Speaker 1: Well with they come and take my pain, the moneys,
Speaker 1: my rain, Oh whiskey.
Speaker 2: Why think alone when you can drink it all? In
Speaker 2: with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders, Steve Hayward,
Speaker 2: John U and the International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia, where.
Speaker 3: The slap happen David hain't easy on the should tap,
Speaker 3: got a giving and let that whiskey.
Speaker 2: Flo So settle in everyone for what may be the
Speaker 2: most gonzo episode ever of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 2: In fact, you might want to call it the Three
Speaker 2: Whiskey Happy Hour squared because it was taped live during
Speaker 2: a happy hour at the Washington Hilton at the annual
Speaker 2: meeting of the Federal Society, where John, You and I
Speaker 2: are present and annoying everyone in sight.
Speaker 4: We did this last year.
Speaker 2: What we did was just wrangle up whoever happened to
Speaker 2: be wandering by the most quiet spot we could find
Speaker 2: in the Hilton, which wasn't that quiet. And this year
Speaker 2: we are pleased to highlight several luminaries from the legal world.
Speaker 4: In particular, we are joined by Akil.
Speaker 2: Almar of Yale Law School and Yale University to talk
Speaker 2: about his brand new book Born Equal, remaking America's Constitution
Speaker 2: from eighteen forty to nineteen twenty. But along the way
Speaker 2: we're joined by Roger Palan, the longtime director of Constitutional
Speaker 2: Studies at the Cato Institute. Judge William Pryor, the Chief
Speaker 2: Judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, drops by
Speaker 2: briefly to say a couple of things. Elan Worman, one
Speaker 2: of the rising young stars of the Conservative Legal Academy
Speaker 2: from the University of Minnesota, wanders by and treats us
Speaker 2: to a delightful discussion of the issue of birthright citizenship.
Speaker 4: And then of.
Speaker 2: Course our old pal Hadley Arcis drops by. Hadley of
Speaker 2: course needs no introduction. John Yu floats in and out,
Speaker 2: of course, doing his usual loitering and quips.
Speaker 4: Ingests and so forth.
Speaker 2: But I'm going to pick up with our discussion with
Speaker 2: a ki La mar about his book.
Speaker 4: And unfortunately we had to let a number of people.
Speaker 2: Who wandered by the law fall to the cutting room floor,
Speaker 2: just because we don't have enough time for that long
Speaker 2: an episode.
Speaker 4: And you'll just have to bear with the rough.
Speaker 2: And raw and authentic I'll call it a character of
Speaker 2: the sound and some of the abrupt transitions, but without
Speaker 2: further ado, let's get started right away with the ki
Speaker 2: lamr so.
Speaker 4: So kil I can't.
Speaker 2: I only had your book Born Equal for two hours.
Speaker 2: I have flipped through a few pages to realize that, oh,
Speaker 2: this is a rival to maybe Gary Wills about the
Speaker 2: centrality of the Gettysburg address really and also to my
Speaker 2: teacher controversial with many of Harry Jaffa, who was always
Speaker 2: trying to work up who.
Speaker 4: Would never got to the Gettysburg address.
Speaker 2: But right he has all the teachings about equality and
Speaker 2: so forth. And I also was expecting I'm not sure
Speaker 2: why I was expecting this.
Speaker 4: I thought, oh, it's going to be one of those
Speaker 4: legal now, so go through the cases and all the
Speaker 4: rest of that.
Speaker 5: It's not.
Speaker 4: There's a narrative here. Sorry, I'm being too long.
Speaker 2: You want to give us a you know, the abstract,
Speaker 2: the summary of what you're doing in this book, and
Speaker 2: maybe two or three key takeaways.
Speaker 6: What you said was brilliant. You've looked at it, and
Speaker 6: you've got me just right. If you ask me which
Speaker 6: ten or fifteen books were most influential for me, which
Speaker 6: I was most trying to be Like Gary Willis's Lincoln
Speaker 6: at Gettysburg would have been on that list, and Harry
Speaker 6: Jaffers Crisis of the House Divided would have been on
Speaker 6: that list. Harry Jaffer wrote the best book about the
Speaker 6: Lincoln Douglas Debates. I say in the PostScript, I've written
Speaker 6: the best single chapter, so you don't have to read.
Speaker 7: The whole Harry Jaffer book.
Speaker 6: You know, one stop shopping for the Lincoln Douglas Debates.
Speaker 6: And in a nutshell, I'm trying to tell the story
Speaker 6: of eighty years of American history from eighteen forty to
Speaker 6: nineteen twenty, and the big idea is birth equality. We
Speaker 6: begin in eighteen forty with millions of Americans enslaved, and
Speaker 6: we experience a civil war and four Linconian amendments that
Speaker 6: affirm this idea that we're all created equal, we're all
Speaker 6: born equal, we're born equally free. That's the thirteenth Amendment.
Speaker 6: No one's born a slave, no one's born a slave master.
Speaker 6: People in America under the American flag, born on American soil,
Speaker 6: are born equal citizens with civil rights, whether they're black
Speaker 6: or white.
Speaker 7: Male or female.
Speaker 6: A fifteenth Amendment comes along and says, whether you're black
Speaker 6: or white, you have equal voting rights, political rights, and
Speaker 6: eventually by nineteen twenty a fourth amendment. It's often people
Speaker 6: often talk about the three Reconstruction Amendments.
Speaker 7: This is a four fifty years later also.
Speaker 6: Linconian saying, whether you're born male or female, you have.
Speaker 7: Equal voting rights, equal political rights.
Speaker 6: And I try to tell the story of what these
Speaker 6: amendments mean and how they happen.
Speaker 8: Let me break in.
Speaker 3: So this is John you co host with Steve and
Speaker 3: Akill was my teacher at Yale. I have to say
Speaker 3: this is the only book of Acquelles I haven't read yet,
Speaker 3: because I've read all the other ones, but this one's
Speaker 3: hot off the press. And rogers, do you want sticking
Speaker 3: around to be a participant slash heckler? And so I
Speaker 3: know you go full more agreeing with Lincoln. Yes, also
Speaker 3: agree with him that fundamental equality and nation had started
Speaker 3: not in seventeen eighty seven or eighty nine, or even
Speaker 3: really eighteen sixty eight, but in seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 6: So the first words of the book are from his
Speaker 6: Gettysburg address.
Speaker 7: And.
Speaker 6: He says that the union precedes the Constitution. He may
Speaker 6: be right, it's not an indivisible union in my view
Speaker 6: until the Constitution. But he begins very famously in eighteen
Speaker 6: sixty three saying, eighty seven years earlier, four scorn seven
Speaker 6: years ago, our father's brought forth upon this continent a
Speaker 6: new nation. So he's saying it is seventeen seventy six,
Speaker 6: no conceived in liberty, not slavery. Roger and his friends
Speaker 6: emphasize right before government. It's conceived in liberty and dedicated
Speaker 6: to the proposition that all men are created equals. So
Speaker 6: that's Lincoln's idea. It's a contested idea.
Speaker 4: You're right.
Speaker 3: So this is the question. I want to press you
Speaker 3: on a quiel and forgive me. I've got my Glenn
Speaker 3: Buran g ten year Steve is drinking martini, so he's
Speaker 3: not actually having whiskey. Roger's red wine a kiel as
Speaker 3: always is sober so also, but I want to know
Speaker 3: it kills what you think I'm When did the nation start?
Speaker 4: When did the American keep?
Speaker 7: Okay, I think the.
Speaker 6: Idea of an America, the United States of America is
Speaker 6: seventeen seventy six. But they're free and equal states. They're
Speaker 6: free and independent states. They're independent even of each other
Speaker 6: until the Constitution.
Speaker 7: They could choose to leave.
Speaker 6: To brexit. It's merely a confederation. Each state is sovereign
Speaker 6: under the articles. So the Constitution takes USA one point zero,
Speaker 6: which begins in seventeen seventy six, and makes it two
Speaker 6: point zho. It's like a corporate merger, a union that's indivisible.
Speaker 3: And they're one American people with all equal rights before
Speaker 3: the Constitution.
Speaker 7: This is real.
Speaker 3: This is what's confronting the Supreme Court in several issues.
Speaker 9: Now.
Speaker 6: See so I go through in my chapter on the
Speaker 6: Lincoln Douglas debates and give you the reader no fewer
Speaker 6: than ten different ways in which these five words all
Speaker 6: men are created equal could be read and were read
Speaker 6: in the middle of the nineteenth century. And Lincoln himself
Speaker 6: evolves along this radiant He initially says, all men are
Speaker 6: born or created equally free, They're equal in life, liberty,
Speaker 6: and the pursuit of happiness. And he says, I Abraham Lincoln.
Speaker 6: He says this in eighteen fifty eight in Lincoln Negalice space.
Speaker 6: I'm not in favor of Negro citizenship. But he evolves yes, yes,
Speaker 6: and then by the end of his life he's going
Speaker 6: to be in favor of equal citizenship, equal voting rights.
Speaker 6: So these amendments thirteen, fourteen, fifteen are going to track
Speaker 6: Lincoln's own evolution in a way. If you're if you're
Speaker 6: inclined to the biological we say ontogeny recapitulates phylogical aid,
Speaker 6: you know, but the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth recapitulate Abe's
Speaker 6: own evolution on equal quality, and you the reader will
Speaker 6: be able to trace how he moves from equally free,
Speaker 6: to equally citizens to equal voters black and white, and
Speaker 6: eventually even though he's dead, you know, I think he
Speaker 6: would have embraced the idea of equal voting male and female.
Speaker 8: So Steve, can I jump in here?
Speaker 2: No, wait a minute, Hold on a second, because there's
Speaker 2: something he said.
Speaker 4: I'm very kind of particular about it. Just quick digression.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's in your book that if maybe I expect
Speaker 2: you know it. Even if it's not there, there's an
Speaker 2: equivocation about Lincoln that I think is significant. You mentioned it,
Speaker 2: So I'm not for negro equality. The way you actually
Speaker 2: put it is very only if you're paying attention. Do
Speaker 2: we notice that he would say I'm not now, nor
Speaker 2: have I ever been.
Speaker 4: He didn't say what he would.
Speaker 7: Be exactly okay, and he does. He grows, he's a ratchet.
Speaker 6: He never actually regresses political opportunities open up. I think
Speaker 6: he wants to move in certain directions. He's never the
Speaker 6: most forward leaning politician at any moment in his life,
Speaker 6: but at every moment I think he's the most forward
Speaker 6: leaning who has the chance of getting elected.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, right now we're in we're in complete agreem
Speaker 2: about let me do once more more sequel. I just
Speaker 2: want to get your opinion. I'd mentioned, you know, Jeffung,
Speaker 2: Gary Wills. I think the John Burke Burt book Lincoln's
Speaker 2: Tragic Pragmatism.
Speaker 7: Which I don't know.
Speaker 4: Oh, it's worth reading. I'll just say it's a magnificent book.
Speaker 3: Steve enough talking about what you read a new guests
Speaker 3: along with a killed Judge William Pryor, who is I
Speaker 3: think in many ways responsible oh for originalism.
Speaker 4: So, by the way, Judge Pryor, you you were this sorry,
Speaker 4: sorry you, no, no no, I did want to get
Speaker 4: back to the literary.
Speaker 6: But my friend Judge Pryor has actually started reading the book,
Speaker 6: so he's.
Speaker 4: In your pagent. It's awesome.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so, Judge pryor when I think you
Speaker 2: were just like this is twenty eight years ago, when
Speaker 2: you were just a lawyer prior or something.
Speaker 4: Was attorney general. Attorney General. A fabulous review of my
Speaker 4: the first volume.
Speaker 2: My Reagan did two volumes. It was I was bowled
Speaker 2: over by how nice it was. He finally great to
Speaker 2: meet you in person, Thank you, et cetera.
Speaker 4: As well. I enjoyed.
Speaker 10: I enjoyed the sequel as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Right, well, let me do one last question for you.
Speaker 2: Maybe not last question, but and then Roger wants to
Speaker 2: get in.
Speaker 4: But I would like to ask a.
Speaker 2: Literary question, which is because having written some long narratives myself,
Speaker 2: are there any discoveries along the way?
Speaker 4: Did does something surprise you?
Speaker 2: Is it something jump out as something you hadn't expected
Speaker 2: or you thought is more important?
Speaker 4: It needed to be brought out.
Speaker 6: So many things I try to categalog category catalog them
Speaker 6: in the PostScript.
Speaker 7: Well, let me mention two or three.
Speaker 6: One, since we talked about literary interests, I introduced the
Speaker 6: reader to America's first female superstar. Everyone's talking about her,
Speaker 6: and she's fallen out of the can and the conversation
Speaker 6: Harriet Beecher Stowe is huge, and she's a literary figure.
Speaker 6: She writes a book it sells more copies than any
Speaker 6: other book by an American of the century, and we've
Speaker 6: forgotten about her. So before Taylor Swift or Beyonce or
Speaker 6: Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris or even eleanor Roosevelt, there
Speaker 6: is Harriet Beecher Stowe, and no woman at the founding
Speaker 6: is the center of political discourse.
Speaker 7: Abigail is off stage.
Speaker 6: So that's the women in the in who read the
Speaker 6: book are gonna really love getting to know Harriet Beecher
Speaker 6: Stowe and Elizabeth Katy Stanton, who's amazing. The second big
Speaker 6: thing that I think is really important to emphasize is
Speaker 6: there is an abolition project in the North that begins
Speaker 6: as early as seventeen seventy six. The ancient world has slavery,
Speaker 6: it has the idea of freeing individual slaves. Sixteen nineteen,
Speaker 6: in my view, is not that significant to date because
Speaker 6: there was slavery in the New World and the old
Speaker 6: world before sixteen nineteen. Here's the new thing in the world,
Speaker 6: not freeing slaves, but ending slavery, and that's an American idea.
Speaker 6: It begins in Philadelphia, in seventeen seventy five and seventeen
Speaker 6: seventy six, and by seventeen seventy six, northern state constitutions
Speaker 6: are committing themselves in Pennsylvania and three years later, four
Speaker 6: years later in Massachusetts to this concept that all men
Speaker 6: are born free and born equally free and independent, and
Speaker 6: that is going to lead to not freeing slaves, but
Speaker 6: abolishing slavery in Pennsylvania in Massachusetts very early on. And
Speaker 6: most Americans don't know about that abolition project, which is
Speaker 6: an American project, which is, of course, since I'm in
Speaker 6: the presence of Roger Pielant, a libertarian project. It's about
Speaker 6: liberty and and Abe Lincoln channels all that when he
Speaker 6: goes back and says, yes, they didn't eliminate slavery, and
Speaker 6: they said all men are created equal, but they committed
Speaker 6: themselves in effect to an abolitionist project. Say here is
Speaker 6: true North, this is the North Star. And people like
Speaker 6: Harry Jaffa understand that. So Jaffa is important for me.
Speaker 6: Now I'm told I'm told he was a cantankerous Fellows
Speaker 6: and I never met him in the flesh, and I'm
Speaker 6: told that Bill Buckley once said, you think disagreeing with
Speaker 6: Harry Jaff is hard.
Speaker 7: Try agreeing with that.
Speaker 6: But he did influence me, and so did Gary Wills,
Speaker 6: so did Gordon Wood, so did Ed Larson, and so
Speaker 6: did the great Jim Oaks.
Speaker 2: Quick factual question is the famous story of Lincoln saying
Speaker 2: to HARRYT.
Speaker 1: Beecher Stowe, so you're the little lady who causes great
Speaker 1: big war?
Speaker 4: Is that true?
Speaker 7: It is? And some people have said it's not.
Speaker 6: And actually there's a fellow whom you know, I believe,
Speaker 6: Roger Tim Sandefern, who writes a review saying that I
Speaker 6: got that wrong. And I'm telling your audience here now
Speaker 6: I'm doubling down on that. Since that review came out,
Speaker 6: I quadruple checked all my sources, and he cites something
Speaker 6: that actually misses a lot that actually I believe happened.
Speaker 6: And here's some of my evidence for it. Because I
Speaker 6: am always interested in trying to find primary sources and
Speaker 6: contemporaneous sources to confirm the legends. So I have contemporaneous
Speaker 6: sources saying Harry Beecherstowe was there that week, and it's
Speaker 6: the newspapers. She clearly was there, and the first published
Speaker 6: reports that this is what she said came out within
Speaker 6: weeks of her own death in the Atlanta magazine, when
Speaker 6: her children were still alive. And if this reporter is
Speaker 6: making all that up, her children are immediately going to say, no.
Speaker 7: You made that up.
Speaker 6: So I have every reason to think that actually she
Speaker 6: said that the canonical accounts of this famous exchange come
Speaker 6: from her own children, saying that we got this from
Speaker 6: our mom.
Speaker 7: And I don't think she was a liar, right.
Speaker 2: It's always seemed metaphysically right to me. And I know
Speaker 2: Tim Sanderfer. He's a stubborn guy, so I get it.
Speaker 6: And it sounds like Lincoln, see, because little Lady is
Speaker 6: the kind of formulation that he used.
Speaker 7: He you know, he called you know, his wife Lila.
Speaker 6: And Harriet might not know that, but but I know
Speaker 6: that from diary entries and letters and and all the rest.
Speaker 7: She comments on a certain phrase that he uses.
Speaker 6: I like to fight like I like to have a
Speaker 6: fire at home to home rather than at hom she has.
Speaker 6: There are all these little extraneous details that have nothing
Speaker 6: to do with the famous quote that to me give it.
Speaker 7: Absolutely the feel of.
Speaker 6: Very simility, in a very similitude accuracy.
Speaker 7: Do I have a tape recording.
Speaker 6: No, but I do believe that this is far more
Speaker 6: likely than not. And again those who disagree have to
Speaker 6: call someone a liar, the first journalist, or the daughter
Speaker 6: and the son or Harriet herself. At least one of
Speaker 6: those four has to be a liar for this conventional
Speaker 6: view to be false.
Speaker 4: All right, I have to let you go, but Roger
Speaker 4: gets give him your best shot.
Speaker 9: Oh well, after listening to Akiel a patiate on this
Speaker 9: and Sundry, I was going to conclude with the quote
Speaker 9: of Buckley. If you think it's difficult I agree with
Speaker 9: or disagreeing with Harry, try agreeing with them.
Speaker 7: We academics can be order.
Speaker 8: Oh I know it, I know it.
Speaker 5: But judge the the the point, the point that John
Speaker 5: you made about when the question he raised when did
Speaker 5: America begin?
Speaker 9: I think I'm with a Kiel on that. With the
Speaker 9: declaration of independence, but let's remember they saw it as
Speaker 9: a league of friends under the articles.
Speaker 8: Not exactly.
Speaker 6: Yes, each state is sovereign, it's a mere treaty, it's
Speaker 6: a confederation, and then when you switch to a constitution,
Speaker 6: it's going to be a different But.
Speaker 10: One of the things that the professor explains is when
Speaker 10: they get to the Constitutional Convention and they're making these compromises,
Speaker 10: this backdrop of northern abolition is already ongoing. Yes, and
Speaker 10: this is why they think that this is, in its
Speaker 10: natural course, going to lead to total abolition. And what
Speaker 10: they did not anticipate was what would happen in the South.
Speaker 7: And especially after the cotton project.
Speaker 10: That's right, particularly South Carolina.
Speaker 7: Yes, and South Carolina.
Speaker 9: And Omar has Akil has raised the issue of women.
Speaker 9: Let's not forget John adams wife.
Speaker 7: Abigail, is amazed.
Speaker 8: She was opposed to slavery.
Speaker 6: She was the most anti slavery from the McCulloch book on.
Speaker 4: John, she's in the book.
Speaker 10: Everybody, Yeah, thank you, thank you so.
Speaker 2: But this morning, on the immigration panel you were on,
Speaker 2: I was very glad you brought up the importance of the.
Speaker 4: Omission of the word expressly.
Speaker 2: And that was beaten into me by my teacher of
Speaker 2: cost social history was Leonard Levy.
Speaker 4: Was absolutely fabulous.
Speaker 6: So here's what's really interesting. I don't think I have
Speaker 6: met him. I did blurb a book that he wrote
Speaker 6: about the Bill of I blurbed a book that he
Speaker 6: wrote about the Bill of Rights. But in the last
Speaker 6: fifty years. I believe there are really only two scholars
Speaker 6: who tried to write about each amendment of the first ten,
Speaker 6: and the only two that I could find that really
Speaker 6: had done kind of original and deep thought about each amendment,
Speaker 6: where Leonard Levy and yours truly And because we have
Speaker 6: First Amendment experts, although many of them are only religion
Speaker 6: folks or only speech and press folks, we got Second
Speaker 6: Amendment folks, we got Fourth Amendment folks. We have some
Speaker 6: criminal procedure folks. Levy tried to actually write about everything
Speaker 6: in the Bill of Rights, and I've tried to do
Speaker 6: the same thing. And what I said even earlier today
Speaker 6: is if you really want to be an originalist, you
Speaker 6: have to do originalism across a wide range of issues,
Speaker 6: rights and structure, criminal and civil, just to get a
Speaker 6: proper sense of what kind of evidence you know is
Speaker 6: good enough to be confident, just like, how much evidence
Speaker 6: do I need in order to say I think actually
Speaker 6: that Lincoln said that to Elizabeth Caston, You're going to
Speaker 6: be much better at answering that if you try to
Speaker 6: ask questions like that in eighty other situations.
Speaker 8: Aequille, we even have ninth Amendment.
Speaker 7: Yes, we do, absolutely farmer, Rogers.
Speaker 9: After all, if you're a textualist, you cannot ignore.
Speaker 8: I agree, And we know why it's there.
Speaker 7: Don't there's so many reasons over determined.
Speaker 8: Of course, we know exactly why it's there.
Speaker 11: It's because, okay, sorry, it's it's because they understood that
Speaker 11: once you start enumerting members of a class, the failure
Speaker 11: to enumerate all.
Speaker 9: Such members will be construed by ordinary principles of legal
Speaker 9: construction as meaning only those that are enumerated are meant
Speaker 9: to be protected, in contradistinction from those that are not.
Speaker 9: So to make that crystal clear, they wrote, the enumeration
Speaker 9: in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed
Speaker 9: to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Speaker 8: You can't retain what you don't first have to be retained.
Speaker 9: I don't know how you can state it anymore simply,
Speaker 9: more clearly than.
Speaker 1: That, Roger.
Speaker 2: I'm going to declare culture on your filibuster for a moment, because.
Speaker 8: Well it's a filibuster with a point, I know.
Speaker 7: And a good point.
Speaker 2: But let me let me bring it back to a
Speaker 2: Kiel's book. As I'd read read a books, I'm this
Speaker 2: one just briefly.
Speaker 4: So Roger and I are a little unusual.
Speaker 2: Maybe not unusual, but I miss some of those mid
Speaker 2: century constitutionalists.
Speaker 4: Like Charles Howard mcilwaine.
Speaker 3: He's still talking about last book he read.
Speaker 7: University of Minnesota.
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna say you, I'm going to throwback of
Speaker 2: people like Levy, like Charles Howard mcelwayne.
Speaker 4: Yes, people that he has total contempt for.
Speaker 7: Because okay, thank you so much, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay, Roger, I need your microphone back from your panel.
Speaker 1: I do wish you guys had had two hours. Oh yes,
Speaker 1: absolutely this morning, because like that's too much. Where's John?
Speaker 1: I thought I was gonna he'll come back with are
Speaker 1: we talking tout? So he's he's literally ambushing us and
Speaker 1: saying come come.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's I'm glad you've wandered by this sort of
Speaker 2: gonzo uh format we do every year at the Federal
Speaker 2: Society for the three Whiskey Happy Hour podcast. Roger polanist
Speaker 2: with us because he likes to hackle everybody.
Speaker 1: Oh indeed, he just likes whiskey. He's on his second.
Speaker 4: Found treating read. We've done a red.
Speaker 2: Wine episode or two. But so elon, I'm blanking on
Speaker 2: your books. I have them on my shelf. I read
Speaker 2: them that there was some originalism art I had recently
Speaker 2: I thought was quite good.
Speaker 4: Well man, what are your sort of leading things you're doing?
Speaker 4: The first of all, give us just a very like
Speaker 4: thirty second bio.
Speaker 1: So I taught at Arizona State for six years. Now
Speaker 1: I'm at the University of Minnesota, very happy to be there.
Speaker 1: I write on separation of powers, federalism, administrative law, constitucialism.
Speaker 1: My first book was A Debt against the Living, an
Speaker 1: introduction to originalism. That's the book, not, just to be clear,
Speaker 1: not the Debt against the Living, although it's not a
Speaker 1: zombie flick, although some people have suggested it could have
Speaker 1: been titled The Dead Versus the Living, But it's actually
Speaker 1: a Debt against Living, which comes from Madison's response to
Speaker 1: Thomas Jefferson's Dead Hand of the Past letter. I have
Speaker 1: a book on the Fourteenth Amendment called The Second Founding,
Speaker 1: and right now I am causing some controversy on topics
Speaker 1: like borthward citizenship. I've been out there somewhat defending the
Speaker 1: Innistration's position from a constitutional perspective, and I knew a
Speaker 1: little bit about the removal power and Humphrey's Executor, and
Speaker 1: so happy to you know, throw some grenades and a
Speaker 1: conversation if you'd like.
Speaker 4: Well, now John You has run away again because he
Speaker 4: knows that.
Speaker 2: The funny thing is he always likes to assemble people who,
Speaker 2: as I do, disagree with him on these things. So
Speaker 2: I think if I do a checkboxes, I think I'm
Speaker 2: probably in agreement with you on birthright citizenship, on Humphrey's Executor.
Speaker 4: But take those briefly from the top.
Speaker 1: And so John You, interestingly, since you gave me the
Speaker 1: bait here, he's famously defended sort of a broader conception
Speaker 1: of birthrad citizenship, but he was also responding to a
Speaker 1: John Eastman and argument in Rogers Smith and Peter Truck
Speaker 1: that sort of reject the common law. I don't reject
Speaker 1: the common law. I think the question rather is what
Speaker 1: is the scope of the common law rule of birthright
Speaker 1: citizenship to begin with? And actually I don't think the
Speaker 1: common law rule itself would have extended to unlawfully present aliens.
Speaker 1: Harder question for temporary visitors. And if you want to give, like,
Speaker 1: if I may just take a minute to this out,
Speaker 1: because everybody thinks that the test is mere birth alone,
Speaker 1: mere birth on soil. But what do you do with
Speaker 1: children born of ambassadors or to the soldiers of invading armies.
Speaker 1: And they come up with all sort of well, just
Speaker 1: an exception and maybe an exception for this that reason.
Speaker 1: Well what did they say? What do they say? If
Speaker 1: you look at Calvin's case, if you look at Blackstone,
Speaker 1: Well it turns out that the rule itself was born
Speaker 1: on the soil of the sovereign, under the protection of
Speaker 1: the sovereign. Someone born to an invading armies not under
Speaker 1: the protection of the sovereign. Someone born to an ambassador
Speaker 1: is born under the protection of and within the allegiance
Speaker 1: of a foreign sovereign. Well, what if I told you
Speaker 1: that a common law you needed a safe conduct from
Speaker 1: the king, a formal legal document giving you permission to
Speaker 1: enter the realm, which document extended the king's protection to
Speaker 1: that alien. Eventually, these safe conducts came into disuse when
Speaker 1: statutes like Magna Carta cardon Mergatoria and a statute from
Speaker 1: fifteen thirteen fifty three in the reign of Edward the
Speaker 1: Third said generally opened up trade and said merchants strangers
Speaker 1: may safely and securely and under our protection, come and
Speaker 1: dwell in our set real So why did Cook and
Speaker 1: Blackstone presume that children born to aliens friendly aliens were
Speaker 1: birthright subjects well because their parents were there legally under
Speaker 1: the king's protection according to the statutes. What does that
Speaker 1: mean for a world today where there are immigration prohibitions
Speaker 1: which they have been under the protection of the sovereign?
Speaker 1: I argue not that. What does that have to do
Speaker 1: with the fourtieth Amendment and subject to the jurisdiction. How
Speaker 1: much time do you have? Probably not enough, Roger You.
Speaker 9: Well, I'm struck by this idea of under the protection
Speaker 9: of the sovereign, which would not apply, if I understand
Speaker 9: you correctly, to the children of invading armies. Well, suppose
Speaker 9: children of those invading armies were subject to towards various kinds,
Speaker 9: then would that child be subject to the protection of
Speaker 9: the sovereign?
Speaker 1: No, and oh you mean you can do whatever you Well,
Speaker 1: we've got another scholar coming. You can come, come, come,
Speaker 1: come on, Professor Ailey Arcis is joining us. We're on
Speaker 1: on a podcast. But no, hardy us. Come on. Here's
Speaker 1: the difference with you, Yes, here's here's here's the difference.
Speaker 1: So discussion on birthright citizenship, and I'm wondering what your
Speaker 1: take on it is, since I'm defending under the common
Speaker 1: lawson asked your question.
Speaker 9: Okay, argued that can I stay the the children of
Speaker 9: invading armies would not be under the protection of the sovereign. Well,
Speaker 9: suppose one of those children were the victim of a
Speaker 9: tour of various kinds, including an attentional tour by the
Speaker 9: residents or even members of the invading Would that child.
Speaker 8: Not be under the protection of the sovereign?
Speaker 4: Or can one do anything one wants to.
Speaker 1: That child, the child of the invader.
Speaker 12: The protection under the protection of the law, that would
Speaker 12: make him. That would not make him a citizen.
Speaker 1: No, that's right, but it would at least give him
Speaker 1: the coadly doesn't even know. Professor Arkis doesn't even know
Speaker 1: what I said to begin with, since she walked in later.
Speaker 1: But he gave a great answer. Actually what they answer,
Speaker 1: You are right?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't want to get away off of that.
Speaker 1: I mean subject this is this is an interesting question.
Speaker 1: So let me just if you if I may say
Speaker 1: one thing about this right the reason lawfully present aliens
Speaker 1: were subject to treason prosecutions is because they were under
Speaker 1: the protection and within the allegiance of the sovereign, and
Speaker 1: they violated their allegiance by engaging an active treason, and
Speaker 1: so they were subject to the municipal law of treason,
Speaker 1: including the protections of the common law for treason prosecutions.
Speaker 1: If you came in contrary, if you were an enemy alien,
Speaker 1: if you were an invader, or someone who came contrary
Speaker 1: to the King's protection, you could not actually be prosecuted
Speaker 1: for treason. You were subject to martial law, to the
Speaker 1: law of nations, to the military law. So of course
Speaker 1: we could exercise power over you. You the king could
Speaker 1: subject them to his military court, to the power of
Speaker 1: his armies, but they were not subject to the protection
Speaker 1: of the ordinary legal rules. Lawfully present aliens were subject to,
Speaker 1: or alien friends were subject to. All sorts of questions
Speaker 1: emerged from this. Please, No, that's right.
Speaker 4: I just want to know this is you.
Speaker 1: Had no idea what he was getting into his question?
Speaker 4: What No, Roger, No, sorry.
Speaker 12: I'm just I was just looking for Costco and I said.
Speaker 4: I just wait. No, no, Roger, no, no, nope, we're
Speaker 4: not I know.
Speaker 1: What let's do you came to a Wendy's instead.
Speaker 4: I am I am on Nylon's sign on. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 4: well so let's uh let me do it this way.
Speaker 2: Let's do you know, thirty seconds is way too ambitious
Speaker 2: about Humphrey's executor. I always wish Humphrey's executor applied to
Speaker 2: Hubert Humphrey.
Speaker 4: But I know the other.
Speaker 2: Famous story about uh stant Avage is telling Hubert Humphrey
Speaker 2: he fought in the war. He was captured by the Germans.
Speaker 2: They have him in the interrogation room. They come in
Speaker 2: and say, you are Hubert Humphrey. We have vays of
Speaker 2: making you not talk.
Speaker 4: You're too young for that.
Speaker 8: One thing.
Speaker 9: It's one thing to say that this child would not
Speaker 9: be protected by the sovereign. It's quite a different question
Speaker 9: whether this child.
Speaker 8: Being born in.
Speaker 9: The domain of the sovereign is a citizens.
Speaker 1: I agree with that.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, moving on for listeners who don't know
Speaker 2: Humphrey's executors. Is the New Deal air case that said
Speaker 2: Franklin Roosevelt could not fire.
Speaker 4: I think it was the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
Speaker 2: By the way, I have great fun with my lefty
Speaker 2: friends saying, you know, Trump was just wants to do
Speaker 2: what Franklin Roosevelt want to do.
Speaker 4: What's the problem.
Speaker 1: So Robin's Humphrey's Executor was a nine zero opinion, because
Speaker 1: you've got because of all the four horsemen of the Arch,
Speaker 1: Conservatives wanted to stop Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policy, so
Speaker 1: they voted a lot with the Liberals to rewrite the Constitution.
Speaker 4: I missed that little detail of that significant.
Speaker 2: So look, I mean, just give our verdict without going
Speaker 2: through the lines here, and then I'm gonna bring Hadley
Speaker 2: in the new.
Speaker 12: Vectory because my friend George who wrote that opinion, and.
Speaker 7: Yes, okay, we didn't even get to the real of.
Speaker 4: Course we didn't. But you know, well there'll be more
Speaker 4: we didn't.
Speaker 12: Oh, come on, we're gonna don't Roger and I made
Speaker 12: Roger to me to do that.
Speaker 8: We're both natural wrong, yeah, rights men.
Speaker 4: But yeah, so it's eon.
Speaker 8: Is more of a natural right.
Speaker 12: But but Richard but Epstein did a fine piece on this, Richard, Okay, Richard,
Speaker 12: Richardstein did a fine piece on right. See I will no,
Speaker 12: I would do Okay, I love what you did today.
Speaker 4: Can get a text of that.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't check my phone okay, okay, oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good idea to leave me that John you walked
Speaker 2: out earlier.
Speaker 4: He's gonna get all kinds of crowd noise.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be a night when we start, Humphreys.
Speaker 4: Since I'll do that, I'll do that.
Speaker 12: So I have to go back and read my book
Speaker 12: on George Southland, right exactly, So.
Speaker 2: Wait, no, stop having I want I don't want to
Speaker 2: leave this in the green room. But Elon's right one,
Speaker 2: who's orderly? All right, So let's resume our discussion, uh
Speaker 2: wherever it left off on Humphrey's executor. I mean, just
Speaker 2: briefly that this is a case about can the executive
Speaker 2: remove someone? And what the court ruled in some strange
Speaker 2: way that well, the Federal Craik Commission it's not really executive,
Speaker 2: it's not really it's sort of halfway between.
Speaker 4: And I don't.
Speaker 2: Nobody buys that logic today, I don't think right.
Speaker 1: So Humphy's executor is obviously wrong on its reasoning. They said, well,
Speaker 1: the Federal Trade Commission exercises what we call quasi legislative
Speaker 1: quasi judicial power. There's no such power under the Constitution.
Speaker 1: If it's legislative power, Congress has to do it. The
Speaker 1: commission was in Congress. If it's judicial power, the courts
Speaker 1: have to do it. The commission wasn't a court. The
Speaker 1: question is, if it's executive power, which it was, what
Speaker 1: is the president's relationship to the principal officers running the agency?
Speaker 1: And the court upheld in Hemprey's executor what we call
Speaker 1: independent agencies. What makes them independence, we think is that
Speaker 1: they're insulated from the president's at will removal. In other words,
Speaker 1: the president must have cause to remove them, and mere
Speaker 1: policy disagreements are insufficient to remove them. So the question
Speaker 1: really now is okay, putting aside quasi nonsense, the CAUSI
Speaker 1: powers nonsense? What is the answer? What is the answer?
Speaker 1: And in my view I have quite a quirky idiosyncretic view.
Speaker 1: I think the president has an unfettered constitutional right to
Speaker 1: remove principal officers. It doesn't follow he has the constitutional
Speaker 1: right to direct and control them in the exercise of
Speaker 1: their discussion. Now, he can always fire them, but firing
Speaker 1: them comes at a higher political cost, which cost goes
Speaker 1: up even more to the degree we think it is
Speaker 1: impermissible to interfere in the duties, which maybe is why
Speaker 1: President Trump hasn't actually fired drum Powell. Maybe there isn't
Speaker 1: a FED exception. It's just we understand that it would
Speaker 1: be untoward or impermissible or contrary to Congress's intent to
Speaker 1: do this, and there's no constitutional right to interfere with
Speaker 1: the Fed's duties. So there's a real payoff between this distinction.
Speaker 1: But most foremost think I'm crazy.
Speaker 2: Well, I long thought that the proper term in the
Speaker 2: Constitution has not been carefully thought about.
Speaker 4: Necessary and proper. Okay, that's a subject for another day.
Speaker 1: I mean it is related to this question, sure, sure, right,
Speaker 1: though in this case it kind of begs the question,
Speaker 1: because if the president has the power to remove then
Speaker 1: it isn't necessary and proper to derogate from that power, right,
Speaker 1: So it's kind of question begging.
Speaker 2: It also occurs to me, I have to think about this,
Speaker 2: But you're saying that he might not be able to
Speaker 2: direct the people of points.
Speaker 4: It sounds to me a little bit like cabinet government.
Speaker 2: Parliamentary democracies have to think about that, which is okay.
Speaker 2: That may bring Hadley in at this point, and I
Speaker 2: think you will have interesting things to say about this.
Speaker 4: So Hadley this morning, Oh, let me preface it this.
Speaker 12: Way, or are we are we leaving this subject?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 4: No, I think it's just no.
Speaker 1: Elion is right.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 12: I think I think right now we look, it comes
Speaker 12: back to uh Scalia and Morrison versus LS. You know,
Speaker 12: he's the only one who took the line for the
Speaker 12: for the the complete complete executive power. I think uh
Speaker 12: suddenly just recognized this was the statute. And I think
Speaker 12: I think say in Morrison versus I think Renquist regardless
Speaker 12: as a political problem, that the that the the the
Speaker 12: the the the president did not have to acquiescens The
Speaker 12: president signed onto this, He signed onto this legislation. So
Speaker 12: if you want this fixed, Congress has to And of
Speaker 12: course it was fixed politically as soon as the Independent
Speaker 12: Council statue was applied.
Speaker 4: To Clinton, to Democrats and they and they lost her.
Speaker 12: They lost their passion for this thing. But you know,
Speaker 12: going back to that first book of mine, of the
Speaker 12: Marshall Plan, as George Will said, a book that has
Speaker 12: sold dozens. Okay that I'm out of my dissertation. Here
Speaker 12: here they're trying trying to get the Marshall Plan outside
Speaker 12: the State Department to make more sensitive to the interests
Speaker 12: of agriculture and business and so on.
Speaker 7: This is ever the move to take.
Speaker 12: Agencies out of the executive to make them more responsive
Speaker 12: to different kinds of constituencies. And the value of having
Speaker 12: it all in is that it forces the person to
Speaker 12: make a judgment just what is important?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 12: What is my stand in relation to taking all export
Speaker 12: controls away from the state Department?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 4: How much?
Speaker 12: What is worth to me here?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 7: What is what's the rank of my own judgments here?
Speaker 4: But what is important to me?
Speaker 12: But by bringing everything under the control of the executive,
Speaker 12: you force them to you force them to face that
Speaker 12: kind of question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, but I want to change subjects. Okay, great, Uh,
Speaker 2: there's frame set up this way. So there's a we're
Speaker 2: talking Friday night. There's a panel tomorrow on the question
Speaker 2: of should parents have a right to control or know
Speaker 2: about and make decisions about the gender choices of their children?
Speaker 4: And that's not quite the question.
Speaker 1: The question is there a constitutional right?
Speaker 2: Okay, well to know, Okay, that doesn't actually change the
Speaker 2: the way I'm.
Speaker 4: Going to make it to a question. That's the question.
Speaker 4: That's the question.
Speaker 2: Okay, Okay, So I was imprecise, that's fine, But There's
Speaker 2: been some criticism of it, saying, wait a minute, why
Speaker 2: are we debating whether there's a legal right to do
Speaker 2: that when we ought to be four square debating Why
Speaker 2: are we talking about this question in the first place,
Speaker 2: because what are we taught?
Speaker 4: We're talking about something radical and insane.
Speaker 2: And this gets back to what you and Jerry Bradley
Speaker 2: were saying this morning at breakfast, Hadley, which.
Speaker 4: Is, uh, you know, we're well, you know, there's a
Speaker 4: legal reason, all the rest.
Speaker 2: Of that, but we're abandoning the moral ground of human
Speaker 2: nature and saying, wait a minute, this is so far
Speaker 2: out of bounds that why is this a problem at all?
Speaker 12: He's going back to the argument we had over this
Speaker 12: umatic grammatic case about the.
Speaker 2: Maybe you disagree with you guys go you guys go,
Speaker 2: Sorry I interrupted.
Speaker 12: No, no, no, you set it up here with this
Speaker 12: chromatic case about a year ago. We're arguing over this
Speaker 12: that just Sutton for the Sixth Circuit or a fine
Speaker 12: opinion sustaining the law in tendency even though it barred
Speaker 12: those surgeries, even though the surgeries were ordered up. Five
Speaker 12: parents who were responding to what they thought the felt
Speaker 12: needs of their kids work and some of us took
Speaker 12: the line that, Okay, you want to argue on the
Speaker 12: base of the legislature making adjustment and kinds of the
Speaker 12: harms you think may arise from these disfiguring surgeries. But
Speaker 12: there's a there's a deeper reason here that is that
Speaker 12: the whole scheme is predicated on falsehoods. There's no way
Speaker 12: search you can convert males and the females.
Speaker 4: It feels meant to male.
Speaker 12: These are cosmetic surgeries with vast disfiguring and permanent effects.
Speaker 12: And so the question what if we're simply casting this
Speaker 12: as a judgment of the legislature, then the question we're
Speaker 12: posing this, can we do no better than an opinion?
Speaker 12: There will be the equivalent of a concurring opinion in
Speaker 12: BUCKFERSUS Bill on compulsory sterilization of thought. Look, this hoses line.
Speaker 12: This lawless passed by a legislature composed of literate lawyers
Speaker 12: working with a sense of what's been accomplished by medicine
Speaker 12: and our time with it advanced sense of ugenics. I
Speaker 12: completely the problem say arguments, Yeah, you could why not
Speaker 12: take why not look for the most compelling ground of
Speaker 12: the argument. Now, to our surprise, we heard from Scremtti
Speaker 12: later saying, you know, we think you're right that we should,
Speaker 12: but we were We didn't think that court, the judges
Speaker 12: could handle that, so now they wanted maybe we should
Speaker 12: have gone back to the web. Is to appeal to
Speaker 12: an inescapable objective truth about the way we're I was
Speaker 12: just recalling the Congregation of the Doctor of Faith with
Speaker 12: Ratzingers saying, there's not always been an italy or hungry,
Speaker 12: but as long as there are are human beings, there
Speaker 12: must be males and fem males. That's how we must speak.
Speaker 12: So because why not appeal to an a This gets
Speaker 12: to to Stay's point before I argue about the rights
Speaker 12: of parents, what about this thing that you're asking them
Speaker 12: to agree to?
Speaker 4: Show's over.
Speaker 2: No John has returned to the chat.
Speaker 4: We've been getting so many speakers. I'm exhausted.
Speaker 2: Okay, Hadley is winding up and never again rebuttal, I
Speaker 2: just want to I want to hear.
Speaker 3: I want to just hear Hadley tell some good ethnic
Speaker 3: jokes to close out the friendly podcast.
Speaker 4: And he's got all kinds. He's the funniest damn ones
Speaker 4: I ever heard of my life.
Speaker 1: So can I impose a question to you.
Speaker 4: Don't go away.
Speaker 1: So in Somerset's case, and which was cited by numerous
Speaker 1: others in the founding and is understood to be correct,
Speaker 1: they said, slavery is so odious a contrary to the
Speaker 1: next law, that it could only be supported by unmistakable
Speaker 1: positive law. We have unmistakable positive law in various states
Speaker 1: permitting the genetic mutilation of children, which is absolutely insane,
Speaker 1: contrary to the natural law. And I have all sorts
Speaker 1: of things I can say about for that, forbidding, for permitting,
Speaker 1: for admitting. Yeah, And the question tomorrow is whether there's
Speaker 1: a constitutional right to be for parents notwithstanding such laws
Speaker 1: that So it's actually two things. Have you presume that
Speaker 1: you have the laws that allow this, and then that
Speaker 1: the parents don't get told, both of which seem to
Speaker 1: be quite contrary to the natural law, because of course
Speaker 1: parents have a right to know everything about their children,
Speaker 1: if you, I think, just think about it, right, resort
Speaker 1: to natural reason, natural law, or what have you. But
Speaker 1: just as slavery could be supported by unmistakable positive law,
Speaker 1: because it was, there was no clause prohibiting it until
Speaker 1: the thirteenth Amendment. Where's the clause that prohibits this. You
Speaker 1: must rely on notions of substantive process things that are
Speaker 1: deeply rooted in our history and tradition, and maybe parental
Speaker 1: knowledge of these sorts of things is deeply rooted. I
Speaker 1: don't know. But also there's a whole originalist strain that
Speaker 1: argues there is no substantive due process at all in
Speaker 1: the Constitution, that it's an oxymoron, that's a misconstruction, and
Speaker 1: so it is. All I want to say is it's
Speaker 1: going to be a much more interesting debate tomorrow on
Speaker 1: the constitutional question. As Scalia used to say, stupid but constitutional.
Speaker 1: This might be one of those examples. Right, if you
Speaker 1: just resort to the natural reasoning I think Hadley, then
Speaker 1: you think Scaley was wrong about that, which I think
Speaker 1: you do think Skeey was wrong about that.
Speaker 4: Look, there was a letter.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not taking out a position. I'm
Speaker 1: playing devil's advocate.
Speaker 10: You.
Speaker 4: No, of course that's what we want.
Speaker 1: I might be I might think these things too, but
Speaker 1: you know, I'll keep that ambiguous.
Speaker 2: But I could be wrong, as Dennis Miller used to say,
Speaker 2: that great jurist anyway.
Speaker 4: No, there was last word.
Speaker 12: Goodbye to the Queen. No there was a letter to
Speaker 12: the Wall Street Journal wi Back for a father saying
Speaker 12: that he's been threatened with withdrawal of custody because he's
Speaker 12: seeking console for child in California, seeking couse for childs
Speaker 12: on the going this confusion about sexuality and gender. I
Speaker 12: never thought. I never thought I'd be living in a
Speaker 12: regime which was now. People say, are are they not
Speaker 12: those rights?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 12: Schoolly would say, oh, those are substance of due process.
Speaker 12: We simply brought them in in the nineteen twenties, right,
Speaker 12: and those there's something deficient about those rights now. Thomas Cooley,
Speaker 12: the great Commas Cooley was the due process clause is
Speaker 12: that is that device which the judges can bring in
Speaker 12: those part times of natural law that we never thought
Speaker 12: we'd have to special who never thought we'd have to
Speaker 12: specify the right of parents to.
Speaker 4: Be informed about what is done.
Speaker 12: But at the same time found this also inder stood
Speaker 12: for every liberty, there's a form of license, the fact
Speaker 12: that parents may have liberty to do things with their children.
Speaker 12: Not think they would have a right to do anything
Speaker 12: with their children.
Speaker 1: I'll just end by saying, if we're crazy enough to
Speaker 1: have laws that allow this, then the judges can't save us.
Speaker 1: Aren't we too far in that respect? We need another
Speaker 1: whiskey for this conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know, but this is like having Lucretia here.
Speaker 2: We've gone really long, and so John, will you.
Speaker 4: Wrap us up with the usual?
Speaker 3: Great great that Elon and Hadley wrap this up? And Lucretia,
Speaker 3: where are you? Are you out there polishing your guns
Speaker 3: alone in the dark and the basement and looking at
Speaker 3: pictures of the bushes and the Romsfelds, Reagans and Chenese.
Speaker 4: Anyway, we miss you and.
Speaker 3: This out always drink your whiskey, meat, buy more books.
Speaker 3: And Steve, what bizarre AI think do you have for
Speaker 3: us today?
Speaker 4: I got nothing for that? But who needs it? You're
Speaker 4: the chaos of the federal society?
Speaker 1: Anyone needs? Oh?
Speaker 4: Are you right?
Speaker 3: Is a chaos of curs, a break in rocks and
Speaker 3: the Madson about.
Speaker 2: The lone lo On about the line of the love.
Speaker 6: I needed money because in loan about the line loves about.
Speaker 1: The line loves.
Speaker 2: I love loving, I guess.
Speaker 4: My Ricochet
Speaker 8: Join the conversation.