computer, which I'm
Speaker 2: fine with, but they have a variety of protection programs
Speaker 2: that you know, if you're eighth grade boys looking at
Speaker 2: porn on the Chromebook, the school will contact you and say, hey,
Speaker 2: your kid's using a Chromebook for porn, and then you know,
Speaker 2: you talk to them or step in or do whatever,
Speaker 2: and then if you continue doing it, there's penalties down
Speaker 2: the road.
Speaker 3: But he's in many schools. If you say I'm I
Speaker 3: want to be transgender, then they won't tell your parents.
Speaker 2: Excellent point. Wow, that is really good. Caught your thirteen
Speaker 2: year old looking at naked women. Oh no, what a shock.
Speaker 2: Your thirteen year old wants to become a woman. Keep
Speaker 2: it on the down low, not a mom and dad's business. Wow,
Speaker 2: good point. But so anyway, this mom got contacted by
Speaker 2: the school. Hey, you, your twelve year old daughter's computer
Speaker 2: was showing them on this site talking to an advice
Speaker 2: chat bot, sex chat bot. I guess it's particularly in
Speaker 2: the area of sex advice. That twelve year old and mom.
Speaker 2: I don't remember from reading the back and forth or
Speaker 2: asking the kid now, but either way found out the
Speaker 2: kid was regularly going on this sex chat bot to
Speaker 2: get advice on how to please a seventeen year old boy,
Speaker 2: and really like got addicted and it'd be too much,
Speaker 2: but like really kind of obsessed with, you know, as
Speaker 2: soon as you get home from school, checking in with
Speaker 2: the chat bot and see what the latest advice is
Speaker 2: on how to please a seventeen year old boy. And
Speaker 2: it just became a like hard to break cycle.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: Wow, Now if there had been, I can't imagine it
Speaker 2: when I was like thirteen, fourteen years old. You know,
Speaker 2: when you're a young man starting to understand things, your
Speaker 2: body is capable of doing or certain urges that can
Speaker 2: be enjoyed in a certain way. And there had been
Speaker 2: some sort of chatbot I could talk to that would
Speaker 2: tell me sexy stories or do whatever. Oh my god,
Speaker 2: I would have never been I don't know how you
Speaker 2: got me out of my room, but you know, so
Speaker 2: you can have the sex talk with your kids. They're
Speaker 2: having the sex talk with some chatbot.
Speaker 3: What's really interesting is that, so far, as far as
Speaker 3: I can observe, the premature sexualization of children, which the
Speaker 3: left is so enthusiastic about, has mostly resulted in people
Speaker 3: not pairing off, not actually having sex, not having relationships.
Speaker 2: An interesting coexistence of those two things.
Speaker 3: Although it makes intuitive sense that there would be some,
Speaker 3: maybe most, who having their normal development blocked in this way,
Speaker 3: if you can picture that as a metaphor, A lot
Speaker 3: of people go to the left toward this is all
Speaker 3: sick and weird and I can't handle it, never mind,
Speaker 3: and some people will go to the right being hyper sexualized,
Speaker 3: addicted to pornography. Whatever. The point is the step by
Speaker 3: step natural progression of the way you become aware of
Speaker 3: the world in adulthood, everything from sex to taxes and
Speaker 3: responsibility and paying bills and real deep emotional relationships with
Speaker 3: another adult. That's an inch by inch process for the
Speaker 3: entire history of mankind, except now now, and I can't
Speaker 3: resist another shot at the left.
Speaker 2: Forgive me. Now.
Speaker 3: You go to your woke school where you're immediately sexualized
Speaker 3: and you're surrounded by poor or whatever, and that step
Speaker 3: by step is like vaulting a mile at a time
Speaker 3: in a way that their pre young mind, skin and
Speaker 3: hearts can't handle. It's incredibly troubling to me.
Speaker 2: I know, I can't imagine learning all the things that
Speaker 2: I learned, like you said, little by little, inch by
Speaker 2: inch over a period of years and just got dumped
Speaker 2: on me, you know, like a bucket on my head,
Speaker 2: a lot of it, really bad ideas and bad advice
Speaker 2: and all kinds of things. Yeah, I mean, so you're
Speaker 2: gonna have the sex talk with your teenage daughter to
Speaker 2: make sure she's said, well, she's fine, she's got you know,
Speaker 2: you're not the only role model for them. They've got
Speaker 2: another role model. It's the AI bot that they get
Speaker 2: to talk to. And apparently it's a thing like they
Speaker 2: this person became aware of it from friends because that's
Speaker 2: what the friends are doing. Too, and god knows what
Speaker 2: sort of you know, the whole garbage in, garbage out.
Speaker 2: Why is why are AI systems woke? Well because the
Speaker 2: people programming them are and blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: You got that issue as well. You know, I keep
Speaker 3: every time we talk about this sort of thing, I
Speaker 3: have the same urge toward you know, some sort of
Speaker 3: fundamentalist subcultural civilization or community or or you know, build
Speaker 3: your own compound or something. And you know, people I'd say, yeah,
Speaker 3: we're fundamentalists, and they say, like religious fundamentalists. No, Islamic fundamentalists. No, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: we're just fun to We just concentrate on the fundamentals
Speaker 3: of life in worship whatever. And no I'm not a
Speaker 3: cult leader, and no I'm not sexing up the young women,
Speaker 3: which tends to be an inevitable thing in these little
Speaker 3: off hue communities. But yeah, we just there's a lot
Speaker 3: of the modern world that sucks. Oh do you like
Speaker 3: not do medicines and stuff? Oh no, no, no, we
Speaker 3: do medicines and vaccinations, you know, and all this. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we you know, we're not lunatics. We've just we've learned
Speaker 3: to separate the wheat from the chaff of the modern
Speaker 3: world because and this is this is so obvious and
Speaker 3: so fundamental it almost seems stupid to say. But we all,
Speaker 3: as human beings, tend to be swept up. And we
Speaker 3: talked about this a couple of days ago in fascinating fashion.
Speaker 2: We all tend to be.
Speaker 3: Swept up by the culture and assume everything that is
Speaker 3: offered to us is something we ought to take in.
Speaker 3: And that's not true. There is some wheat, but there's
Speaker 3: some not only chaff, but poison, like thumb tacks in
Speaker 3: the wheat of the modern world.
Speaker 2: This is a great idea. Man, if I had billions
Speaker 2: fight elons billions, I would start towns like this, or
Speaker 2: communities or I don't know how. You don't have it
Speaker 2: them unfold, but you'd be like the Amish, except for No,
Speaker 2: we're not gonna write buggies down the road to work.
Speaker 2: It's ridiculous. But we're not gonna have the damned Internet.
Speaker 2: We're not gonna have smartphones. We're not gonna have all
Speaker 2: this stupid stuff. We're gonna go back to like way
Speaker 2: back to two thousand and six. Okay, maybe I don't
Speaker 2: know on the internet. I have to think about that.
Speaker 2: But definitely not smartphones, Definitely not Ai, Definitely none of
Speaker 2: that stuff. And I think a lot of people gravitate
Speaker 2: toward that.
Speaker 3: We're gonna have backyard barbecues and the kids are gonna
Speaker 3: all go off to the side, and they're gonna talk
Speaker 3: and giggle and laugh, and we'll wonder what they'll say
Speaker 3: and if they're saying, and then they'll invent if in
Speaker 3: a game with a ball and a stick, and you know, yeah,
Speaker 3: And is there any way to program morality into any
Speaker 3: of this chatbot stuff? I mean, you couldn't force it,
Speaker 3: but I mean, is there any way to have a
Speaker 3: chatbot says, Wait a second, how old are you?
Speaker 2: I'm twelve. Well you shouldn't be having said and certainly
Speaker 2: not being in a relationship with a seventeen year old.
Speaker 2: There's either something wrong with them or they're just wanting
Speaker 2: to use you for sex. But this is a bad idea.
Speaker 2: Is there any way a chatbot whatever say that?
Speaker 3: Well, the issue is since groups, since we don't really
Speaker 3: have shared a shared sense of morality anymore, because we've
Speaker 3: become a much more diverse country, the it's impossible to
Speaker 3: quote unquote infuse morality into it because nobody can agree
Speaker 3: on what morality is or should be. Therefore, all things
Speaker 3: digital are utterly a moral They are without morals. Does
Speaker 3: that trouble anybody sending your child into a completely a
Speaker 3: moral environment? In this particular story, so chromebook got taken
Speaker 3: away mom late at night. At one point realizes computers missing.
Speaker 3: Oh goes in the daughter's bedroom. Couldn't stay away from
Speaker 3: the sex advice chatbot to please a seventeen year old
Speaker 3: now has to sleep with the computer, all computer devices
Speaker 3: in the bedroom to make sure they I mean, oh
Speaker 3: my god, this is not something our parents had to
Speaker 3: deal with. No, I realized that I had to deal
Speaker 3: with and my kids are now mid twenties to early thirties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I realized the hubris that comes with saying this
Speaker 2: is a harder time to be a parent. This is
Speaker 2: a harder time to be a parent that it was
Speaker 2: for previous generations. It's horrible.
Speaker 3: Yes, as somebody raised the just one more generation earlier,
Speaker 3: You're right, you're one hundred percent. God, it's so crazy.
Speaker 2: Anyway, if you know anything about this or had any
Speaker 2: experiences our text line four one five two nine to
Speaker 2: five KFTC.
Speaker 1: Jack Armstrong and Joey, The Armstrong and Getty Show, The
Speaker 1: Armstrong and take Out.
Speaker 2: Now I haven't heard this. Gavin Newsom and Bill Maher
Speaker 2: discussing some California policies.
Speaker 3: We'll discuss I see today the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: They talked about the fact that California had a rule
Speaker 4: that schools cannot be required to notify parents if their
Speaker 4: kids in school have changed their gender, their pronouns. That's
Speaker 4: the kind of thing, even though it doesn't affect a
Speaker 4: lot of people, that makes a lot of people go, well,
Speaker 4: you know what, that's the party without common sense. Now,
Speaker 4: if that's your state, how are you are you?
Speaker 2: I just disagree with that. I mean, the law was
Speaker 2: you would be fired.
Speaker 5: A teacher would be fired if a teacher did not
Speaker 5: report or snitch on a kid talking about their gender identity.
Speaker 2: I just think that was wrong.
Speaker 3: I think teachers should teach. I don't think they should be.
Speaker 2: Required to turn in kids. And by the way, turning
Speaker 2: that we're talking about their parents.
Speaker 3: How can I snitch? The idea of a niche.
Speaker 4: And a parent to me doesn't combine.
Speaker 3: I just I don't. But what is what is the
Speaker 3: job of a teacher.
Speaker 2: It's to teach if Johnny's talking about some identity issue
Speaker 2: or some issue about liking someone of.
Speaker 3: The same sex, is that the teacher's job.
Speaker 2: Oh well, the one thing that's clear from that he
Speaker 2: is not confidently coming out and saying it's ridiculous that
Speaker 2: teachers would not be allowed to tell parents about it,
Speaker 2: And he didn't say that. He had the opportunity right
Speaker 2: off the bat to say that, and he didn't. So
Speaker 2: there's no chance he's gonna be president the United States.
Speaker 2: You cannot be president in the United States unless you're
Speaker 2: willing to take a position on this. It's been proven
Speaker 2: over and over the candidates who try to like fudge
Speaker 2: these things and be into thinking they're gonna have it
Speaker 2: both ways. Never works. Never works. Didn't work for Kamala,
Speaker 2: ain't gonna work for Gavin. I can't believe he doesn't
Speaker 2: have the balls to come out and say, even in California,
Speaker 2: what just has gotta be an eighty twenty issue, maybe
Speaker 2: to ninety ten.
Speaker 3: I can't believe he didn't have the balls to say
Speaker 3: that out loud and to claim that Johnny, who now
Speaker 3: wants to be called Jenny, that that would be snitching
Speaker 3: on the kid and akin to maybe the kid hints
Speaker 3: that maybe he likes boys. That's just that is so
Speaker 3: with false. I mean, it's so funny. And also the
Speaker 3: job of a teacher is to teach, to teach Hi
Speaker 3: about the genderbread person in radical gender theory, Gavin, you
Speaker 3: require them to teach that stuff.
Speaker 2: Now, with all the crap in California that they have
Speaker 2: him teach that's not reading, writing and arithmetic, that ain't
Speaker 2: gonna fly. And he's trying to conflate what DeSantis is
Speaker 2: doing in Florida, where they have the law that you'll
Speaker 2: be fired if you don't tell the parents, and he's
Speaker 2: trying to act like that's what he's fighting against. No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: you went completely the other direction where the teacher is
Speaker 2: not allowed to tell the parent. That's nuts. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: every most people think it's nuts. As Bill Maher points out,
Speaker 2: most people think that's nuts. I thought Gavin was smarter
Speaker 2: than that. Here's the deal.
Speaker 3: What's really wrecking him and people like him, thank God,
Speaker 3: is more and more people are understanding the relationship between
Speaker 3: the neo Marxists, the radical you know, gender theory crowd,
Speaker 3: or the queer theory crowd, all these lunatics, the neo
Speaker 3: Marxists and their connection to frans stance, the teachers Union,
Speaker 3: which is down with all this stuff. Gavin doesn't dare
Speaker 3: defy the teachers Union, which is down with all this stuff.
Speaker 3: So he went as far as he's gonna go with
Speaker 3: his Yeah, there's a injustice there. We need to strike
Speaker 3: a balance with the girls.
Speaker 2: And so it's not the vice versa. So it's not
Speaker 2: the voters that he has in the back of his
Speaker 2: mind when he's answering those questions. It's the teachers union.
Speaker 3: We have the teachers unions and the radical activist class,
Speaker 3: of which he I think is to the extent that
Speaker 3: he has any beliefs whatsoever, they seem to be quite progressed.
Speaker 2: I think he believes he wants to be president.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'd like to hear more of that exchange.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no kidding, because.
Speaker 3: Mar cannot be I got to be able to say this.
Speaker 3: He cannot be bull asked. I'll just say that, why
Speaker 3: do you so oily?
Speaker 2: Why do you take so much joy and cursing?
Speaker 3: I don't know, No, it's just it's it's a wonderful thing.
Speaker 2: It's a wonderful thing.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I consider bull as to be a
Speaker 3: perfect work universally understood and its meaning. It is brief,
Speaker 3: it has a ring tw it, it has a rhythm
Speaker 3: to it. It's perfect work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And unfortunately the substitutes do not carry the same
Speaker 2: weight arm Strong, the Armstrong and Getty shot.
Speaker 1: Seven track.
Speaker 2: The President decides to do something with an executive order
Speaker 2: or whatever, often that they promised on the campaign trail,
Speaker 2: their voters get all excited, Yay, they did it day
Speaker 2: one like they promised. And then then I get an
Speaker 2: alert on my phone. Some judge somewhere I've never heard
Speaker 2: of it said no, you can't do that. And then
Speaker 2: it stops, and everybody's like groans, like, oh, they can
Speaker 2: do that, and it keeps happening over and over again.
Speaker 2: And do we want that system to continue that way
Speaker 2: or not? As part of what the Supreme Court was
Speaker 2: arguing about yesterday, and as one of the justices said,
Speaker 2: there are six hundred some federal judges and while I
Speaker 2: do not question their motives, sometimes they are wrong. So
Speaker 2: do we want them to be able to hold up
Speaker 2: the whole country?
Speaker 3: Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments
Speaker 3: yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president
Speaker 3: for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles,
Speaker 3: author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's Fories, How
Speaker 3: Isabel Patterson, Rosewilder and Ein Rand Found Liberty and Age
Speaker 3: of Darkness. I've recommended it many times. It's terrific, Tim,
Speaker 3: How are you, sir?
Speaker 2: Just great?
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 2: Guys published poet got to throw that in there, true, Yes,
Speaker 2: a polymath, as they say.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Tim, So, ostensibly everyone's talking about that we're going
Speaker 3: to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 3: and that did come up. But would you agree that
Speaker 3: the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual
Speaker 3: federal judges.
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely. That was the focus of the argument, and
Speaker 5: it was a very interesting argument. But I don't think
Speaker 5: that it's a hard question. I think the answer is obviously,
Speaker 5: nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of
Speaker 5: doing business in the courts, and people who complain about
Speaker 5: them either don't understand the system or are trying to
Speaker 5: get away with something illegal.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't always like that it happened, but I can't
Speaker 2: see what the alternative would be as somebody pointed out.
Speaker 2: So you're gonna let I guess it was you that
Speaker 2: pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that so
Speaker 2: every time a president does something, it's got to work
Speaker 2: its way all the way through the courts up to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine to nothing,
Speaker 2: you can't do that.
Speaker 5: And during that whole period of time, the government is
Speaker 5: still doing the illegal thing.
Speaker 3: Right right, wow, So clearly it's two to one for
Speaker 3: a judicial takeover of the government.
Speaker 2: But I will stand up for liberty. Uh, Is there
Speaker 2: no middle ground?
Speaker 3: Has got to be three judge panel and not a
Speaker 3: single yaho in rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think. I think having a single unit yaeho
Speaker 5: in rural Tennessee is perfectly fine because that's what the
Speaker 5: appellate process is sort of. That's why you appeal cases.
Speaker 5: And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing
Speaker 5: yahoos to the federal bench. You might mention that too.
Speaker 5: The argument, the argument against nationwide injunctions always seems to
Speaker 5: boil down to, well, this is a democracy, and the
Speaker 5: majority it should all always get what it wants, and
Speaker 5: the answer to that is no. What happened to all
Speaker 5: of my friends who used to say, this is a republic,
Speaker 5: not a democracy. The whole point of our system is
Speaker 5: that the majority has to act lawfully, and if it
Speaker 5: acts unlawfully, I can go in front of a judge
Speaker 5: and get that given order from that judge prohibiting the
Speaker 5: government from violating my rights. And the idea that we
Speaker 5: should do this piece meal, that only a judge down here,
Speaker 5: that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the government can
Speaker 5: do illegal things to everybody else in the country until
Speaker 5: the case reaches the US Supreme Court makes no sense
Speaker 5: at all.
Speaker 3: The underlying theme here being folks that what we really
Speaker 3: need to fear is the power of the government in
Speaker 3: this country. That's kind of the idea of forming it.
Speaker 3: So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively
Speaker 3: or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 3: Then there are a handful of them, and the number
Speaker 3: of them is now skyrots every day.
Speaker 2: It seems like on my phone, I see a judge
Speaker 2: jumped in somewhere.
Speaker 5: Actually, right, I actually don't think that that's true. I
Speaker 5: think that what happened was we just started calling them
Speaker 5: by a different name. You know, there were been injunction
Speaker 5: injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was a constitution.
Speaker 5: One of the points that was brought up during the
Speaker 5: arguments was that British judges used to do this before
Speaker 5: the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate. It's
Speaker 5: just that nowadays we call them nation right injunctions, or
Speaker 5: we have some judges who write sloppily and don't explain
Speaker 5: what they're actually saying or something. And okay, that's a problem,
Speaker 5: I suppose. But the idea that you should limit the
Speaker 5: injunction power of federal courts is what that is is
Speaker 5: that's open door to the majority violating individual rights on
Speaker 5: a scale that I mean, they already do it, but
Speaker 5: you can imagine what it would be if we took
Speaker 5: away one of the most important protections for individual rights
Speaker 5: in this country, which is getting an injunction from our
Speaker 5: federal court to protect their freedom.
Speaker 3: And that's insane.
Speaker 2: So I didn't want to get to this part too
Speaker 2: fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be
Speaker 2: fixed with the law. It seems to me that we've
Speaker 2: got a cultural problem in that presidents are way more
Speaker 2: likely than they used to be to want to challenge
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they don't think
Speaker 2: the law is correct, or they don't care if they're wrong.
Speaker 2: They just want to get the political credit for trying.
Speaker 2: And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
Speaker 2: a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there,
Speaker 2: there's a lot more of them who are willing to
Speaker 2: let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and
Speaker 2: jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Speaker 5: Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing
Speaker 5: about the President and Congress being willing to do things
Speaker 5: that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the
Speaker 5: judges are going to strike it down and they can
Speaker 5: blame the judges and say all those evil activist judges,
Speaker 5: or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So
Speaker 5: it's win win if you want to do something unconstitutional.
Speaker 5: And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously
Speaker 5: Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that
Speaker 5: I always six in my memory is George W. Bush
Speaker 5: when he signed the the McCain Fine Gold campaign finance
Speaker 5: Law and said when he signed it that he thought
Speaker 5: it was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to
Speaker 5: the courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if
Speaker 5: you're the president, you take an oath to support and
Speaker 5: defend the Constitution of the United States. And if you
Speaker 5: ignore that oath and sign something that you know is
Speaker 5: unconstitutional just because you think the courts will clean up
Speaker 5: your mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, a lot of the pieces I've read that
Speaker 2: have been following the growth of this use that as
Speaker 2: kind of like the patient zero because he said it
Speaker 2: out loud, and then other presidents thought, hey, I can
Speaker 2: do that, I just won't say it out loud, and
Speaker 2: Obama did it, and Biden did it, and Trump did
Speaker 2: it in whichever order, and then Trump again and and
Speaker 2: so how do we fix this?
Speaker 5: Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The
Speaker 5: short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is
Speaker 5: that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in
Speaker 5: this country. I think it's the long term damage that's
Speaker 5: been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution
Speaker 5: is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a
Speaker 5: law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years
Speaker 5: ago published an article in The Washington Post saying the
Speaker 5: Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well,
Speaker 5: you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud.
Speaker 5: And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it.
Speaker 5: It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise,
Speaker 5: and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not
Speaker 5: worth the paper it's written on.
Speaker 3: We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater
Speaker 3: Institute Little Constitutional humor for exactly design for punish one man.
Speaker 3: That's a good idea, so you know, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: Disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of
Speaker 3: the oral arguments, blah blah blah. Did it strike you
Speaker 3: that the justices, the sane ones that we like, we're
Speaker 3: leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges,
Speaker 3: et cetera that we've been discussing.
Speaker 5: Some of the judges have made clear for a long
Speaker 5: time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions.
Speaker 5: Justice Thomas in particular, some of the others are a
Speaker 5: little harder to read. Justice Barrett, for example, and Justice Roberts,
Speaker 5: who have become really the swing judges on this issue.
Speaker 3: I thought the.
Speaker 5: Most interesting judge if if anybody wants to go and
Speaker 5: listen to the argument online, I thought Justice Jackson was
Speaker 5: the one who is the most interesting. She clearly understands
Speaker 5: how this area of the law works, and she rightly
Speaker 5: says there's no there there that nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate.
Speaker 5: They always have been and there's no problem. So she'd
Speaker 5: be the one that I find most interesting. But how
Speaker 5: to predict I think you're going to get. I think
Speaker 5: Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are going to a side
Speaker 5: with the liberals and say, we don't have a problem
Speaker 5: per se with nationwide injunctions, but maybe some of them
Speaker 5: aren't very good, but as a as a blanket matter,
Speaker 5: they're okay. And then they're going to want to hear
Speaker 5: the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which obviously is a
Speaker 5: huge deal.
Speaker 3: Right to me, is it even worth getting in to
Speaker 3: what happened on that topic yesterday or do you think it's.
Speaker 5: Well, they really just talked about whether or not they
Speaker 5: have a legitimate case in the first place, and they
Speaker 5: haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's
Speaker 5: important because in order to get an injunction, you kind
Speaker 5: of have to first show that you have even an
Speaker 5: arguable point to make, and that was what they were
Speaker 5: arguing about. And I will say, I know this is
Speaker 5: talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we
Speaker 5: clearly have the right answer and everything. I think the
Speaker 5: birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. I don't
Speaker 5: think it's an easy question on either side.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about that when we come back from the break.
Speaker 2: I want to hear the arguments on both sides of that.
Speaker 2: That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown. Who
Speaker 2: speaks the most words? The chicks talk too much? Is
Speaker 2: that given?
Speaker 5: Well, Jessic sodomoy Are does love cutting off lawyers and
Speaker 5: not letting them answer her question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the chicks talk too so much. I think that's
Speaker 2: been and the new gal talks more than anybody.
Speaker 3: That shouldn't happen in any organization.
Speaker 1: Jack Armstrong and Joe Trottie Strong and Show Jack Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Joe Getty The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3: Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with
Speaker 3: Tim Sanderfur, vice president for legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute.
Speaker 3: It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion.
Speaker 3: It really was much more a discussion of individual federal
Speaker 3: judges and nationwide in junctions and that sort of thing.
Speaker 3: But to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you
Speaker 3: said before the break that it's not an easy call.
Speaker 3: I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
Speaker 3: What should we know about the fourteenth Amendment even come
Speaker 3: to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Speaker 5: Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says, all
Speaker 5: persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
Speaker 5: to the jurisdiction thereof, are US citizens in all of
Speaker 5: this case. All of these arguments turn on that phrase,
Speaker 5: subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean.
Speaker 5: It's really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of
Speaker 5: those words that can mean all sorts of different things.
Speaker 5: It basically means power, but there's all sorts of different
Speaker 5: kinds of power, and so that's what the argument turns on.
Speaker 5: Some people think that it means you have to follow
Speaker 5: the law. If you're born here and you have to
Speaker 5: follow the law, then you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Speaker 5: and then that means you're a citizen. But that doesn't
Speaker 5: really make a lot of sense because even foreign tourists
Speaker 5: who come here for a vacation have to follow the law.
Speaker 5: I mean, they have to stop at the red lights
Speaker 5: and they can't steal things, So that can't be what
Speaker 5: that means, right. Instead, the other side argues, jurisdiction thereof
Speaker 5: means some kind of loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction,
Speaker 5: as opposed to follow the law jurisdiction, and that difference.
Speaker 5: You can see that difference for example, in this if
Speaker 5: you're a foreign spy and you sneak into the country
Speaker 5: and you spy for some foreign country and you get
Speaker 5: it rested, you can be prosecuted for espionage, but you
Speaker 5: cannot be prosecuted for treason. Why because you're not a
Speaker 5: US citizen and you don't owe loyalty to the US,
Speaker 5: so you cannot commit treason against the US. And so
Speaker 5: there's two different kinds of jurisdiction, is the argument. And
Speaker 5: so those who are against birth right citizenships say, subject
Speaker 5: of the jurisdiction thereof means that your parents owed loyalty
Speaker 5: to the United States as opposed to some foreign country.
Speaker 5: And that would mean that illegal aliens, if they have
Speaker 5: a child here, that child is not a citizen in
Speaker 5: the United States. Now, that's also there's a problem with that.
Speaker 5: There's a couple problems that. One of the problems with
Speaker 5: that argument is that nobody has ever said that that's
Speaker 5: what it means. In the one hundred and fifty years
Speaker 5: since this has been in the Constitution, everybody has active
Speaker 5: like if you're born here, you're a citizen all of
Speaker 5: that time. And so suddenly discovering that we're at it
Speaker 5: turns out that we've been misreading the Constitution for one
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty years would be a huge, enormously radical
Speaker 5: transformation and how are system works That would cause tremendous
Speaker 5: disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem. But
Speaker 5: all of this, the real problem here in answering this
Speaker 5: question is that when the amendment was adopted, there were
Speaker 5: no such things as the illegal aliens because there were
Speaker 5: no laws against immigration. And that means if you're an
Speaker 5: originalist and you think the competition should be understood the
Speaker 5: way it was originally intended. The Framers didn't ever think
Speaker 5: about this because it wasn't against the law back then,
Speaker 5: So we don't know what.
Speaker 3: They would have thought about this question right right Well,
Speaker 3: at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive president is overturned,
Speaker 3: that's when you tag me and Tim and I come
Speaker 3: in and explain to the good folks that, look, the
Speaker 3: nature of global transportation, the movement of people or peoples
Speaker 3: from one place to another has changed so vastly.
Speaker 2: God, Joe's a living constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Speaker 3: Out of what No, don't you dare no, that the
Speaker 3: very nature of comings and goings from countries has been
Speaker 3: so radically transformed. A Chinese national with not the slightest
Speaker 3: notion of making life in the United States can can
Speaker 3: depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China,
Speaker 3: all in the span of seventy two hours. I'm inducing
Speaker 3: labor in this case probably or getting very lucky, and
Speaker 3: that child had citizenship. That's an eventuality unimaginable back in
Speaker 3: the day, is the case.
Speaker 5: I think so, And that's sort of true. But on
Speaker 5: the other hand, the Chinese question came up back then
Speaker 5: because there were so many Chinese in California in the
Speaker 5: eighteen sixties. And Senator's rast, well, isn't this going to
Speaker 5: make the children of the Chinese immigrants who back then
Speaker 5: did not intend to stay in the United States? They
Speaker 5: intended to go back to China. The senator's rest, does
Speaker 5: this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And the
Speaker 5: Senator from California said yes, and then he was immediately
Speaker 5: thrown out of office. So what does that mean?
Speaker 3: Nobody knows what that means a single case from eighteen
Speaker 3: ninety eight, or is there more precedent?
Speaker 5: Really, there really isn't. There's really just a handful of presidents,
Speaker 5: and no Supreme Court case has ever said that birthright
Speaker 5: citizenship is the is in the Constitution. There have been
Speaker 5: some that have kind of mentioned it or kind of
Speaker 5: assumed it, but none has said so outright.
Speaker 2: I am surprised the polling shows that only about a
Speaker 2: third of Americans want to do away with the way
Speaker 2: we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do
Speaker 2: want to get to this. This is a journalistic question,
Speaker 2: but I think it has an effect on people's respect
Speaker 2: for the law. It has come up recently, it has
Speaker 2: become a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge,
Speaker 2: they mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's
Speaker 2: a good idea or not? They didn't just barely got
Speaker 2: a minute.
Speaker 5: I think it's fine. I think people should know where
Speaker 5: these For instance, I think it would help a lot
Speaker 5: of judges. You know, a lot of Republican appointed judges
Speaker 5: have been ruling against the Trump administration, and I think
Speaker 5: it would be helpful for people to know that these
Speaker 5: questions are not things where it's all partisan. The law
Speaker 5: is not just partisan politics. It's something much more profound
Speaker 5: and much more important than.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I agree, But it implies that judge I
Speaker 2: don't know. True.
Speaker 5: I used to think.
Speaker 2: I didn't used to think about it ever. If a
Speaker 2: judge ruled, I just thought, well, that's interesting. Now it's
Speaker 2: all who appointed him. Oh of course he said that.
Speaker 5: That is true. That is a risk, But I think
Speaker 5: we should air on the side of informing people as
Speaker 5: opposed to keeping people in the dark.
Speaker 2: So that's that was true.
Speaker 3: Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute on the line, Tim
Speaker 3: final question, I've called for a monarchy.
Speaker 2: You in favor of it? Yes or no?
Speaker 5: No? I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution.
Speaker 3: Joe.
Speaker 2: One more question as a published poet, I was thinking
Speaker 2: about this. Yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan
Speaker 2: good poet or not lousy poet?
Speaker 5: Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
Speaker 3: How about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden creative Tam. It's always
Speaker 3: great and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time. Let's talk
Speaker 3: again soon. Thanks guys.
Speaker 2: All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to
Speaker 2: Dylan lyrics. Why do they in everybody's head so much?
Speaker 2: Why do people keep going back to them? If it's
Speaker 2: just gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim, it
Speaker 2: can't be. It wouldn't lodge, it wouldn't It wouldn't make
Speaker 2: the market made, would it? All right?
Speaker 3: He was famously moody about his career and his music
Speaker 3: in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff
Speaker 3: is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledygook.
Speaker 2: Humhm. Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not.
Speaker 2: We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope
Speaker 2: you can stick around if you missus segment. I thought
Speaker 2: that tim thing was really really good and you want
Speaker 2: to listen to it again and get the podcast Armstrong
Speaker 2: and Getty on demand.
Speaker 3: Armstrong to arms Strong in Getty on demand.
Speaker 2: We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and
Speaker 2: tedious and depressing.
Speaker 3: It makes you angry. You don't want to live your
Speaker 3: life like that. Hey, I'm Jack Armstrong.
Speaker 2: He's Joe Getty. We're Armstrong in Getty.
Speaker 3: We try to bring you the truth and help you
Speaker 3: figure out this crazy modern world.
Speaker 2: About something about a comedic tone. We have a one
Speaker 2: ore Yes. Listen to Armstrong. You get it on demand
Speaker 2: on the iHeartRadio app