Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on exit FDRLST, make
sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and of
course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Mark Mix, president of the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The Trump administration of
late has notched a big win in the fight against
big labor, as the President continues to deliver significant victories
to worker freedom. We're going to talk about that in
just a minute. Bent First and foremost, let us introduce
and welcome into this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Mark Mix. Good morning, sir. How are you.
Speaker 2: I'm doing great, Matt, Thanks for the opportunity to talk
with you about what is a fire hose of news
when it comes to all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: For sure, you are absolutely right hard to keep up,
but it's good to see some victories on the worker
freedom front. We're going to delve into that in just
a moment. But let's begin with the losses. As The
Federalist reported as we talk this morning, the April first
election in Wisconsin did not go well for conservatives, at
least on the nationally watched Wisconsin Supreme Court front. The
liberal in that race. One that means the Wisconsin Supreme
Court will maintain its four to three liberal majority. That
has some wide implications beyond wiscon and as it relates
to the twenty twenty six midterms, but in the state
of Wisconsin, this victory could be very costly for Act
ten and other worker freedom reforms. You were monitoring this election,
of course, very closely. What do you think about the outcome?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Matt, it's really disappointing, and the idea that the
turnout was very close to what was presidential year turnout,
and the fact that I think, I don't know what
the final tally of expenses is going to be, but
it shows you how important, unfortunately, the judicial branch has
become in the idea of implementation of policy or the
protection of policy. You know, it was what eleven years
ago now or twelve years ago, I guess that Wisconsin
the legislature in Scott Walker passed what was known as
Act ten was radically reformed union power over government workers
in the state, and it was tested at the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, it was tested at the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals, and it survived those legal challenges until this
election came on the radar screen and a Dane County
judge found an equal protection argument inside of an exemption
that was very specific to police and security type personnel
and use that to basically strike down AT ten. And
to your point, Matt, this thing over the last ten
to eleven years, Wisconsin taxpayers, maybe they've forgotten this, maybe
they don't recognize it, but they literally saved something upwards
of thirty one billion dollars in costs that would have
been applied to them or extracted from them if everything
would have remained the same with the union power that
was in place. This Supreme Court election, intually enough is
going to probably change that. There's a case right now
that will end up at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and
the new judge, Susan Crawford already is indicated she thinks
it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 3: Prototoitz. You'll help me with that, Matt, because you're a
professional and you're my Shirpa, she switz.
Speaker 1: I believe and I'm even pronouncing that right having covered
that state for decades. But yes, it's a difficult one.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I know you were going to do that
for me.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you're right. She came out in twenty twenty three,
which was the previous record setter for the most expensive
judicial race in US history, and she came out and
said it. So, so this the path looks clear. Act ten,
do you believe is its days are numbered in the
state of Wisconsin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so. It looks like that's the case.
You know that any county judge went they we went
to the pellate court. There was some intention they might
skip the appel court and you just go right to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But I think the union that
filed the case said, you know, why don't we just wait?
And the Supreme Court said, yeah, take it to the
appellate level till we find out what the election results are.
Now that they know that, I suspect this thing will
rocket docket and basically get all the way up in
Act ten will be struck down and unions will again
bargain over the conditions of employment for government employees in Wisconsin.
And that's not going to be good and we learned
that from just the change from Act ten.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's a bad day.
Speaker 2: I guess the good news, Matt, was that the voter
I D question was passed overwhelmingly. The people doing that
voter IDs that question two or something like that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that was a significant victory for election integrity,
of course, and that was to enshrine the voter ID
law into the state constitution. Big victory. And that will
save voter ID from a candidate in Susan Crawford, the
liberal candidate who won last at the polls on election day.
That will save voter ID in the state of Wisconsin
from Susan Crawford who has been an activist, judge and
attorney on that front against voter ID. But when it
comes to worker freedom protections, we're not just talking about acten, aren't.
We were talking about Wisconsin's right to work law. Wisconsin,
I believe, became the twenty fifth or twenty sixth state
about a decade ago under Scott Walker to pass and
sign into law the right to work provision that could
be at stake here as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, Matt, I think there'll be a lawsuit filed
again on the constitutionality of the right to work law
or the statutory effected the right to work law.
Speaker 3: I suspect that.
Speaker 2: Case is being written right now now that the Supreme
Court agenda is the leadership or membership has been set.
I think they go at ten, then they go redistricting.
To your point, that has the national implications of redrawing
the congression lines based on kind of this radical interpretation
by Crawford and others in the court, and then probably
the right to work law will be the next victim
or the next attack point for the left and those
union officials who want to basically restore their ability to
force private sector workers to pay union user fees in
order to work in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: I just wonder what the Supreme Courts ruling in a
very important case that National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation was involved in. How much will that have to
say at the state level to any Supreme Court Wisconsin
Supreme Court decision that could come down on worker freedom issues.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, I think one of the arguments is an illegal
takings clause that you know, somehow you're taking something from
the unions that they deserve or their property, and if
their property is the money that sits in the pockets
of the workers they claim to represent, then maybe some
kind of Wisconsin Supreme Court decision can can finagle something
that looks like that. But again, the right to work
law in Wisconsin to your point, Matt, we were involved
in the litigation both at the Wisconsin Supreme Court and
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and it was upheld
not once, not twice, but three times.
Speaker 3: When it was passed back.
Speaker 2: In twenty fifteen, and the litigation went on to I
think what twenty seventeen, there was about a two year
legal battle over the right to work law as it
relates to Wisconsin. You know, look, there's a lot of
Supreme Court precedent that upholds they of states.
Speaker 3: To pass right to work laws.
Speaker 2: Obviously there's a bigger question if they want to strike
it down. I think we'll see, you know, obviously we'll
be involved and engaged in that and fighting it every
step of the way.
Speaker 3: I think we can win it ultimately.
Speaker 2: But to your point, this is going to be now
the next point of attack against what Wisconsin's done over
the last fifteen years, or you know, in the case
of right to work from twenty fifteen till now in
case of Act ten twenty eleven till now. I mean
to basically radically change Wisconsin to back.
Speaker 3: What it was.
Speaker 2: And I think what the folks in Wisconsin rejected back
then when they elected Scott Walker and re elected him
on a recall and re elected him again. You know,
it's kind of an interesting story about paying attention. But
now you know, the time has passed and some people
forget that. Maybe their pockets, their bank accounts are a
little heavier because because you reformed government in Wisconsin.
Speaker 3: But we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: Well, they're about to learn to put a fine, finer
point on this. You know, the big labor movement in
America in twenty eleven all over the country descended on
the Capitol in Madison. Thought tooth and nail pumped in
record amounts of money at that time into trying to
recall a governor simply before a policy change. Try to
recall Republican lawmakers for a policy change. What I think
that this generation of Wisconsin its has forgotten is that
Wisconsin for years was held hostage by these negotiations from
government sector unions. And they had a very disproportionate seat
at the table. The taxpayer had no seat at the
table when it came to collective bargaining in Wisconsin. That's
what you're going to go back to. And all those
billions of dollars of savings, they're all gone if Act
ten goes away. Now, enough with the losing. Let's get
to the winning, my friend, Okay, because I think there
are a lot of people in Wisconsin who spent Tuesday
night night on April first, or woke up on April second,
thinking that they were the victim of a cruel April
first joke. It is no joke. The Left will continue
to control the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but nationally, a federal
appeals court in Washington, DC cleared the way for President
Trump to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board
and Merit Systems Protection Board after district courts had earlier
blocked their removals and ordered them reinstated. This according to
CBS News, this was a very big victory that I
don't think got the attention that it required. What does
this ultimately mean, this appeals court decision?
Speaker 2: Yeah, now, what the Supreme what the Court of Appeals
did in the DC Circuit was It basically stayed the
decision of the District Court that restored the National Labor
Relations Board member to the board.
Speaker 3: President Trump fired the member.
Speaker 2: Of the board, the district filed The board member filed
a suit in the district court. The district Court ruled
that she should be back on the board. She went
back on the board. Then the DC Court of Appeal said,
you know what, We're going to stay the decision of
the District Court pending an oral argument on May sixteenth,
next month about whether or not the president has the
authority to remove a board member of an executive branch
independent agency. This is a really interesting question. It's one
that's been argued off and on over the last what
ninety years. I mean, the case goes back to a
Supreme Court decision back in nineteen thirty five called Humphreys Executor,
which was a Roosevelt administration to ask a member of
the Federal Trade Commission who had been nominated and confirmed
by the Hoover administration.
Speaker 3: To leave the FTC and basically resign.
Speaker 2: There was a nice correspondence between the two and finally
the FTC members said, I'm not leaving that member happened
to die during the term, and basically the Humphreys executors
filed lawsuit against the federal government saying, hey, you owe
this estate the money for the time that he should
have been on the board.
Speaker 3: And he won that case.
Speaker 2: And so that president has been established that there are
certain kind of memberships on independent agencies under the executive
branch that can't be removed. However, that's changed over the
last twenty years, and it probably was highlighted by the
Consumer Financial Protection Board, Matt, as you remember the creation,
this was an Elizabeth Warren creation the last years that
basically had one executive that had no accountability to anyone
at all.
Speaker 3: And that case came up and.
Speaker 2: This Richard Cordroy guy who was the first one, was dismissed.
And so the question of this Humphreys executor executive prohibition
against removing certain board members has been continued to this
but it's being chopped down by courts. This case may
not get to that very the precedent set in nineteen
thirty five, but I think it has some legs because
the National Relations Board can initially enough they can take
property from a private citizen. They can say you, mister
employer ohe back wages to this employee, and that is
this kind of taking executive power. That's really a question
that's ripe for whether or not an independent agency can
have that power absent accountability to the execut Article two
and the president's authority over the executive branch. This will
go to the court this year. Court is we'll argue
this case on March sixteenth or May sixteenth. Will Cox,
the board member that's been displaces, asked for an on
BOMC panel as opposed to a three judge panel, and
that may slow it down, but initially enough, Matt, we
have a case that's going to be argued the day
before on behalf of a Starbucks barista who's made the
same request and filed the litigation that has been fully
briefed at the Court of Appeals.
Speaker 3: We'll argue that case the day before.
Speaker 2: Although we may get consolidated, we may have to intervene
in the bigger case, but our Legal Defense Foundation will
be arguing the very theory that's at stake in this
Wilcox case that the Court of Appeals has finally said no, what,
we're going to put a hold on this take her
off the board and we'll side this as we move
into May and then probably June or even farther if
it goes on bank.
Speaker 4: Is Bernie really grassroots or another presidential push? The Watch
Dot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski every day
Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet. Bernie and AOC have
gone on a full propaganda gamut blitz for their fundraising rallies,
but some of these attendees were actually paid to be there.
Who's really getting paid? Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Well, good luck to you all on this front. We
know the wheels of justice tend to turn rather slowly,
as the Humphreys case would illustrate before you know, and
obviously that was the reason for the case in general.
But yeah, you're right, this our goes back and it
really does tie into the ongoing battle that a lot
of conservatives in this country, a lot of legal expertcy
is rogue judges on federal courts, particularly in the DC circuit,
stopping just about every order executive order that the president
has pushed out there, well at least a lot of
the more controversial ones, so to speak, the ones that
have I believe, the ability to do what he campaigned on,
which is to right size this federal government and the
sort of reforms that go with it. But is this,
as you see it moving forward, does this case have
the ability to make the argument ultimately that the president
has the authority to do all of these other kinds
of things or many of the other kinds of things
that he's already done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Matt, you know, that's an interesting question of the
connection and what the what the thread of this argument
will have for Article two Powers of the President. You know, obviously,
last week he signed an executive order that radically diminished
the power of unions over certain agencies and regulatory boards
as it relates to national security mission.
Speaker 3: I mean, basically, he said.
Speaker 2: You know, we're going to say, if you have a
national security mission inside of your agency, in a particular department,
we're going to basically say, you know what, the unions
are not going to be bargaining with that particular board
or commission or agency because of the national security.
Speaker 3: Kind of overviewer umbrella of that work. And this is
something nothing that's new. It's interially enough, Matt.
Speaker 2: No one raises this point, and certainly the legacy, you know,
liberal media won't raise it. But Jimmy Carter did exactly
the same thing in nineteen seventy nine after they passed
after they passed the Federal Labor Relations Act in nineteen
seventy eight, Carter issued an executive order is Executor one
two one seven one that basically said, look, okay, the
unions have this new bargaining over the federal government, this
formalized bargaining power that basically started with JFK back in
nineteen sixty two with an executive order, and he said, look,
there are national security issues about intelligence, counterintelligence, national security profiles,
and things that federal government agencies do. And lord knows, Matt,
the federal government is way bigger than it was back
than nineteen seventy nine when Carter issued this executive order
limiting the power of unions to negotiate over these agencies
with this kind of national security profile. Trump has just
basically looked at these agencies again and said, hey, wait
a minute.
Speaker 3: You've got this national security mission.
Speaker 2: You know what, We're not going to let the union
bargain over working conditions in terms of employment, over those
agencies and boards and regulatory structures that have this national
security profile.
Speaker 3: But the hue and cry over that's been dramatic.
Speaker 2: I mean, the American Federation of Government Employees, I think
they filed well, I don't think they filed lawsuit yet,
but the National Treasury Employee Union has been one in
Texas and one in Kentucky. So the litigation is going
to go on to your point, Matt, you know who
knows it. They wanted to last exactly four years, and
I think you know the coincident why they want that
four year kind of a runout.
Speaker 3: Of this litigation.
Speaker 1: Of course, Yes, our guest today is Mark mix president
of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, joining
us on some victories for the Trump administration and for
worker freedom. You know, you bring up the historical nature
of all of this. We've talked about it on many occasions.
Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, icon of the Democratic Party years and
years ago, almost again ninety years ago, now argued fervently
that government sector unions would be very, very unfortunate, to
say the least. He opposed them. Some of the biggest
union bosses at the time opposed them. What happened to
this party?
Speaker 3: I guess, huh, yeah, Well, there always looking for dues revenue.
Speaker 2: Don't ever forget that their stock and trade is due's revenue.
And when you destroy private sector industries and you no
longer represent the interests of rank and file workers across
the country who are rejecting unionization and the private sector
to the tune of what five point nine percent union density,
you have to look for new areas of revenue. And
why not go to government because government is that allegedly, Matt,
it's that unemptiable oil jar of the biblical Elijah that
you know, we woke up every morning there was just
enough to make breakfast. And government always has this refillable
element to it with taxpayer money, and so it's the
final frontier for organized labor. Literally, it's the one agency
that they can't break quote unquote.
Speaker 3: We'll see if that's true.
Speaker 2: I don't believe it's true in the aggregate, but I
think they you know, why not go after government where
we can basically elect our own bosses. We can influence
policy that raises taxes, that funds more government activity. And
you know, when you look at I think it was
California in the last year they lost one hundred and
fifty nine thousand private sector workers and had one hundred
and eighty one thousand new government workers.
Speaker 3: So you kind of get.
Speaker 2: The picture of why they are after this stuff and
why it's important to them. And to your point about Roosevelt,
he said, it's unthinkable that we would organize and unionize
government employees because it's not the same as the private sector.
Speaker 3: And again George Meeni and the Executive Council of the
AFLCIO said, yeah, you can't negotiate with the government about unions.
Speaker 2: I mean, but yet here we are where basically the
afl CIO, the umbrella for sixty plus unions is literally
fifty percent government workers and fifty percent private sector workers.
So they know where their butter is, where their bread
is buttered. The taxpayers, unfortunately, are going to get a
whole cart cold reality of this stuff when it all
comes to the forefront.
Speaker 1: Indeed, if it comes to the forefront, and ultimately, I
think the last stop here has to be the US
Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is going to have
to settle this. Now, it doesn't have to settle this,
but it should settle this. All of these sorts of
cases point to the same sorts of arguments, the same
sorts of issues. Does the executive branch Does the President
of the United States have the authority under Article two
of the Constitution to decide who works in the federal
government and who doesn't. Does the executive branch? Does the
president have the authority to decide whether he agrees with
Franklin Delano Roosevelt that unions should not be collective bargaining
and the power of the union that we see, the
outsized power of the union should not be in the
public sector. Where do you think this goes? Ultimately, this
significant sea change argument? Where does this go in the courts?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Matt, I think you're right. I think ultimately it
has to go to the US Supreme Court. Obviously, you know,
as I mentioned kind of this, the federal power has
granted through an executive order that was uncontested, I think
in nineteen sixty two, the passage of Congress passing the
law on seventy eight, and then Carter's executive order and
then the growth of the.
Speaker 3: Federal government since then.
Speaker 2: I think it's a question that ultimately is going to
have to be decided whether or not, you know, this
is appropriate. You know, everyone talks about bargaining as a
right and the idea of dignity and the idea of respect,
you know, one of the premises of organized labor when
they talk about it, when union officials talk about this
power is like this unbelievable imbalance between the employer and
the employee, and that the employer is taking advantage of
these workers and it's a workplace, it's unsafe and you know, discriminatory.
Fill in the blank. Every majorative you can use about
an employer power over employee.
Speaker 3: Is used in these arguments.
Speaker 2: But so if we take them at face value, we
are led to believe then, as citizens, in this grand
experiment of self government, the most dangerous, most disrespectful place
to work in America today is for the federal government
or for the state government or the local government, because
the union density is what six times higher in government,
meaning their dignity, their respect is being violated by quote
unquote elect officials across the country.
Speaker 3: And therefore we have to have this balance. Well, that argument.
Speaker 2: Completely is folicious, It doesn't make any sense. And so
I think the court is going to have to look
at this as to the sovereign power of a governmental
entity to exercise the authority that we are in this
constitutional republic give to elected officials to run the government.
And then it gets to the enumerated powers of government.
I mean, there's a bigger issue that's just been eroded
over these years that they're going to ultimately have to decide,
and one of them is can I force you to
associate with me? And can I be in between elected
officials and taxpayers and elect you know, citizens of a
country or a state. Can I get in between there
with powers equal to a sovereign And that's exactly the
position that organized labor has in government, and that's got
to be questioned.
Speaker 3: We continue to question it.
Speaker 2: That idea of associate forced association, the idea we won
the Janus case in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: That was a constitutional case saying you.
Speaker 2: Don't have to pay union dues to keep your job government,
but you can still be forced to give up your
associational right. So there's a line of cases we'll get there.
It took US forty years to get to janis. I
don't know if I'll be around, Matt. You will be, certainly,
but I don't know if I will be in the
case of whether we finally get to that ultimate question,
that constitutional question of forced association and then the idea
of a private entity being in between an equal power
equal to a sovereign when it comes to negotiating terms
and conditions of employment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Mark, you know me. They call me spring Chicken Kittle,
of course, So keep going like that energizer Bunny. We
raise a very interesting point. Victories have been have been wrestled,
and it's been, as you say, no small distance to
get there. But you have one on First Amendment grounds.
Does that speak to exactly what is happening at the
public sector side, the government union side.
Speaker 3: Yeah? I think so.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, the idea, the idea that the
court ruled in janis that these government employees had First
Amendment constitutional protections from being forced to fund this union
that quote unquote represents them that they're forced to associate with.
Speaker 3: Was a significant victory.
Speaker 2: Obviously, I mentioned the forty year in regnum because we
started within a booed case back in nineteen seventy six
that we argued to do. A Supreme Court that started
slicing off this union power.
Speaker 3: And you know, I liken it to a delicatestant. Matt.
Speaker 2: You go in your white college and says, hey, Matt,
pick up a quarter pound of roast beef.
Speaker 3: On your way home.
Speaker 2: You go there, the guy reaches his arm and grabs
a big hunk of meat, sliced offt quarter pound.
Speaker 3: You're on your way. Well over that coach.
Speaker 2: Of the forty years, we had four or five more
cases that ended up in the Supreme Court where they
continued to slice off kind of this really unique power
that unions had.
Speaker 3: And the last time.
Speaker 2: They went in you Matt went home and said, you know,
your white called you get a quarter pound of roast beef.
The delicatestant operator reached in there there was nothing left
but the First Amendment and that was it. There was
nothing left to slice. It was a question of First
Amendment right or not. And that's where we got to
in jail over the course of that period of time.
Speaker 3: And I think we'll get there.
Speaker 2: We'll get there, and we'll continue to fight others will
continue to fight it, and we'll just really be, you know,
continuing to think about how we protect these workers and
how we protect American citizens from this forced unionism power Mark.
Speaker 1: You've known me for a long time, you know how
much I enjoy a good First Amendment on marble Rye.
Speaker 3: Brother. Good for you, well done.
Speaker 1: Absolutely delicious. You've been generously the time. I appreciate it.
Just a final question for you as the battles move forward,
what other important legal cases are you looking at, like
right now, in the short term and the long term
strategy at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Matt, you know, our portfolio basically includes about two
hundred and fifty active cases at any given time. We're
literally representing thousands and thousands of workers actually who want
had the courage to stand up and exercise their rights.
So we've got a big chunk of our portfolio helping
workers get out of unions by decertification, because the NLRB
for the last four years is basically denied anyone's right
to get out. They've made it virtually seamless to get in,
but they won't let anybody out. So we've been litigating
those cases. Obviously, we still have First Amendment cases on
behalf of workers who are unfortunately still being told they
have to join the union formally, that they have to
pay full dues formally. So we've been protecting a Supreme
Court victory one in nineteen eighty eight called Back versus
Communication Workers of America. I mean, there is never ending, unfortunately, Matt.
We just have to continue to support it.
Speaker 3: We're going to have to.
Speaker 2: Defend the right to work on Wisconsin now probably, so
there'll be lots of work to do. There's never a
lack of work to do on behalf of individual employee rights.
When it comes to this grand experiment of self government.
Speaker 1: Where does all this money keep coming from? Though from
unions that have certainly lost their footprint over the last
forty years in this country.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a good business model, Matt, and I recommend
it if you can get it, Federalists to get everybody
in America to contribute or to be forced to pay
twenty five bucks a month in order to bear fifty bucks.
Speaker 3: A month in order to quote unquote turn on their internet.
Speaker 2: If you could get that and they have to watch
the Federals program every month, I said, be good for America.
But the idea that you could get a business model
that would compel everyone to do That would be a
good business model, and you wouldn't have to be as
great as you are at your work because everyone would
have to listen to you anyway, no matter what, whether
whether you did any investigation or other any preparation for
your show. If you can get that business model, you know, wow,
and we shouldn't.
Speaker 3: No one should get that business model in the private sector.
No one. And we'll continue to fight it.
Speaker 2: But that's why they do it, that's why they want it,
and that's why they protect it so jealouslessly.
Speaker 1: You're saying, I could phone it in like a government
employee or perhaps a member of Congress, as the battle
this week shows well, very very important battles because at
the end of the day, this is about freedom, about
worker freedom, and that's exactly what you, Mark have done
for so many years along with your organization. Keep up
the good fight, my friend.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Matt, appreciate it, and thanks for the time
and the opportunity to chat about this.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it absolutely. Thanks to my guest today, Mark Mix.
You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kittle Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll
be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of
freedom and anxious for the fray.
Speaker 2: I heard the fame voice a reason, and then it
freed it away.