Speaker 1: Sport is sponsored by Progressive Insurance. Progressive makes bundling easy
Speaker 1: and affordable. Get a multi policy discount by combining your motorcycle, RV, boat,
Speaker 1: ATV and more all your protection in one place. Bundle
Speaker 1: and save at Progressive dot com. That's Progressive dot com.
Speaker 2: H here's a quick weather today. We're gonna have partly
Speaker 2: cloudy skies around noontime. We have an opportunity for some
Speaker 2: isolated stores and they say to expect downpours. Today's high
Speaker 2: eighty five Ray moves out of a night. It's gotta
Speaker 2: be a little bit muggy sixty seven for a low
Speaker 2: eighty six with dry conditions tomorrow and partly cloudy skies
Speaker 2: be clouds of night sixty seven and partly cloudy Friday
Speaker 2: with the high of eighty eight. Right now seventy degrees.
Speaker 2: Time for a traffic up day. Chuck Ingram from.
Speaker 3: The UCUT Traffics Center. Nearly sixty percent of Americans waiting
Speaker 3: on an organ transplant are from multicultural communities. Give the
Speaker 3: Gift of life, become an organ donor. All rights floor
Speaker 3: a living donation at uc health dot com. Slayers transplant
Speaker 3: crews continue to work with an accident at northbound seventy
Speaker 3: I have and Sharon they're on the right shoulder. Minimal
Speaker 3: delays to get by northbound seventy one. There's an accident
Speaker 3: above Montgomery Road in Keemwood on the right hand side.
Speaker 3: Also cleaning up on four at the eastbound two seventy
Speaker 3: five ramp.
Speaker 4: All clear on eastbound.
Speaker 3: Two seventy five at forty two in Sharonville from an
Speaker 3: earlier accident. It is International clown Week, so maybe you
Speaker 3: can celebrate by dressing up like Saint Boso or your
Speaker 3: favorite Midwestern town mayor maybe even your favorite congressman like
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer. Or how about an MLB manager like Yankees
Speaker 3: manager Aaron Boone. Well, no, wait, that's not really fair
Speaker 3: because they haven't had their judge. We've got ours, and
Speaker 3: he's coming up next. Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs
Speaker 3: the talk station.
Speaker 2: Hey thirty see this, he gave that a lot of thought.
Speaker 2: Judge ed of Paul.
Speaker 5: Clever, very very clever. If you follow what he's talking about.
Speaker 5: Mentioning me in the same breath as Aaron Judge is
Speaker 5: exhilarating for me.
Speaker 2: Ah pro props to you know. Sometimes yeah, chech Czechsota
Speaker 2: half does it. You know, it's National pretzel Day. So
Speaker 2: here's Judge of Pulatano. Whatever. That was a good one,
Speaker 2: though I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to go
Speaker 2: over and commend him if I can get him out
Speaker 2: of his his his studio parked in the back in
Speaker 2: the corner there, Judge Ennen of Palitano. It's always a
Speaker 2: real pleasure to have you on the program. And the
Speaker 2: subject matter of your column the runaway Texas Democrats. I'm
Speaker 2: sorry every time I read an article about the Democrats, uh,
Speaker 2: denying the quorum and running away to Illinois or wherever
Speaker 2: they run. I think amNY Python and the Holy Grail
Speaker 2: with the scene with with well a couple of scenes
Speaker 2: where they run away, run away. Not sure if you're
Speaker 2: familiar with the movie, but I can't deny myself the
Speaker 2: opportunity to laugh at that. But your column points out,
Speaker 2: at least legally they're allowed to run away.
Speaker 5: They are, they are in the Congress, and the state
Speaker 5: legislature of Texas can't stop them because the right of
Speaker 5: every person listening to us now, they're right of every
Speaker 5: person anywhere to cross interstate lines unimpeded. And I'm not
Speaker 5: talking about obeying traffic laws. Are paying a toll on
Speaker 5: the George Washington Bridge is a natural, fundamental right. And
Speaker 5: you know, I can't get into the politics of what's
Speaker 5: going on in Texas except that it's going to start
Speaker 5: a firestorm because California is going to do the same
Speaker 5: thing for the Democrats and so on New Jersey. However,
Speaker 5: these people have the right to leave the state, and
Speaker 5: the Governor of Texas, frustrated though he is, cannot have
Speaker 5: them arrested.
Speaker 2: Now, you see, I mean it's complicated issue for me.
Speaker 2: I guess there was one component that would sort of
Speaker 2: criminalize their behavior if they got paid to leave, which
Speaker 2: is a different element than just them walking out to
Speaker 2: deprive the quorum.
Speaker 5: But there may be Texas laws against that kind of compensation.
Speaker 5: And the governor has intimated that if someone is paying
Speaker 5: your expenses to leave, or if you've raised funds for
Speaker 5: that purpose under Citizens United, a Supreme Court opinion that
Speaker 5: basically says raising money for politics is the equivalent of
Speaker 5: free speech.
Speaker 4: I think they can do it.
Speaker 5: Can Texas ex post facto declare their behavior to be criminal? No,
Speaker 5: the constitution prohibits that. So what started out as a
Speaker 5: bit of a stunt. Let's find a way to get
Speaker 5: five more Republicans out of Texas, and then morphed into
Speaker 5: deep and profound frustration. Sixty Democrats are leaving their jobs,
Speaker 5: their family, and their responsibility by leaving the state. Now
Speaker 5: becomes a very serious constitutiontional issue.
Speaker 4: And that's why I wrote about this.
Speaker 5: The right to travel is a fundamental liberty. It is
Speaker 5: up there with speech, assembly, religion, self defense, just as
Speaker 5: if it were articulated in the Bill of Rights. That's
Speaker 5: not me, that's the Supreme Court of the United States
Speaker 5: in nineteen sixty nine in this case Shapiro versus Thompson.
Speaker 2: Well, in your column, and I'm glad you did this
Speaker 2: because something that's rarely ever mentioned. Of course, you point
Speaker 2: out that it's rarely, if ever addressed in any case law,
Speaker 2: the Ninth Amendment. And you point out or I recognize
Speaker 2: that Madison couldn't like codify all natural rights that we enjoy,
Speaker 2: because you know, sitting down and sort of you try
Speaker 2: to think of of all the fundamental human rights we
Speaker 2: have would be a difficult chore, and you might leave
Speaker 2: one out and inadvertently not included. Ergo, that wouldn't be
Speaker 2: a fundamental right. But the Ninth Amendment protects all of those,
Speaker 2: and yet it's rarely ever mentioned. Much in the same
Speaker 2: way the Tenth Amendment. I mean, you know, all rights
Speaker 2: not expressly reserved of the federal government reside in the states.
Speaker 2: I think that seems to be a very powerful tool
Speaker 2: for states to fight back against federal government control and
Speaker 2: entering to areas of the law that they have no
Speaker 2: authority of the Constitution to enter into.
Speaker 4: Correct Justice Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 5: Is the excuse me, the current champion of the Tenth
Speaker 5: Amendment on the Supreme Court, and every once in a
Speaker 5: while he has four of his colleagues agree with him,
Speaker 5: and then these things stop the Feds in their tracks.
Speaker 5: So I don't know how this is going to end.
Speaker 5: The last two or three times they did this, they
Speaker 5: got sick and tired of being away from their families
Speaker 5: and away from their jobs. They came home, they fulfilled
Speaker 5: the choir, and the Republicans got what they wanted. The
Speaker 5: same thing may happen again. The big picture is this
Speaker 5: will cause an equal and opposite reaction, and if you
Speaker 5: do the math, the Democrats are likely to benefit more
Speaker 5: from this than the Republicans. Because there are more Republican
Speaker 5: seats in democratic states that could easily be turned into
Speaker 5: Democratic seats by moving the margins.
Speaker 4: Is this moral? Is this fair? Is it constitutional? Well?
Speaker 5: The Supreme Court says it's constitutional unless it's based on race.
Speaker 5: If it's not based on race, it's constitutional.
Speaker 2: The gerrymandering that's going on, you're referring to.
Speaker 5: Correct correct, correct, And because you use the word jerrymandering
Speaker 5: brings us back to Elbridge Jerry and Massachusetts legislator who
Speaker 5: was first had this blamed on him in the era
Speaker 5: of Thomas Jefferson. So this has been going on for
Speaker 5: two hundred and twenty years.
Speaker 2: Well, quite often jerymandering is done specifically in order to
Speaker 2: create race based jurisdictions, you know, protect the communities, or
Speaker 2: you know, incorporate all like for example, black people incorporating
Speaker 2: them all into one general district so that insures.
Speaker 5: They know they'll have a repent senative in Congress, right, right,
Speaker 5: That too can be unconstitutional if it impermissively disfranchises whites.
Speaker 5: So there's really no end to this. The Supreme Court
Speaker 5: hates these cases, most of these race based cases. The
Speaker 5: court is all over the place and hasn't given any
Speaker 5: clear guidance. The best guidance I can articulate is what
Speaker 5: I said a few minutes ago. The legislatures can draw
Speaker 5: the line anyway they want.
Speaker 4: As long as it's not race based.
Speaker 5: There is whether a case involving North Carolina somebody versus
Speaker 5: Charlotte Mecklenberg. I forget the full name of the case,
Speaker 5: where the congressional district was the width of a highway
Speaker 5: because they wanted to connect A to B and they
Speaker 5: have to be contiguous. Yeah, so the contiguity the connection
Speaker 5: was literally a highway on which of course no one
Speaker 5: lived it. Splame court said you can't do that. That
Speaker 5: is not a valid apportion.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess I'm sort of curious to know whether
Speaker 2: this is something that could be addressed so they're allowed
Speaker 2: to redistrict. There's no doubt this is a battle of
Speaker 2: attrition that ultimately the Republicans of Texas will win because
Speaker 2: the Democrats will eventually go home. There will eventually be
Speaker 2: a quorum, as you pointed out. But the crisis that's
Speaker 2: created by this and this whole idea of redistricting and gerrymandering,
Speaker 2: is this something that's worthy of or can be addressed
Speaker 2: by Congress. He said almost, yes.
Speaker 5: Yes, Congress. Well, Congress could prohibit redistricting other than right
Speaker 5: after a census census. In fact, a two conservative Republican
Speaker 5: members of the House their names now escaping. We have
Speaker 5: introduced legislation to prohibit these midterm changes. But in terms
Speaker 5: of how the districts are crafted, Madison left that to
Speaker 5: the states, intentionally left that to the states. This very
Speaker 5: little Congress can do without confronting, as you pointed out
Speaker 5: a few minutes ago, Brian, the tenth Amendment, because this
Speaker 5: issue of who you send to Congress and how you
Speaker 5: send them is expressly reserved, expressly reserved to the states.
Speaker 2: Now for those who are struggling to read through their
Speaker 2: Constitution to find the right to the freedom to travel
Speaker 2: as a fundamental right, it doesn't specifically say that, though,
Speaker 2: does it. That's the ninth Amendment?
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 5: Correct, The ninth Amendment, which is the catch all which
Speaker 5: those of us who believe in the natural law argue,
Speaker 5: was Madison's articulation of natural rights. Rarely has you know
Speaker 5: I wrote a treatise about this called Freedom's Anchor, An
Speaker 5: Introduction to Natural Law in American Constitutional History, and my researchers,
Speaker 5: and I looked at every Supreme Court opinion that expressly
Speaker 5: accepts or actually rejects the principle of natural rights. There's
Speaker 5: very few of them, Brian right, very very few. There
Speaker 5: aren't more than a handful, and most of them are
Speaker 5: pre Civil War. So the concept of natural rights, though
Speaker 5: these rights are natural to every human being, is something
Speaker 5: that the Supreme Court really doesn't.
Speaker 4: Want to touch.
Speaker 5: When they do touch it, they don't call it natural rights.
Speaker 5: And I said to Justice Scalia once, well why are
Speaker 5: you calling this a pre political right rather than a
Speaker 5: natural right?
Speaker 4: Because without natural law stuff, it's too Catholic. It's too Catholic.
Speaker 4: Too Catholic, you go to mass epartunity. How the others
Speaker 4: won't go for it.
Speaker 2: I can't believe a man of his intellectual level could
Speaker 2: even turn to that as being too Catholic. Natural rights,
Speaker 2: those exist for people of all political stripes, even for
Speaker 2: atheists and agnostic folks.
Speaker 4: Right. You know, I was.
Speaker 5: Teaching when I was teaching at Brooklyn Law School, tour
Speaker 5: to of course in jurisprudence, and a young man came
Speaker 5: up to me. He said, Judge, I went to Catholic
Speaker 5: grammar school.
Speaker 4: I went to a Catholic college.
Speaker 5: I heard about natural wall till I'm blue in the face.
Speaker 5: Now I'm out of law school that's primarily Jewish, and
Speaker 5: I have to hear about it again.
Speaker 2: Only in America, Only in America. Oh, we are blessed
Speaker 2: every week here in the greatest Cincinnti area, well actually
Speaker 2: nation wide, since I got people from all different states
Speaker 2: tuning into the program every morning. But we're blessed to
Speaker 2: have you on regardless of where you're listening from Judge
Speaker 2: and Neapolitano every Wednesday at eight thirty here in the
Speaker 2: fifty five carsing Morning Show. Get his column comes out
Speaker 2: tonight at midnight. The runaway Texas Democrats who you got
Speaker 2: me talking to today on judging Thooday.
Speaker 5: I have Scott Ridder at one o'clock today, who's about
Speaker 5: to argue that some of the president's foreign policy moves
Speaker 5: there deeply dangerous, like sending nuclear submarines closer to Russia.
Speaker 5: Max Bloomenthal, who will make the case about the starvation.
Speaker 4: In God and Phil Giraldi?
Speaker 5: What is the intelligence community up to next? Why was
Speaker 5: an mi I six British intel agent arrested by the
Speaker 5: Russians in Ukraine. So this is the stuff we're talking
Speaker 5: about this afternoon.
Speaker 2: Great material and subject matter. We'll be listening to Judging Freedom,
Speaker 2: and of course next Tuesday or next Wednesday with another
Speaker 2: edition here on the fifty five Carsing Morning Show. God
Speaker 2: bless you, your honor, have a great run, and all.
Speaker 5: The best to you and your family, your listeners, and
Speaker 5: to Streker who really puts this show together all the time.
Speaker 4: I see him down there at the bottom of the.
Speaker 2: Screen without Joe the show don't go oh catchphrase we
Speaker 2: got going on here, and I appreciate you recognize him
Speaker 2: because he is a critical element to the fifty five
Speaker 2: care Sing Morning Show. Love you brother.
Speaker 4: We'll talk next week. Have a great forty two.
Speaker 2: Right now, fifty five car see the talk stations stagraund
Speaker 2: We've got more to talk about. Joe's got the phone
Speaker 2: lines open. You feel free to chime in if you
Speaker 2: care too. I'll be right backed fifty five KRC