1 00:00:16,760 --> 00:00:20,800 And we're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, 2 00:00:20,879 --> 00:00:25,839 senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist, and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest 3 00:00:25,879 --> 00:00:30,120 for Knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio at the 4 00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:36,960 Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDRLST, make sure to subscribe 5 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:41,520 wherever you download your podcast, and of course to the premium version of our 6 00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:47,119 website as well. I'm joined today by Hans von Spakowski, constitutional law expert 7 00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:52,799 and former member of the Federal Election Commission. On serves as senior legal Fellow 8 00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:57,560 in the Heritage Foundations Edwin Metes the Third Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. 9 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:03,479 He is also manager of the Thing Tanks Election Law Reform Initiative. Hans, 10 00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:10,000 welcome to the show. Where do we start? Well, Matt, you 11 00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:15,359 know it's only a very short time before the election and voting will be starting 12 00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:19,480 very soon. So boy, there's a lot going on. There's a lot 13 00:01:19,519 --> 00:01:23,319 to cover today. But let's start off with the Supreme Court side of things, 14 00:01:23,439 --> 00:01:30,159 and we're going to delve into your many different the many different hats that 15 00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:37,040 you wear of course in constitutional law. And we were expecting these decisions, 16 00:01:37,079 --> 00:01:42,920 but the two big ones, most recently the Supreme Court ruling in favor of 17 00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:49,280 a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining 18 00:01:49,319 --> 00:01:55,519 the Capital riots in January sixth, twenty twenty one. This is an interesting 19 00:01:55,599 --> 00:02:00,319 case for many reasons. One is that it also involves a charge against former 20 00:02:00,359 --> 00:02:05,840 President to Donald Trump. Also the GOP presidential candidate six' three ruling. 21 00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:10,879 But I find this interesting is it was tied to the old Sarbines Oxley Act, 22 00:02:10,879 --> 00:02:14,800 and the Supreme Court said, well, wait a minute now, I 23 00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:21,840 don't think you're applying the Sarbines Oxley Act appropriately. This from NBC News and 24 00:02:21,879 --> 00:02:24,919 I wanted to get your response to this. Attorney General Merrit Garland said in 25 00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:30,400 a statement that he was disappointed by the decision because of the impact it would 26 00:02:30,479 --> 00:02:36,680 have on the Justice Department's January sixth cases, although he stressed it would not 27 00:02:36,719 --> 00:02:44,280 affect the bulk of them. Shouldn't this be a red light, really a 28 00:02:44,319 --> 00:02:50,039 red flag to the Justice Department, to the Attorney General saying you've really overstepped 29 00:02:50,039 --> 00:02:54,120 your bounds here in this particular case. Well, it should be. But 30 00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:02,080 both Mary Garland and the US attorney the political point d the District of Columbia 31 00:03:05,159 --> 00:03:12,840 have so abused their powers to overcharge all of the defendants in this case. 32 00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:16,639 Look, it would have been one thing to charge people with criminal trespassing. 33 00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:21,639 I mean, that's a that's a tough enough charge. But they went much 34 00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:25,240 further than that. And what this case was about today was them trying to 35 00:03:25,520 --> 00:03:34,879 use, but really abuse, a particular statute passed under Sarbanes Oxley that made 36 00:03:34,919 --> 00:03:42,120 it a crime if you tamper with evidence or destroy a document that's part of 37 00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:47,280 an official proceeding. Now you know, there was no tampering with evidence, 38 00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:53,680 There was no destruction of documents in any kind of official proceeding when some of 39 00:03:53,719 --> 00:03:59,360 these individuals, you know, broke into the into the capital, but it 40 00:03:59,439 --> 00:04:04,400 was an exist ample. I think of the kind of political law fare that 41 00:04:04,560 --> 00:04:11,319 is going on in this country because they have been treating these protesters who got 42 00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:14,560 out of hand as if they are terrorists. In fact, I think if 43 00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:18,040 they could have charged them under domestic terrorism law, they no doubt would have 44 00:04:18,079 --> 00:04:25,000 done that. And this was the Supreme Court saying, you've gone too far 45 00:04:25,920 --> 00:04:31,879 with trying to use this statute against these particular individuals or anyone else. I 46 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:35,560 know the answer to this question, and I'm sadden to know the answer to 47 00:04:35,600 --> 00:04:38,560 this question, but I wanted to get your take on it. How do 48 00:04:38,600 --> 00:04:44,279 we get three justices who say, now there's no problem here. I tell 49 00:04:44,319 --> 00:04:53,879 you, it really should scare Americans that there were three justices that would believe 50 00:04:53,959 --> 00:05:01,120 that it was okay for government prosecutors to engage in such abusive of behavior. 51 00:05:01,519 --> 00:05:06,319 But look that that's in line with so the other decisions we got today. 52 00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:11,360 You know. You know, another one again where you had three dissenters, 53 00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:21,759 was a six' to three decision saying that laws against camping on public public 54 00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:26,680 owned property, which, as you know, is the problem we have with 55 00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:31,040 with homeless individuals all over the country. The tests, you know, of 56 00:05:31,040 --> 00:05:35,839 course, said, look, those statutes aren't a violation of the Eighth Amendment 57 00:05:35,879 --> 00:05:41,480 to the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishment, you know, 58 00:05:41,519 --> 00:05:44,360 the kind of thing the English king used to do where they were torture 59 00:05:44,399 --> 00:05:48,279 people to death or draw and quarter them. That was what we were preventing. 60 00:05:48,319 --> 00:05:54,199 And yet that was being used by the courts, by the Ninth Circuit 61 00:05:54,240 --> 00:06:00,920 to say that a law against camping in public is violates the Institution. That 62 00:06:00,079 --> 00:06:06,240 was an absurd, ridiculous position, and yet you had three justices saying, 63 00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:10,879 oh, no, no, that violates the Eighth Amendment. So what does 64 00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:15,759 that ultimately say to our court system in America, our judicial system in America? 65 00:06:15,839 --> 00:06:19,959 Right now, you stressed before that we ought to be very concerned the 66 00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:27,759 Supreme Court in that particular case. And obviously the case regarding the j six 67 00:06:28,279 --> 00:06:33,879 incidents came through on the side of the Constitution clearly, But six' three, 68 00:06:33,959 --> 00:06:38,519 What ultimately does this say about our lower courts, our judicial system in 69 00:06:38,560 --> 00:06:44,759 America today? Well, unfortunately, there are many judges out there on the 70 00:06:44,759 --> 00:06:49,800 lower courts who are like the three liberal justices on the US Supreme Court, 71 00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:55,959 and who rather than sticking to the law, rather than sticking to the Constitution 72 00:06:56,959 --> 00:07:02,160 and saying, well, look, if even if we particular serious problem like 73 00:07:02,199 --> 00:07:09,399 the homeless, I as a judge, am not a legislator, and it's 74 00:07:09,399 --> 00:07:13,079 not up to me to come up with a solution to that kind of a 75 00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:17,879 social problem. My job is to apply the law and the Constitution, and 76 00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:26,000 that's what these three justices refuse to do. And unfortunately, the more judges 77 00:07:27,439 --> 00:07:32,519 that President Biden gets nominated and confirmed to the lower judge ships throughout the country, 78 00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:38,000 the trial courts and the course of appeal. The more unfortunately judges we 79 00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:44,920 have that are like these three three justices in the case involving the former police 80 00:07:44,959 --> 00:07:51,800 officer in the obstruction charge. With the January sixth stuff, it drives home 81 00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:57,199 the point of what we've seen in this country over the last three and a 82 00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:05,120 half years, in particular specific the whole lawfare aspect the weaponization or so of 83 00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:11,639 our institutions, the Department of Justice, and you get the left and their 84 00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:16,600 friends in the accomplice media saying, oh, pshaw, what are they talking 85 00:08:16,600 --> 00:08:24,879 about? The weaponization? Isn't the ruling today clearly driving home the point that 86 00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:31,480 Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice, the Biden administration have done just that, 87 00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:37,360 weaponized government against their political enemies. Oh. I think that's particularly true, 88 00:08:37,519 --> 00:08:45,080 especially when you consider that Merrick Garland has admitted that he organize what he 89 00:08:45,159 --> 00:08:52,879 says is the biggest criminal task force Justice Department history to go after these handful 90 00:08:52,960 --> 00:08:58,480 of trespassers after the Capitol Building. Like I said, the lead US attorney 91 00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:05,159 is the US attorney for the district of Columbia, who, in pursuing literally 92 00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:11,840 these hundreds of cases, has neglected all of the real crime cases in DC. 93 00:09:13,039 --> 00:09:18,279 A report came out just a little while ago saying that he fails to 94 00:09:18,360 --> 00:09:26,840 prosecute over sixty percent of the felonies, the serious crimes being committed in the 95 00:09:26,879 --> 00:09:33,240 District of Columbia. And why is that? Because he's a political prosecutor more 96 00:09:33,279 --> 00:09:39,000 interested in going after folks who were in the Capitol on January sixth than actually 97 00:09:39,039 --> 00:09:46,440 pursuing serious, violent criminals in the District of Columbia. Which is why these 98 00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:52,600 days I worry every time I walk around the District of Columbia, particularly at 99 00:09:52,679 --> 00:09:56,960 night where I work, because of the rise in crime rates here in the 100 00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:01,200 refusal of that US attorney to actually prosecute crimes. I bet. I mean, 101 00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:07,440 you're living it personally, as so are so many others and walking around 102 00:10:07,519 --> 00:10:11,200 the capital these days, and that's a sad commentary on where things are. 103 00:10:11,840 --> 00:10:16,200 Back to Merrick Garland Hans, I mean, you served in the Justice Department. 104 00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:24,679 Taking a look at this Justice Department and what they have done in the 105 00:10:24,799 --> 00:10:31,240 past three plus years, what do you say about that as someone who who 106 00:10:31,919 --> 00:10:37,240 worked in this field of law. Well, it's really it's really sad, 107 00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:43,080 but it's also really dangerous to the American public to see what Merrick Garland has 108 00:10:43,159 --> 00:10:48,720 done. And by that I mean the complete politicalization of the department. Politics 109 00:10:48,759 --> 00:10:52,759 so clearly drive what they are doing. I mean, all you got to 110 00:10:52,759 --> 00:11:01,679 do is contrast the fact that Mary Garland is prosecuting the former President of the 111 00:11:01,759 --> 00:11:07,039 United States, Donald Trump, for supposedly mishandling classified documents under the Espionage Act, 112 00:11:07,039 --> 00:11:15,399 of all things, the Espionage Act. Yet when it turns out that 113 00:11:15,759 --> 00:11:20,720 the current President of the United States, when he was vice president, when 114 00:11:20,759 --> 00:11:26,519 he was a US senator, actually basically stole classified documents and took them home 115 00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:31,799 with them, stored them in his garage, stored them in his office at 116 00:11:31,879 --> 00:11:37,399 Universe Pennsylvania, in other words, mishandled classified documents. Well, what's the 117 00:11:37,399 --> 00:11:41,600 reaction of that, Well, we're not going to prosecute him, now, 118 00:11:43,639 --> 00:11:48,480 how could that not be a political decision? It obviously is, And that's 119 00:11:48,559 --> 00:11:56,159 just a prime example of the way politics is driving their decisions, not an 120 00:11:56,200 --> 00:12:05,200 objective analysis of the law whether someone actually committed a criminal violation. The argument 121 00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:09,320 of corresponds from the special prosecutors that Joe Biden is an old and confused man. 122 00:12:09,360 --> 00:12:13,120 How could he possibly stand trial for something like that? There lies the 123 00:12:13,120 --> 00:12:18,960 problem, you know, we saw that on full display in the recent debate. 124 00:12:20,679 --> 00:12:24,440 Of course, the broader problem is that you have an attorney general who 125 00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:31,279 says, I don't have to follow subpoenas confessional subpoenas to turn over these documents 126 00:12:31,320 --> 00:12:39,720 related to what we've been talking about, because well, because I said so, 127 00:12:39,759 --> 00:12:43,559 how do you get away with that as the Attorney General of the United 128 00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:52,240 States of America. Well, if you have no if you have no standards, 129 00:12:52,279 --> 00:12:56,120 no principles, if you're willing to break the law, ask unethically as 130 00:12:56,159 --> 00:12:58,960 a government official, it's very tough for people to do anything about it, 131 00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:03,159 especially when you're the attorney general. And keep in mind, at the very 132 00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:11,759 same time that he is defying a congressional subpoena, what has he been involved 133 00:13:11,799 --> 00:13:18,679 in? Why prosecuting Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for doing what not responding to 134 00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:24,879 a congressional subpoena, although the reason they did that was Peter Navarro, for 135 00:13:24,919 --> 00:13:33,799 example, saying, look, you're trying to get my communications with President Trump 136 00:13:33,879 --> 00:13:39,320 when I was one of his assistants and he has claimed executive privilege, so 137 00:13:39,559 --> 00:13:48,200 he had actually a valid constitutional reason for not responding that subpoena, whereas here 138 00:13:48,840 --> 00:13:54,720 Marrek Garland, he's got no such valid excuse. Congrats, you owe one 139 00:13:54,840 --> 00:14:00,000 hundred thousand dollars? Who watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. 140 00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:03,879 Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it 141 00:14:03,879 --> 00:14:07,759 affects your wile. As the national debt topples thirty five trillion, every American 142 00:14:07,840 --> 00:14:13,320 now owes over one hundred thousand dollars to our national debt, and nobody running 143 00:14:13,320 --> 00:14:16,960 for president has plans to cut spending. Whether it's happening in DC or down 144 00:14:16,960 --> 00:14:18,759 on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the 145 00:14:18,759 --> 00:14:22,480 Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever 146 00:14:22,519 --> 00:14:31,039 you get your podcast. Let's talk about what happened in that Manhattan courtroom a 147 00:14:31,039 --> 00:14:39,000 few weeks ago and what happens next. There have been all kinds of accusations 148 00:14:39,080 --> 00:14:48,720 raised about how this judge has handled the case involving former President Donald Trump in 149 00:14:48,080 --> 00:14:54,799 what the press has built as a hush money case. You and I know 150 00:14:54,960 --> 00:14:58,279 that this is a common non disclosure case. Is really what it is that 151 00:15:00,039 --> 00:15:03,000 you know, at the heart of it, President, former President Bill Clinton 152 00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:11,720 was engaged in such non disclosure agreements, would have I believe, violated the 153 00:15:11,759 --> 00:15:18,919 same laws, mean the law that was I like to call it the Frankensteinian 154 00:15:20,039 --> 00:15:26,080 Steinian laws that they've manufactured here. But all kinds of problems with this, 155 00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:31,840 as you have mentioned and told me for a previous Federalist story, this is 156 00:15:31,840 --> 00:15:37,639 a very reversible case coming up. But this judge in Manhattan, who has 157 00:15:37,679 --> 00:15:43,200 been accused of being you know, so far left and so partisan, is 158 00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:54,200 scheduled to decide what punishment former President Donald Trump gets four days before the Republican 159 00:15:54,440 --> 00:16:00,080 National Convention begins to nominate Donald Trump as the Republicans nominee for a third time 160 00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:04,879 for president. What do you see happening as we get closer and closer to 161 00:16:06,360 --> 00:16:11,480 July eleventh. Well, I will tell you that if I gave out a 162 00:16:11,519 --> 00:16:18,240 prize every year to the most unethical judge in the country, one merchant would 163 00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:25,679 get it. He would get the prize. He made so many errors in 164 00:16:25,759 --> 00:16:30,000 his handling of this case, whether they're inadvertent or intentional, and it's hard 165 00:16:30,039 --> 00:16:33,840 for me to believe they were inadvertent that. I mean, my colleague John 166 00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:41,279 Balcolm wrote a piece about the ten reasons why this case should be reversed on 167 00:16:41,480 --> 00:16:45,320 appeal, and there were more. I mean, that was just the first 168 00:16:45,440 --> 00:16:52,440 ten reasons why I should be reversed. Given his partisanship, and we know 169 00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:59,279 he's a partisan because he's given a contribution to the Biden campaign. I was 170 00:16:59,279 --> 00:17:03,799 a small amount out, but even that violated the state ethics rules in New 171 00:17:03,879 --> 00:17:07,960 York. Plus his daughter as a political consultant for Democrats. I think he 172 00:17:08,079 --> 00:17:17,200 is salivating at the idea of putting Donald Trump in jail. And the only 173 00:17:17,440 --> 00:17:25,759 thing that is a question in my mind is whether he is brave enough to 174 00:17:25,839 --> 00:17:29,519 do that. I think he wants to do it. If he thinks he 175 00:17:29,559 --> 00:17:33,000 can get away with it, he will do it. And it's just a 176 00:17:33,079 --> 00:17:37,079 question of whether he thinks he can get away with doing that. Because this 177 00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:42,680 whole case, from the judge, from the prosecutor, it was basically a 178 00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:51,920 political vendetta that was intended to try to take Donald Trump out of the presidential 179 00:17:52,039 --> 00:18:00,200 race, and that has now gotten added incentive when you see the catastra performance 180 00:18:00,599 --> 00:18:07,319 of Joe Biden in that debate. Yeah, so how much will that play 181 00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:11,400 into it? You know, this case in Manhattan was deemed, by you, 182 00:18:11,799 --> 00:18:15,720 by legal experts all over on all sides of the isle, is the 183 00:18:15,759 --> 00:18:22,799 weakest of the indictments against the former president. It turned out to be, 184 00:18:22,839 --> 00:18:26,559 if you will, for the left, their ace in the hole, so 185 00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:33,200 to speak, and it is the only one that is likely to be in 186 00:18:33,279 --> 00:18:40,960 play, certainly before the obviously before the twenty twenty four election. But they 187 00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:45,599 seem to have all of their eggs in this one basket. How do you 188 00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:48,880 think that will all turn out for them? Well, like I said, 189 00:18:48,079 --> 00:18:52,960 I think both the prosecutor and the judge world everything they can to put him 190 00:18:52,960 --> 00:18:59,960 in jail. If they do that, I think it will have the exact 191 00:19:00,200 --> 00:19:06,400 opposite effect that they hope it will. I think that will turn the public 192 00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:11,279 even more against the Biden administration. By the way, since we were talking 193 00:19:11,279 --> 00:19:15,079 about Supreme Court decisions, you know, there was another decision just just a 194 00:19:15,160 --> 00:19:22,720 couple of days ago by the Supreme Court that hurts Alvin Bragg's case against Donald 195 00:19:22,759 --> 00:19:29,160 Trump even more. There was a case about jury's and the US Supreme Court 196 00:19:29,240 --> 00:19:37,440 ruled that jurys in this country have to be unanimous in their decision making on 197 00:19:37,599 --> 00:19:41,839 every aspect of criminal charges against a defendant. That case is, you know, 198 00:19:41,920 --> 00:19:47,480 didn't involve Donald Trump, but it is directly applicable to this case in 199 00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:51,759 New York and is another reason why the New York Court of Appeals ought to 200 00:19:51,799 --> 00:19:55,079 throw out the conviction, and they ought to do it as soon as possible. 201 00:19:55,200 --> 00:19:56,480 Yeah, I was going to ask you that and that it's very interesting. 202 00:19:56,480 --> 00:20:00,319 It has nothing to do with Alvin Bragg's case. It has not to 203 00:20:00,319 --> 00:20:03,440 do with Donald Trump, but then again, it has everything to do with 204 00:20:03,519 --> 00:20:10,680 it. Do you believe with this ruling, But that's the first argument that 205 00:20:10,680 --> 00:20:15,680 the Trump defense makes in looking to reverse this decision. Yes, I think 206 00:20:15,680 --> 00:20:25,200 it is, particularly because the most difficult, most difficult decision or a state 207 00:20:25,279 --> 00:20:30,839 court to try to ignore is a decision by the US Supreme Court, which 208 00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:36,880 is the highest court in the land and has the final say, certainly on 209 00:20:37,519 --> 00:20:42,880 the substantive due process rights that are due to criminal defendants. Hans von Spakowski, 210 00:20:44,000 --> 00:20:48,480 constitutional law expert and former member of the Federal Election Commission, also serves 211 00:20:48,480 --> 00:20:52,359 as senior legal fellow in the Heritage Foundations. Edwin meets the Third Center for 212 00:20:52,519 --> 00:20:57,920 legal and judicial studies joining us on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. 213 00:20:59,279 --> 00:21:04,119 Now, it's interesting to me you just mentioned it. Who can defy a 214 00:21:04,160 --> 00:21:11,799 Supreme Court decision? Well, I'll tell you who has defied Supreme Court decisions, 215 00:21:11,839 --> 00:21:14,839 and that is Joe Biden and his administration. I mean, I take 216 00:21:14,880 --> 00:21:18,960 a look at the student loan bailout. So you know, you're absolutely right. 217 00:21:18,880 --> 00:21:22,759 There are things that need to happen should happen. We should have lower 218 00:21:22,759 --> 00:21:29,720 courts listening to following. We should have the executive branch following listening to these 219 00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:33,559 orders by the Supreme Court, but we see that they are reluctant to do 220 00:21:33,680 --> 00:21:38,480 so and have absolutely rejected them. It reminds me, of course, of 221 00:21:38,559 --> 00:21:44,599 the old I brought this up many times, but you know, history reminds 222 00:21:44,680 --> 00:21:52,240 us. You know when President Andrew Jackson is said to have told Chief Justice 223 00:21:52,319 --> 00:21:59,759 Marshall at the time, who is going to enforce your order? Chief Justice? 224 00:21:59,880 --> 00:22:03,480 I think that's the problem, isn't it. Yeah, it is the 225 00:22:03,559 --> 00:22:07,880 problem, and that's one of the reasons why our Look, we have a 226 00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:17,680 terrific constitutional system, a terrific constitutional republic, but it depends on the rule 227 00:22:17,720 --> 00:22:22,640 of law and people abiding by the rule of law. You know, we 228 00:22:23,440 --> 00:22:30,119 can compare, compare our very short constitution to the lengthy constitution that the Soviet 229 00:22:30,200 --> 00:22:34,920 Union, when under communism had. I mean, it was a wonderfully written 230 00:22:36,319 --> 00:22:40,920 constitution with all kinds of rights written into it, but of course it was 231 00:22:41,119 --> 00:22:47,720 meaningless because the government, the dictatorial government of the Soviet Union, totally ignored 232 00:22:47,759 --> 00:22:56,599 it. And when you see the current president in essence defying the Supreme Court 233 00:22:56,240 --> 00:23:03,000 on things like student loans, we're headed down that path because it's pretty hard 234 00:23:04,440 --> 00:23:11,359 for anyone to stop a president from doing things like that, because the only 235 00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:15,519 way to do that either is to throw them out in the next election or 236 00:23:15,880 --> 00:23:21,759 to impeach them. And one of the things we've unfortunately seen certainly with this 237 00:23:21,920 --> 00:23:30,119 administration is Democrats are unwilling to even consider impeachment even when we have officials in 238 00:23:30,200 --> 00:23:36,400 government who are clearly violating the law. Alexander new york Is, the head 239 00:23:36,400 --> 00:23:38,720 of Department of Homeland Security, is a great example of that, sorry, 240 00:23:38,759 --> 00:23:41,799 I should say, a bad example of that. Yeah, right, He 241 00:23:42,000 --> 00:23:47,599 is exhibit a of the need for impeachment in certain cases, that is for 242 00:23:47,680 --> 00:23:52,119 sure. I want to ask you something personal here and I've known you for 243 00:23:52,160 --> 00:23:56,559 a long time. I know your your family's story, and we've talked about 244 00:23:56,599 --> 00:24:02,599 it before. I think you've talked about this publicly, that your parents came 245 00:24:02,640 --> 00:24:07,960 from war torn Europe. You have a parent who came from escaped the Iron 246 00:24:08,039 --> 00:24:14,960 Curtain. You have a parent, if I'm remembering this correctly, that escaped 247 00:24:15,039 --> 00:24:21,599 Nazi Germany. You know, I think about your family history and what your 248 00:24:21,640 --> 00:24:26,039 parents. I guess that's the question. What would your parents say about what's 249 00:24:26,079 --> 00:24:30,359 happening in the country they loved and treasured today? Oh, they would, 250 00:24:30,519 --> 00:24:37,240 they would be extremely worried. And look, it's not just them, but 251 00:24:37,799 --> 00:24:45,039 I've got a good friend with who has recent immigrants for places like Venezuela, 252 00:24:45,880 --> 00:24:51,359 a woman who fled Poland under communism. I was at a party not too 253 00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:56,839 long ago talking to them, and they they were very concerned because they said 254 00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:03,160 that the signs that they see in America are the things that they saw in 255 00:25:03,200 --> 00:25:07,720 the countries they escaped from, and they see America going down this same path. 256 00:25:07,839 --> 00:25:11,960 And look, these are recent immigrants, and my parents emgraded a long 257 00:25:11,000 --> 00:25:17,680 time ago, but these are recent immigrants who are very concerned over what they're 258 00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:25,400 seeing happening in the country. There are some brighter notes and place as we 259 00:25:25,440 --> 00:25:29,920 go back to the US Supreme Court rulings. It's a significant ruling that I 260 00:25:29,960 --> 00:25:34,480 think we're just beginning to digest, and I think it will take us some 261 00:25:34,559 --> 00:25:40,400 time to do so. But with a six' to three decision in a 262 00:25:40,440 --> 00:25:48,640 case called Chevron, the US Supreme Court has changed forty years or thereabouts history 263 00:25:49,240 --> 00:25:57,599 of really this not being a republic but a democracy controlled by bureaucrats. The 264 00:25:57,680 --> 00:26:04,279 Chevron case, of course, speaks to deference or the idea that the experts 265 00:26:06,079 --> 00:26:11,559 in government, the unelected bureaucrats, know better than we do about regulations in 266 00:26:11,599 --> 00:26:15,240 all manner of things governing us in our daily lives. And the US Supreme 267 00:26:15,279 --> 00:26:21,559 Court said, no, that's got to end. I think that's a significant 268 00:26:21,680 --> 00:26:26,119 victory for liberty and for the continuation of the republic that we love. Oh 269 00:26:26,200 --> 00:26:32,359 boy, you are absolutely right. This was two cases that came up before 270 00:26:32,799 --> 00:26:37,319 the Supreme Court, one called Relentless, one called Loper, and the Supreme 271 00:26:37,319 --> 00:26:47,200 Court overturned the Chevron doctrine. This is the biggest counter attack on the administrative 272 00:26:47,279 --> 00:26:52,079 state that we have seen in many decades. And look, these are complicated 273 00:26:52,079 --> 00:26:56,720 cases but it's over very simple, simple fact. In the Chevron case forty 274 00:26:56,799 --> 00:27:00,119 years ago, the Supreme Court said, well, when a law passed by 275 00:27:00,160 --> 00:27:08,599 Congress is ambiguous, then we're going to defer to whatever federal agency is supposed 276 00:27:08,640 --> 00:27:14,640 to enforce that law. So, you know, if a law gave the 277 00:27:14,759 --> 00:27:21,759 SEC, the Security and Exchange Commission, the ability to regulate something, if 278 00:27:21,759 --> 00:27:26,920 the law was at bus, then basically the SEC when it's issuing its regulations, 279 00:27:26,960 --> 00:27:30,720 it could pretty much do whatever it wanted because its view of what the 280 00:27:30,839 --> 00:27:37,680 law allowed it to do would be given deference by the courts. And you 281 00:27:37,720 --> 00:27:45,240 know, the example that in this particular case was that the National Fisheries Administration 282 00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:52,079 was telling American fishermen, Hey, we're going to put one of our monitors 283 00:27:52,200 --> 00:27:56,279 on your boat, and you, the fisherman, you have to pay his 284 00:27:56,400 --> 00:28:03,839 salary. There was nothing in federal law that allowed them to do that, 285 00:28:03,480 --> 00:28:08,559 but the Fisheries Administration said, well, we've issued a regulation we can do 286 00:28:08,680 --> 00:28:14,799 this. And that's what this lawsuit was all about. And what the Supreme 287 00:28:14,799 --> 00:28:22,200 Court said was no interpreting ambiguous laws. That's our job, and we are 288 00:28:22,240 --> 00:28:30,559 not going to defer to the judgment of bureaucrats on what their power is. 289 00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:37,759 This is the biggest hit on the power of the administrative state, all these 290 00:28:37,759 --> 00:28:40,240 big federal agencies, like I said, that we have seen in a very 291 00:28:40,240 --> 00:28:45,720 long time, and this is a good developed for development for Americans. I 292 00:28:45,839 --> 00:28:49,039 mentioned this with another podcast guest. You know, we were talking about the 293 00:28:49,079 --> 00:28:56,400 whole climate change cult and you know the extremists, the environmental extremist and how 294 00:28:56,440 --> 00:29:03,880 they benefited with their agenda through the administrative state. Obviously we can think myerate 295 00:29:03,960 --> 00:29:07,079 examples on that front. But I said, you know, you're right, 296 00:29:07,119 --> 00:29:14,200 Hans, it is the court's job to interpret the laws. But let's go 297 00:29:14,759 --> 00:29:18,680 before we get to that step. It is Congress's law to write clear laws. 298 00:29:18,759 --> 00:29:25,000 And I think, and as I noted with Bonner Cohen, I said, 299 00:29:25,599 --> 00:29:30,400 Congress is probably shaking in its boots because it has abdicated its authority. 300 00:29:32,000 --> 00:29:34,759 It has not done its job to write laws. Clearly, just turn the 301 00:29:34,839 --> 00:29:37,839 keys over to the administrative state. Now they're going to have to actually do 302 00:29:37,920 --> 00:29:41,799 their job. Yeah, no, that is absolutely true. That has been 303 00:29:41,839 --> 00:29:48,960 going on too long by Congress. Frankly, because you have how can I 304 00:29:49,000 --> 00:29:52,359 say this, Poli, you have a lot of lazy members of Congress who 305 00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:59,200 don't what don't would actually want to read the huge bills that they're voting on, 306 00:29:59,440 --> 00:30:03,400 who don't want to explain in detail what a law does, so they 307 00:30:03,480 --> 00:30:07,000 just passed some general statute and say, you know what, we'll leave it 308 00:30:07,039 --> 00:30:11,960 to the bureaucrats to work out the details. And that's when you start having 309 00:30:11,119 --> 00:30:15,440 problems. By the way, this case is going to have a huge effect 310 00:30:15,880 --> 00:30:23,440 right now on these horrible rules, regulations, and guidance that you know, 311 00:30:23,559 --> 00:30:32,680 the Biden administration has just issued saying that schools, hospitals, prisons, all 312 00:30:32,759 --> 00:30:37,839 these people. Why their interpretation of the Civil Rights Act is that, for 313 00:30:37,880 --> 00:30:45,279 example, schools have to allow boys into girls' bathrooms and girls' locker rooms if 314 00:30:45,319 --> 00:30:51,920 those boys believe that they're actually girls. You know, they've issued regulations like 315 00:30:52,000 --> 00:30:56,559 that. That is a complete misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act. And this 316 00:30:56,720 --> 00:31:04,000 Chevron case says we will not defer to the Bide Administration's interpretation of the law 317 00:31:04,079 --> 00:31:07,920 on this issue. So that's good for everybody, all the states that have 318 00:31:07,039 --> 00:31:11,720 sued over this. Indeed, just a few minutes left, but I'd be 319 00:31:11,720 --> 00:31:18,799 remiss if I did not get to Murphy, the Missouri very disappointing as a 320 00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:23,440 journalist and as someone who values and has made his living on the First Amendment. 321 00:31:25,319 --> 00:31:30,960 But you have a case that basically, in a majority decision, you 322 00:31:30,039 --> 00:31:37,119 have the justices kind of brushing it off as a standing question when at the 323 00:31:37,279 --> 00:31:44,200 heart of that it is big government and big tech clearly colluding with each other 324 00:31:44,440 --> 00:31:52,400 to suppress speech in America. And it just makes me wonder if we are 325 00:31:52,440 --> 00:31:56,000 about to see the Biden administration redouble its efforts to do what it did in 326 00:31:56,039 --> 00:32:00,359 twenty twenty one in twenty twenty two in this country. Oh well, they've 327 00:32:00,400 --> 00:32:04,559 been given the keys to the kingdom to do that, you know, in 328 00:32:04,720 --> 00:32:09,759 essence in this standing suit by saying that the challengers in this case didn't have 329 00:32:09,839 --> 00:32:16,880 standing. And remember, two states sued on behalf of their residents whose social 330 00:32:17,000 --> 00:32:22,240 media accounts had been censored and restricted by social media platforms. The lawsuit was 331 00:32:22,279 --> 00:32:30,079 against the Biden administration and many agencies for coercing, pressuring, persuading the social 332 00:32:30,119 --> 00:32:36,880 media platforms to do that. But there were also individuals in this lawsuit. 333 00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:44,559 You know, there were several doctors whose postings questioning the effectiveness of the COVID 334 00:32:44,680 --> 00:32:52,240 nineteen pandemic raising other questions were all censored, their accounts deleted, so they 335 00:32:52,240 --> 00:32:57,119 had very to me concrete, specific injuries, and that's what you have to 336 00:32:57,240 --> 00:33:02,960 show to have standing. I think opinion by Barrett amy Cony Barrett was extremely 337 00:33:04,000 --> 00:33:09,240 disappointing. I think her reading of the standing doctrine was way too complex and 338 00:33:09,279 --> 00:33:15,720 in essence, you know what she said was, well, these individuals plaintiffs, 339 00:33:15,799 --> 00:33:22,599 like these doctors, they won't have standing unless they can show that some 340 00:33:22,759 --> 00:33:36,200 specific government official communicated with some specific official at Facebook with the intention of saying 341 00:33:36,440 --> 00:33:44,039 you need to censor or drop the posting of this specific person. Okay, 342 00:33:44,079 --> 00:33:45,519 you and I both know what does that mean. Well, all that means 343 00:33:45,599 --> 00:33:51,799 is if the government is really sophisticated and hides really well what it's doing, 344 00:33:52,599 --> 00:33:59,279 nobody's ever going to have the standing needed. This in light of the overwhelming 345 00:33:59,640 --> 00:34:06,200 wreck, the overwhelming evidence that the lower court found that there was basically a 346 00:34:06,319 --> 00:34:15,000 grand CONSPIRACYI officials in the Biden administration to tell the social media companies any and 347 00:34:15,239 --> 00:34:21,320 all postings, no matter by who, that disagree with what we believe about 348 00:34:21,400 --> 00:34:27,039 the twenty twenty election. COVID nineteen, the vaccines. You all need to 349 00:34:27,079 --> 00:34:31,800 restrict them or delete those posts otherwise. Remember, you know, we've got 350 00:34:32,239 --> 00:34:37,239 regulatory authority over you. There's all kinds of things we can do to you. 351 00:34:37,679 --> 00:34:40,400 That was what the lower court found, and yet that wasn't enough for 352 00:34:40,679 --> 00:34:45,199 Justice Barrett. Yeah, absolutely amazing. And when you think about it, 353 00:34:45,239 --> 00:34:52,599 the testimony that we've seen in recent weeks and months about that clever Anthony Fauci, 354 00:34:52,679 --> 00:34:57,079 who would never put anything in writing yes or leave a trail, I 355 00:34:57,079 --> 00:35:00,239 think that speaks to exactly what you're talking about. Expect to see more of 356 00:35:00,280 --> 00:35:07,119 that from the big government Biden administration. Final question, election integrity. You've 357 00:35:07,119 --> 00:35:09,559 worked in this field for so many years, You've seen so many changes, 358 00:35:09,639 --> 00:35:14,559 of course, and you've fought for election integrity for so long. I think 359 00:35:14,599 --> 00:35:21,679 about arguably the greatest assault on election integrity something we call Biden Bucks, which 360 00:35:21,880 --> 00:35:28,559 is the use of federal agencies not only register voters, but to mobilize voters, 361 00:35:28,840 --> 00:35:34,800 but more so register and mobilize specific voters, voters who will likely turn 362 00:35:34,800 --> 00:35:39,000 out to re elect Joe Biden. That's your taxpayer dollars going to that. 363 00:35:39,239 --> 00:35:45,239 There were no appropriations for that. We have a Supreme Court that said, 364 00:35:45,760 --> 00:35:52,199 yeah, we will take this up, but it will be long into the 365 00:35:52,239 --> 00:35:57,199 election cycle. They won't even have anything on this at least until early October. 366 00:35:57,639 --> 00:36:04,519 It seems to me that biden Bucks has clearly been in place since the 367 00:36:04,559 --> 00:36:10,519 executive orders signed by the President in March of twenty twenty one. They're going 368 00:36:10,559 --> 00:36:15,440 to play this out as much as they can. What can be done to 369 00:36:15,559 --> 00:36:23,760 stop this very constitutionally suspect executive order. You know, I wish I had 370 00:36:23,760 --> 00:36:29,840 good news. Unfortunately, there's not a lot that can be done. It's 371 00:36:29,880 --> 00:36:34,519 clear to me that what these federal agencies are doing is criminal violation of the 372 00:36:34,599 --> 00:36:39,719 law. There's a law called the Anti Deficiency which is that it's illegal for 373 00:36:39,920 --> 00:36:47,719 a federal employee, a federal official, federal agency to spend money on things 374 00:36:49,280 --> 00:36:53,960 where the money has not been appropriated for it. So every dime and nickel 375 00:36:54,079 --> 00:37:00,159 being spent by any federal agency to register voters to help them get out some 376 00:37:00,280 --> 00:37:06,039 tee ballots is being illegally spent as a violation of the Anti Deficiency Act. 377 00:37:06,039 --> 00:37:10,280 The problem is the only who who enforces the Anti Deficiency Act Merrick Garlotte, 378 00:37:10,320 --> 00:37:17,880 the US Justice Department, and they're obviously not going to do that Congress ought 379 00:37:17,920 --> 00:37:28,440 to act to withdraw and withhold funding through the appropriations project uh process for all 380 00:37:28,440 --> 00:37:31,239 of these different federal agencies they're engaging this kind of behavior. You know, 381 00:37:31,360 --> 00:37:37,559 do things like withhold the salary, withhold expense payments for the head of the 382 00:37:37,639 --> 00:37:43,800 Justice Department, the head of the Commerce Department until they cease engaging in this 383 00:37:43,920 --> 00:37:49,119 kind of illegal activity. But you know the House could do that, will 384 00:37:49,119 --> 00:37:52,280 it would it get through the Senate control by Democrats? No, because they 385 00:37:52,400 --> 00:37:55,199 want this illegal activity going on. They want to continue because they think it 386 00:37:55,239 --> 00:38:01,159 will help them win the election. So the bottom line here is that these 387 00:38:01,199 --> 00:38:08,880 sorts of shenanigans that we saw through Zuckbucks, of course, private entities Facebook 388 00:38:08,880 --> 00:38:17,280 founder Mark Zuckerberg using hundreds of millions of dollars to effectively embed leftist operatives into 389 00:38:17,320 --> 00:38:25,360 election administration, this much bigger scale will go on unimpeded. Unfortunately. Yes, 390 00:38:25,559 --> 00:38:32,320 and it's just another side of the lawlessness of this administration. Well, 391 00:38:32,360 --> 00:38:36,519 I know you'll continue to watch this, Heritage will continue to do so. 392 00:38:36,719 --> 00:38:43,440 We definitely appreciate your expertise, and I appreciate the generosity of your time, 393 00:38:43,519 --> 00:38:47,119 sir. Thanks for having me. Thanks to my guest today Hans von Spakowski, 394 00:38:47,440 --> 00:38:52,280 constitutional law expert and former member of the Federal Election Commission. Hans also 395 00:38:52,360 --> 00:38:58,199 serves as senior Legal Fellow in the Heritage Foundations Edwin Meese, the Third Center 396 00:38:58,280 --> 00:39:01,719 for Legal and Judicial Studies. You've been listening to another edition of The Federalist 397 00:39:01,800 --> 00:39:06,599 Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be 398 00:39:06,639 --> 00:39:10,440 back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for 399 00:39:10,480 --> 00:39:30,000 the Fray.