Speaker 1: Hey, thirty four or fifty five, cair Seed de talk
Speaker 1: station had a very happy Wednesday to you and the
Speaker 1: heels of the Congressman Thomas Massy.
Speaker 2: Fingers crossed.
Speaker 1: We get our technical details workout, Joe streckers out, Sean's
Speaker 1: filling in? Do we have audio because I can see
Speaker 1: the judge? Can I hear the judge? Welcome back, Judge Anapolitano.
Speaker 3: All right, good morning, Brian, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Thank God? Let me pause and say a prayer to
Speaker 1: the dear Lord that it is working. Good morning, your honor.
Speaker 1: It's always great having you on sweat and bullets there
Speaker 1: for a little while, Your Honor.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad that it's working.
Speaker 3: I'm afraid to hang up my phone because I don't
Speaker 3: know if we're talking through.
Speaker 2: The link or through the phone.
Speaker 1: Well, let's keep your phone on because the content of
Speaker 1: your column, I think is extremely important and I really
Speaker 1: suspected you would go down this road, and I just
Speaker 1: had a conversation with Congressman Massy about it. This whole
Speaker 1: concept of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy seven is what allegedly gives Donald Trump the authority
Speaker 1: to impose these tarrants.
Speaker 3: Well, the statute is the basis for the authority. What
Speaker 3: Congressman Massey and Senator Paul have been complaining bitterly about
Speaker 3: is that we shouldn't be running the government under emergency
Speaker 3: authority when there's no emergency. The statute itself defines an
Speaker 3: emergency as a sudden and unexpected event that adversely affects
Speaker 3: national security or economic prosperity.
Speaker 2: The stated purpose for the emergency.
Speaker 3: I won't go through the history with all the fentanyl nonsense,
Speaker 3: but the stated purpose for the emergency is the imbalance
Speaker 3: of trade.
Speaker 2: Brian.
Speaker 3: We've had an imbalance of trade since nineteen thirty four,
Speaker 3: so by definition, it's not a sudden and unexpected event.
Speaker 3: So there's no basis for the emergency. Therefore there's no
Speaker 3: basis and no authority for him to impose the tarrant.
Speaker 3: The tariff is a sales tax. You want to have
Speaker 3: a sales tax, Congress has to impose it. Congressman Massey
Speaker 3: and Senator Paul are one hundred percent to correct. For one,
Speaker 3: the Democrats are on their side because they hate Trump,
Speaker 3: but a half dozen Republicans and that's it.
Speaker 2: Everybody else has cowt and afraid of Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, this reminds me, I mean dead on
Speaker 1: what we used to argue about when I was practicing
Speaker 1: litigation for pollution liability. The coverage came about for pollution
Speaker 1: liability for sudden and unexpected releases of toxins, and during
Speaker 1: the circle of litigation, all these companies went back to
Speaker 1: their insurance policies for pollution that they had been releasing
Speaker 1: into the world for literally decades, claiming it was sudden
Speaker 1: and unexpected, and that became the key to the litigation.
Speaker 1: Some judges said, no, for things that have been going
Speaker 1: on for years and years and years, you can't define
Speaker 1: that as sudden and unexpected. It has to happen in
Speaker 1: a sudden and unexpected way. So I understand the point.
Speaker 2: Year.
Speaker 3: So there is a challenge made by a small stationery
Speaker 3: company which imports its paper from China in Federal court
Speaker 3: in Florida. Will a federal judge have the clarity of
Speaker 3: vision and professional courage to enjoin the tariffs? Who knows
Speaker 3: Supreme Court is letting Donald Trump get away with all
Speaker 3: kinds of things on the emergency docket. The decision to
Speaker 3: enjoy Judge Bozburg the other day was no decision.
Speaker 2: There was no opinion. You don't know what they're thinking.
Speaker 3: Was it was an opinion, It was a ruling by
Speaker 3: five of them, no opinion. Because they did it in
Speaker 3: the emergency connection, will they do the same thing. It's
Speaker 3: very very dangerous for jurisprudence in this country for the
Speaker 3: highest court in the land just to come down with
Speaker 3: a ruling without giving a basis for it. I suspect
Speaker 3: the same thing happen here. However, this is causing real
Speaker 3: and serious damage, a six trillion dollar capital loss. Thus,
Speaker 3: farm or only into this thing by a week, and
Speaker 3: the Chinese or the sales tax on goods from China
Speaker 3: is now one hundred and four percent.
Speaker 2: That doesn't kick in until today.
Speaker 3: So will Joe six Pack in his Mega cap going
Speaker 3: to Walmart to buy a toaster and expecting to spend
Speaker 3: thirty dollars buy it for sixty dollars or will he
Speaker 3: go without a toaster? Or will he search in Vain
Speaker 3: for an American toaster? Or will Joe six Pack in
Speaker 3: his Maga cap going to a Ford dealership in Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: How will we react with sticker shock.
Speaker 3: When the dealer says we have to add another three
Speaker 3: thousand dollars because that's what Ford had to pay in
Speaker 3: sales tax on the parts.
Speaker 2: That were aid that were put into your car.
Speaker 3: Because a lot of the car the parts come from Mexico, Canada,
Speaker 3: and South Korea.
Speaker 2: This will be the same Joe six pact that she'ed
Speaker 2: Donald Trump to the victory.
Speaker 1: Well, and I guess I have to ask because you
Speaker 1: and I have talked about this in the context of
Speaker 1: the War Powers Act. The International Economic Emergency Powers Act
Speaker 1: is a delegation of the power of the purse from
Speaker 1: Congress to the executive branch, granted pursuing to certain limitations
Speaker 1: like this sudden, unexpected emergency event. But is that in
Speaker 1: and of itself as nineteen seventy seven Act constitutional in
Speaker 1: your mind?
Speaker 3: In my mind, it is not constitutional because it is
Speaker 3: delegating away a core function of the Congress, which.
Speaker 2: Is to raise taxes.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is so core to the Congress that
Speaker 3: the Constitution actually says taxes must emanate in the House
Speaker 3: of Representatives. It is as clear as can be that
Speaker 3: this power resides solely with Congress, and Congress can't give
Speaker 3: away a core power. Could the president allow the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court to run the military. Of course, not even if
Speaker 3: he wanted to, even if the court accepted that power.
Speaker 3: It's the same thing. The president can't impose taxes even
Speaker 3: if Congress wants him to. Where does that bring us
Speaker 3: to taxation without representation? That's where it brings us. We
Speaker 3: didn't elect a president to raise taxes. We elect that
Speaker 3: a Congress to address.
Speaker 2: The tax rates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I hear what you're saying, and of course
Speaker 1: you know my listeners like, yeah, but it's so unfair,
Speaker 1: and it's been so unfair, and we have these unfair
Speaker 1: advantage because all these other countries can manufacture these goods
Speaker 1: at a fraction of what it cost to manufacturing in America.
Speaker 1: That's why the toaster is only thirty five bucks when
Speaker 1: it comes to China, because they have no pollution rules,
Speaker 1: they have no ocean rules, they have no rules period,
Speaker 1: so they can churn it out on slave labor. We've
Speaker 1: got all these other things we've got to comply with,
Speaker 1: so we can't even make a toaster that Joe sixpack
Speaker 1: can afford. And I understand that from frustration, and we
Speaker 1: learned a lot of lessons, hard lessons from COVID that
Speaker 1: we just don't manufacture. Some critically important goods here in
Speaker 1: the United States, most notably in a time of war
Speaker 1: when we couldn't get pharmaceuticals for our own men and
Speaker 1: women in uniform. But that doesn't change the Constitution. And
Speaker 1: there's that pesky constitution, and you're in my clinging to
Speaker 1: it that tends to stand in a way, especially in
Speaker 1: the face of a divided do nothing Congress.
Speaker 3: It is an intentional impediment to tyranny. And just a
Speaker 3: Scalia argued he didn't always carry the day, or it
Speaker 3: often was in a descent, that these core functions cannot
Speaker 3: be delegated away because that leads to tyranny, It leads
Speaker 3: to an imbalance of power, It leads to too much
Speaker 3: power in the hands of one branch of government. But
Speaker 3: Congress today in twenty twenty five, is frustrated over what
Speaker 3: its predecessor in nineteen seventy seven did. Senator Paul got
Speaker 3: a majority of senators vote to nullify the declaration of
Speaker 3: an emergency on the theory that we just articulated he
Speaker 3: would need sixty seven in order to overwrite a presidential
Speaker 3: veto The House leadership is totally wedded to the president,
Speaker 3: even though a majority of members of the House.
Speaker 2: That's the Democrats plus.
Speaker 3: The Freedom Caucus are against this. They won't even let
Speaker 3: this come to the floor for a vote for fear
Speaker 3: will embarrass them. They couldn't care less about the Constitution.
Speaker 3: They couldn't care less about Joe sixpack. They only care
Speaker 3: about their relationship to the man in the Oval office.
Speaker 1: Well, if you had to leave read Tea leaves on this,
Speaker 1: this sounds like it is right for a judicial review
Speaker 1: ultimately end up in the lap of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Do you see that happening. Do you see this getting
Speaker 1: resolved by way of resolving the issue, maybe the core
Speaker 1: issue of whether this nineteen seventy seven Act is even
Speaker 1: in and of itself constitutional, or are we just going
Speaker 1: to go along with stuff the.
Speaker 3: I would hope that the judiciary would have the courage
Speaker 3: to do the right thing, or even the wrong thing.
Speaker 2: I just hope that they would rule it would be reprehensible.
Speaker 3: If the Supreme Court validates the nineteen seventy seven Act,
Speaker 3: well then you might end up with judges running the military,
Speaker 3: because then you can just exchange assignments as if you
Speaker 3: were in grade school. I don't want to do this
Speaker 3: book report. You take mine and I'll take yours. You
Speaker 3: can't do that with the constitution that destroys human liberty,
Speaker 3: that turns the president into a tyrant.
Speaker 2: Did you hear.
Speaker 3: What he said on Air Force one the other day
Speaker 3: and when Carolyn Levitt repeated with thinking of finding ways
Speaker 3: to deport Americans?
Speaker 2: Good God, where are we going?
Speaker 3: Well, Congress sits on its button, does nothing.
Speaker 1: Yes, that results in an imperial presidency. You and I
Speaker 1: have reset conclusions many times over the many years that
Speaker 1: you and I have been talking. Well, at least the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court recognize that the people that are trying to
Speaker 1: kick out of the country are entitled to a habeus
Speaker 1: corpus hearing and a due process hearing before you know that.
Speaker 3: That was a very sort of sneaky thing that the
Speaker 3: Court did. They made it look like they were giving
Speaker 3: Trump what he wanted by getting this case away from
Speaker 3: his beast in the night, Judge Boseburg, but requiring a
Speaker 3: hearing for everybody they want to deport. They have three
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand Venezuelanes.
Speaker 2: They want to deport.
Speaker 3: Now they have to hold a hearing on each one.
Speaker 3: In Britain's evidence on each one.
Speaker 1: Hey, but that's exactly the argument you made last week.
Speaker 1: That's what the Constitution requires, so right, and it requires.
Speaker 3: No less than due process whenever it wants to take
Speaker 3: anybody's liberty, no matter who you are, what.
Speaker 2: They claim you've done.
Speaker 3: In the meantime, an innocent man sits in a hell
Speaker 3: hole in Al Salvador, and the president and his people
Speaker 3: couldn't care less.
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of people my listening audience couldn't care
Speaker 1: less about the concept of due process in this particular context.
Speaker 1: So I've been defending.
Speaker 3: The government comes after them, then they will appreciated process,
Speaker 3: and then they will appreciate an independent of isiary.
Speaker 1: And that's why I've been defending you on that point
Speaker 1: for the last week. Judge Editor Politano, judging freedom. Who
Speaker 1: are you talking to today, your honor?
Speaker 3: I have Pepe Escobar from Thailand. He just returned from
Speaker 3: a week in Yemen. Phil Giraldi and Max Bloomenthal exciting
Speaker 3: days here, no question about it. I shouldn't get angry
Speaker 3: because this is all good for our business.
Speaker 1: Yes it is. I've got my popcorn now waiting for
Speaker 1: all this to get resolved. And there's no end of
Speaker 1: content that you and I can talk about each and
Speaker 1: every week. God bless you for coming on the program.
Speaker 1: I appreciate what you do, your honor. I'll look forward
Speaker 1: to next week.
Speaker 2: Thank you for defending me. Brian, all the best, Take care.
Speaker 1: As long as you're defending the Constitution, I'll defend you.
Speaker 1: It's eight forty six here fifty five KRC Detok Station.
Speaker 1: They'll away doctor J Rissover about health. He's going to
Speaker 1: be doing an empower you seven or tomorrow night and
Speaker 1: getting at seven. We'll get the details on that from
Speaker 1: doctor J. Coming up next fifty five KRC. Get ready
Speaker 1: for