Speaker 1: Jenline says, as far as the weather goes anyway, partly
Speaker 1: cloudy Skuy's breezing high sixty four today, rain possible after
Speaker 1: eight pm tomorrow with an overnight low forty. Partly cloudy
Speaker 1: sky's tomorrow during the day fifty four for the high.
Speaker 1: You may get some evening rain on your drive home tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow's high or low overnight thirty one and a high
Speaker 1: have fifty on Friday with partly cloudy sky's thirty five degrees. Now,
Speaker 1: let's hear about traffic from chuck Ingram from the UCF
Speaker 1: Traffics Center. Around forty percent of cancers are preventable. Lifestyle
Speaker 1: changes and screenings can make a difference. Call five one
Speaker 1: three five eighty five u.
Speaker 2: CE see see sath Bend seventy one continues to run
Speaker 2: an extra fifteen minutes from above to seventy five to
Speaker 2: Red Bank. They clear the Wreckeddena northbound four seventy one's
Speaker 2: clearing out from Grand southbound seventy five, break lights through
Speaker 2: Lachland and northbound seventy five, and an extra ten between
Speaker 2: Erlonger and downtown. It's International Tongue Twister Contest day. So
Speaker 2: our next guest as you might imagine it's busy selling
Speaker 2: seashells by the seashore, but perhaps with a nudge to budge,
Speaker 2: with flavoring fudge and holding no brudge through deep sludge.
Speaker 2: Here comes the judge Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs
Speaker 2: the talk station.
Speaker 1: A thirty fifty five krcy Toxics. I think that's one
Speaker 1: of his best ones, your honor. Yes, you worked on
Speaker 1: that poet and.
Speaker 3: He doesn't even know it.
Speaker 1: It makes me wonder if if he went to chat
Speaker 1: GPT to help him write that one, because I know
Speaker 1: he didn't have a lot of time on his hands.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Judge Eddenapolaitano, everyone's here in the fifty five
Speaker 1: krs morning showing God love him for doing it. And
Speaker 1: you know, speaking about favorites, you this column you wrote,
Speaker 1: you know, of all the columns you've written, this is
Speaker 1: like red meat for Brian Thomas. I just I thought
Speaker 1: this was amazing. You just spell it out, you give
Speaker 1: the history behind it. But I know the people aren't
Speaker 1: going like, but what what is it? What what's the
Speaker 1: you're talking about? We'll get to that. But loved, loved,
Speaker 1: loved this. I think you did a great job. You
Speaker 1: always do a great job, but you knocked it out
Speaker 1: of the park. About the administrative state, this monstrosity that
Speaker 1: exists behind the scenes, over which no one seems to
Speaker 1: have any control, including our elected officials. Nothing irks me
Speaker 1: more than you get a sub committee of representatives duly
Speaker 1: elected by the American people. They asked one of these
Speaker 1: administrative agencies for records, and they metaphorically raised their middle
Speaker 1: finger in response, like, now we're not going to give
Speaker 1: it to you. What the hell is going on?
Speaker 3: This is the fourth branch of government, unrecognized by the Constitution,
Speaker 3: established originally by that former constitutional law professor and former
Speaker 3: president of Princeton University and former Governor of New Jersey,
Speaker 3: Woodrow Wilson, who fervently believed that America would be a happier, healthier, safer,
Speaker 3: and more prosperous place if we were governed by experts,
Speaker 3: not by the people we elect, but by experts who
Speaker 3: would be high by the people we elect, And so
Speaker 3: he created the administrative state. It's neither fish nor foul.
Speaker 3: You can't tell what branch of the government it's in.
Speaker 3: For example, food and drug administration rights its own rules,
Speaker 3: prosecutes sellers of products who don't comply with those rules
Speaker 3: in its own courts before its own judges, interprets its
Speaker 3: own rules and assesses punishment against them. These are not
Speaker 3: federal judges that are nominated by the President confirmed by
Speaker 3: the Senate. These are employees of the Food and Drug
Speaker 3: Administration who put a black robot and call themselves judges.
Speaker 3: So this entity that rights rules, interprets rules, enforces rules,
Speaker 3: punishes violations of the rules, as I said, is alien
Speaker 3: to the Constitution. And Donald Trump, God bless him, has
Speaker 3: had enough of it. There are many, many of these
Speaker 3: administrative agencies. The CDC, the Centers for Disease Control that
Speaker 3: told all of us we have to see six feet
Speaker 3: apart during COVID. We later learned that there was not
Speaker 3: a shred of scientific evidence to justify any benefits from that. Nevertheless,
Speaker 3: that is an administrative agency and nobody seems to be
Speaker 3: able to control them. Yes, the head of these agencies
Speaker 3: is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate,
Speaker 3: but the rules are written, enforced, and interpreted by bureaucrats
Speaker 3: who are always there. Trump, by cutting back the budgets
Speaker 3: on these entities, is trying to bring them in line
Speaker 3: or eradicate them. I suggest in my piece which I
Speaker 3: expose all this and expose the history of it. It's
Speaker 3: not just me exposing that a lot of people have
Speaker 3: of late. It would be far better if Trump did
Speaker 3: this by legislation than by FIAT. Then the legal challenges
Speaker 3: go away. You know, as bad as these administrative agencies are,
Speaker 3: they were enacted by and are funded by Congress, so
Speaker 3: only Congress can en The President doesn't want to wait
Speaker 3: for Congress. He wants to more or less starve them
Speaker 3: to death.
Speaker 1: And either it was an op ed piece, or at
Speaker 1: least I think it was an op ed piece. Well,
Speaker 1: guy was a Wall Street journal and they talked about,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump inviting and welcoming litigation on these topics.
Speaker 1: He knows, for example, that some of the things he's
Speaker 1: doing will be challenged in court, and he knows he's
Speaker 1: even on shaky legal ground on some of them, but
Speaker 1: he wants to get in front of the court because hell,
Speaker 1: they might confirm or approve that what he's doing is act,
Speaker 1: is correct and right. I mean, we got the Chevron
Speaker 1: case out of the Supreme Court, which you bring up
Speaker 1: in the in the opinion piece. The deference that they
Speaker 1: courts were required to give to the administrative state when
Speaker 1: it comes to interpreting interpreting these rules and regulations, that's
Speaker 1: no longer the case.
Speaker 3: I mean correct.
Speaker 1: The Congress now has this.
Speaker 3: This court got rid of the Chevron case. The Chevron
Speaker 3: case gave the administrative a no seas a leg up,
Speaker 3: prohibited judges from second guests in them, and said whatever
Speaker 3: the experts say is so. So when the EPA declares
Speaker 3: a mud puddle to be a navigable waterway, as absurd
Speaker 3: as that is, the Court is not in a position
Speaker 3: to deny, doubt or negate that. After we got rid
Speaker 3: of the Chevron doctrine. With this court, when the EPA
Speaker 3: is challenged, the challenger and the government are an equal
Speaker 3: standing in court. There is no deference to the government.
Speaker 3: On the contrary, the government must prove its case in
Speaker 3: terms of the existence of these administrative agencies and whether
Speaker 3: they are unconstitutional to the core. There are two members
Speaker 3: of the Court who, in other opinions have opined, as
Speaker 3: I have, that Wilson was wrong, the Congress violated the Constitution,
Speaker 3: and they all should go. That's a Justice Clarence Thomas
Speaker 3: and Justice Neil gorris I don't know that there's a
Speaker 3: majority for that, but will We'll see the article on
Speaker 3: the Wall Street Journal. The uped on the Wall Street
Speaker 3: Journal to which you refer talks about the president's ability
Speaker 3: to fire the head of these administrative agencies. He is
Speaker 3: teeing that up to go before the Supreme Court. Last week.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court basically said we're not going to get involved.
Speaker 3: They didn't say can and they didn't say can't. They
Speaker 3: just said we're not going to get involved, and no
Speaker 3: one filed a dissent from that. We're not going to
Speaker 3: get involved. Sent it back to a federal district court
Speaker 3: trial court to address the issue. The President wants to
Speaker 3: fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel. This
Speaker 3: is not what Bob Muller did. It's the same name,
Speaker 3: but it's a different entity. It basically protects whistleblowers in
Speaker 3: the executive branch, and Joe Biden appointed this person to
Speaker 3: a five year term. The legislation says he can only
Speaker 3: be fired for cause that his personal misbehavior. Trump attempted
Speaker 3: to fire him anyway in the courts put a stop
Speaker 3: to it. In the Supreme Court declined to get involved.
Speaker 3: This is symptomatic of this whole big picture, Brian, Are
Speaker 3: these administrative agencies constitutional in the first place? Justice? As
Speaker 3: Thomas and Gorsach say no, three more justices say it.
Speaker 3: Two thirds of the federal government goes away overnight.
Speaker 1: Oh, you give me something to dream about at night
Speaker 1: on that one.
Speaker 3: You're when you're not writing poetry for Ingram. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now going back to the heads of these administrative agencies. Now,
Speaker 1: as you point out, there is a head of the
Speaker 1: administrative agencies. They do get you know, approval, and they
Speaker 1: go through the process. Do they have the ability to
Speaker 1: stop any given regulation that comes out? Like the navigable water,
Speaker 1: a mud puddle is navigle water. We know that one
Speaker 1: got dealt with by I think West Virginia versus EPA.
Speaker 1: But in the fundamental LESSI is under the post Chevron era,
Speaker 1: someone can challenge It's the separate line of question I
Speaker 1: have for you. But if Trump has someone of the
Speaker 1: same mindset as you and I that these agencies have
Speaker 1: way too much power, can they prevent any given regulation
Speaker 1: from coming out by virtue of being head of that
Speaker 1: particular administration administra agency?
Speaker 3: Yes, if Donald Trump were to a point, well he
Speaker 3: has a point at least Elden as the head of
Speaker 3: the EPA. Zelden can control what regulations the EPA comes
Speaker 3: out with. Now, if regulations come out without the approval
Speaker 3: of the head of the agency, I don't know what
Speaker 3: would happen under those circumstances. But theoretically, theoretically, the head
Speaker 3: of an administrative agency can control what the administrative agency does.
Speaker 3: But even under presidents as conservative as Ronald Reagan and
Speaker 3: traditional as the two Bushes, I mean, these administrative agencies
Speaker 3: just continued to churn and churn and churn. One of
Speaker 3: the ones in Trump's crosshairs is everybody's favorite, the IRS.
Speaker 3: They just they're well north of seventy thousand pages of
Speaker 3: interpretations of their own regulations. This stuff's not written by Congress.
Speaker 3: This is written by bureaucrats, no matter who runs the IRS.
Speaker 3: Justice Scalia, in a famous case called Marson against Olson,
Speaker 3: which had to do with the establishment of the Special Council,
Speaker 3: the one that Bob Muller ran, argued in a dissent
Speaker 3: that Congress cannot delegate away its power in this case
Speaker 3: of appointment of a special Council. That can't delegate away
Speaker 3: its regulatory power. Why because the Constitution says all quote,
Speaker 3: all legislative power herein delegated shall vest in a Congress
Speaker 3: of the United States, which shall consist of two houses,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera. They can't give that power away.
Speaker 3: So if Congress wanted to say a mud puddle is
Speaker 3: a navigable water, would result, I would think in a
Speaker 3: lot of them getting losing their reelection hits. But if
Speaker 3: Congress wanted to say that, that is at least as
Speaker 3: absurd as it is constitutional. But when some group of bureaucrats, unknown, unidentified,
Speaker 3: unanswerable to the public, says it, and we're required to
Speaker 3: comply with it, that's the constitutional problem.
Speaker 1: Now, the other component of the question I wanted to ask,
Speaker 1: in the post Chevron world that we live in now,
Speaker 1: where there's no longer that immediate deference, who has standing
Speaker 1: to bring a challenge?
Speaker 3: You would have to be you would have to be harmed.
Speaker 3: In the West Virginia case, that's the mud puddle. The
Speaker 3: farmer whose mud puddle they attempted to regularly certainly had standing.
Speaker 3: He wanted to build a structure within twenty yards of
Speaker 3: the mud puddle, and they said, no, you've got to
Speaker 3: be back forty yards. Pretty simple facts to understand, but
Speaker 3: it resulted in a monumental constitutional clash in the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court sided with the farmer, thank god. But it would
Speaker 3: take someone whose oxes Gord, someone who was actually personally
Speaker 3: uniquely harmed by this standing is not always easy to
Speaker 3: find him in some of these federal judges who are
Speaker 3: hearing challenges to Trump's refusal to spend money. This is
Speaker 3: another issue. Can the president and pound funds and not
Speaker 3: spend what Congress has totally spend. The short answer is no.
Speaker 3: But when these labor unions file litigation, the courts are saying,
Speaker 3: you're not harmed. Still have the labor union. There's no harm,
Speaker 3: there's no standing. I'm not going to hear the case.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying what the president is doing is constitutional.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying you don't have standing. It's not always
Speaker 3: easy to get standing. Madison did that intentionally because they
Speaker 3: didn't want the federal courts to exist as monitors of
Speaker 3: the other two branches unless someone was uniquely harmed by
Speaker 3: what either of the other two branches did.
Speaker 1: Judge Endita Paulatana wonderful insight, wonderful and thoughtful historic breakdown
Speaker 1: of how we got from Madison to here and what
Speaker 1: a wild he's rolling over in his grave and he
Speaker 1: has been for decades now.
Speaker 3: I imagine, Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: Judge Enda Paulatana, God bless you, sir, judging freedom of
Speaker 1: course your podcasts and your interviews, and I recommend my
Speaker 1: listeners search for that online. They're all using their search engine.
Speaker 1: Who are we talking to today, your honor Congressman Thomas.
Speaker 3: I was waiting for you to ask me. You know,
Speaker 3: I also have Colonel McGregor and my other regulars. But
Speaker 3: at three this afternoon live Congressman Thomas Massy, and then
Speaker 3: of course it's posted for anybody to see. When I
Speaker 3: announced this yesterday, I can't tell you the laudatory emails
Speaker 3: that I received because Congressman Massy.
Speaker 1: Is coming on and the only no vote on that
Speaker 1: resolution they passed out of the House yesterday, and he
Speaker 1: has good reason to vote no.
Speaker 3: The title of the title of my segment with Congressman
Speaker 3: Massy is do we still have a Constitution? Oh?
Speaker 1: That's going to be a wonderful conversation, as they always are.
Speaker 1: Judge Napolitan a best of health next Wednesday, already looking
Speaker 1: forward to it. As always, I'll enjoy hearing your conversation
Speaker 1: with Congressman Massy today.
Speaker 3: Three Thank you, Thank you, Brian, all the best to.
Speaker 1: You and to you, sir. Eight forty three I fifty
Speaker 1: five krsee
Speaker 3: The talk station fifty five KARC