Speaker 1: What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to dpeakclendarshow dot com, make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet, And again, thank you so much for
your support. Today's phrase of the day is constitutional crisis,
and by that I mean litigation. Actually, it's very normal.
This is what happens when there are disagreements in the government,
there are disagreements in the society. This is the appropriate
venue that one goes through in order to adjudic case
the disagreement and to figure out what's correct and what's
not correct, what's allowable, what's not allowable, what's in someone's authority,
and what's not. So it's not a constitutional crisis by
it by any stretch. Okay, So it's not that thing. Okay,
it's not a crisis. It's just litigation. You would think
that the left and the media, but I repeat myself,
would be well aware seeing as how they basically, we're
trailblazers with the law fair tactic, right, and this is
part of that tactic. And from what I can understand,
these lawsuits are based on things that they think could happened.
Oh my gosh, this might happen. That might happen. There
are five, I think it's up to five now lawsuits
trying to slow Trump's roll, and this is to be expected.
It is quite the argument in my humble, non lawyery
opinion that their argument is that the head of the
executive branch doesn't have the authority to administer the executive branch.
That I mean, it is a it's a novel legal theory.
So let's test it. And that's what the test is about, right.
And that does not make it the thing that I
said earlier, the phrase of the day. It doesn't that.
It doesn't make it that. But I understand the left
is very good at narrative crafting, and when they come
up with these slogans and then they you know, send
out the talking points, people begin using them, and then
of course media just uses that as the narrative for
all of their reporting on the matter. And that's why
there is and you know, rush used to do this
all the time, where he would have all of the
sound bites from all these different media outlets using the
exact same language. Right. The first time I ever heard
it was gravitas. Remember that one gravitas with George W.
Bush in the two thousand election, and they kept saying
that he lacked the gravitas, he lacked the gravitas to
be the president. And it was just every single report,
all of the Democrat politicians, everybody attacking him. Everybody said
the word. And that's not a coincidence, literally not a coincidence.
It is the talking point. So against this backdrop of
the phrase of the day, it, by the way, it
does not pay. This isn't a radio bid where the
phrase that pays or something like that, I'm not doing.
You know, you're not going to get money every time
I say constitutional crisis, not gonna I feel like I've
made a mistake here. Anyway. JD. Vance went onto the
Twitter machine and he tweeted out the following quote. If
a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct
a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge
tried to command the attorney general in how to use
her discretion as a prosecutor. That's also illegal. Judges are
not allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. This has
got the left in a tizzy. Jdi Vance doesn't know
the law. Actually he does. He went to Yale Law
and pretty smart guy, and he's actually correct on this.
According to Jed Rubinfeld, who happens to be a Yale
University constitutional expert and law professor, He said JD is
correct about this, and his examples are exactly right. Where
the executive has sole and plenary power, plenary means complete,
complete control. Okay, So where the executive has sole and
absolute power under the Constitution, as in commanding military operations
or exercising prosecutorial discretion, judges cannot constitutionally interfere. They can't
do it. I just saw. By the way, let me
take a quick beat here and just point out, I
don't know what's going on with our phones. I suspect
it is connected to the Wi Fi issue. I'm assuming
Internet something because I think they put us all over
onto the VOI voiceover IP and so I just saw
somebody call in. They got put up on the on
the callscreen board and then they dropped off, and I
knew that I know that was happening during Vince's show,
So just a heads up their phone system once again.
Kind of food bar here. Not sure what's going on.
The Internet's affected as well. That's why I see, That's
why I am old school. I print out all of
my stories because if there is Internet failure, then whatever
failure I have is basically my fault. It's not the Internet.
So actually, maybe I should go to paperless. Then I
could blame the Internet if I ever run out of
show material. I'm just kidding. I never run out of
show material. So Andy McCarthy over at National Review former
US attorney lawyer Guy Right. He too says that JD.
Vance is correct about the limits of judicial restraints on
executive power, and he cites twenty twelve. So this was
thirteen years ago. Some of you may be old enough
to remember this. Remember this case Arizona versus United States,
And as soon as I start telling you what this
case was about, You're going to remember what it's about. Right,
Obama's President Arizona sues the federal government, and the Supreme
Court upheld one aspect out of four of Arizona's contested
immigration statute. And this was a provision requiring state police
in certain circumstances to verify a detained person's immigration status
with the federal government. In other words, the two eighty
seven G program the thing that our local sheriff here,
Gary not my fault. McFadden promised to scrap once elected
and then did so and refuses to cooperate with ICE,
even though he says, I cooperate with ICE. I cooperate
with ices, not my fault. This was a rejection of
the Obama administration, which had argued that the provision was
preempted by federal law and that its enforcement would interfere
with Obama administration policies. So that was the one element
that the Supreme Court found in favor of the state
of Arizona. I think Jan Brewer was governor at the time.
Hours after the Supreme Court ruled against President Obama on
this point, though, the Obama administration announced that it would
cease cooperation with Arizona's efforts to verify a detainees immigration status.
So they scrapped two eighty seven G rather than allow
Arizona to continue helping them. They were like, no, no, no,
We're just going to scrap our participle patient with you this.
After Obama lost in the Supreme Court, he decided he
was going to ignore the Supreme Court because under the Constitution,
it was his job, not the Justice's job, to decide
immigration enforcement policy. See so, thirteen years ago, you guys
made this bed, and now you have to lie in it.
I told you you were not going to like it
when you have to live by the rules that you wanted.
All right, If you're listening to this show, you know
I try to keep up with all sorts of current events,
and I know you do too. And you've probably heard
me say get your news from multiple sources. Why well,
because it's how you detect media bias, which is why
I've been so impressed with ground News. It's an app
and it's a website and it combines news from around
the world in one place so you can compare coverage
and verify information. You could check it out at check
dot ground dot news. I put the link in the
podcast description too. I started using ground News a few
months ago and more recently chose to work with them
as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how
stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature
shows you which stories get ignored by the left and
the right. See for yourself. Check dot Ground, dot News
slash pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get fifteen
percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to
get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not
only helps my podcast, but it also supports Ground News
as they make the media landscape more transparent. All right,
let me pick back up the Andy McCarthy piece. So
the tactics that we are seeing right now from the
left with the law fair is not new. The view
that the executive branch, the president can essentially ignore what
the Supreme Court says as is the law. This is
something also that is not new or unusual from Democrat administrations.
McCarthy points out how when FDR did not get his
way on New Deal programs, he threatened to pack the court,
which I know Democrats don't remember what that phrase means lately,
but it means to add more seats to the US
Supreme Court. So you can then pack your people in there.
You can appoint all of the inhabitants of the new seats,
and the purpose there is to change the vote count
at the end of whatever oral arguments and whatever decision
is going to be made, if it goes from a
nine person body to a thirteen person body or a
fifteen person body, you will have appointed the majority or
enough of a majority to those seats, and then you
are directing the outcome through those appointments so you can
get what you want. That's what's called packing the courts.
It's not just filling vacancies that were pre existing. That's
not packing the court. Democrats tried to make it that
when they got mad that Trump filled a vacancy, that's
not packing a court. Packing a court is what FDR
tried to do and what Democrats have lobbied to do
whenever there's a Republican that gets a chance to fill
a vacancy, a pre existing seat vacancy anyway, So FDR
right threatened to pack the court until the justices got
their minds right and agreed with him and voted the
way he wanted to vote. And that's what that was
more than a ruling. When Biden didn't get his way
on socializing student loan debt, he bragged to his progressive
base that he was which he desperately trying to turn
out to vote for Democrats. Against Donald Trump. He said
he didn't care what the Justice has said. He was
going to keep figuring out ways to do what the
court said was not legal. And he said he was
going to keep doing it. Now, you may not remember
that that was a long time ago. Granted, during the
Biden years a number of Red states sued to attempt
to make Biden and Force immigration law, in part by
reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy. But a court has
no power to force a foreign country to agree to
do something, let alone to direct the president to negotiate
such an agreement. Of course, you get the Marbury v.
Madison observation from the Chief Justice John Marshall, who famously said,
quote it is emphatically the province and duty of the
Judicial Department to say what the law is. But it
is also just as true, says McCarthy, that the Constitution
does not make the Supreme Court the general overseer of
the government. In theory, the judiciary is the least powerful
branch because it has only judgment, not the purse nor
the sword. Okay, executives got the sword and the legislative
has the purse. And this is why when you hear
the left talk about coequal branches, that's not what that means.
It doesn't mean everybody has the same equal power. The
judiciary is the weakest of the three. It is also
the branch given the least responsibility for the conduct of
government because in a free, self determining republic, most federal
decisions are supposed to be made by politically accountable officials,
in other words, members of Congress and the President, who
answer to the people whose lives are affected by the decisions.
So while the Court can and should say what it
thinks the law is, you always have to remember that
justices are quote unquote right because they are final, not final,
because they are always right. Keep that in mind. Justices
are right because they are final, not final, because they
are always right. And this gets to starry decisives. Here's
a great idea. How about making an escape to a
really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina. Just
a quick drive up the mountain and cabins of Asheville
is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon,
maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get
family and friends together for a big old reunion. Cabins
of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you
can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that
truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres
of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene
escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally
located between Ashville and the entrance of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and
proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces, conditioning,
smart TVs, Wi Fi grills, outdoor tables and your own
private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas,
and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins
of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion,
and they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight
two eight, three six seven seventy sixty eight or check
out all there is to offer at Cabins Offashville dot
com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. All Right,
So I'm quoting Andy McCarthy's piece at National Review. Justices
are right because they are final, not final, because they
are always right, Right, because the High Court has a
history of reversing itself on some pretty important things. Right,
because sometimes prior rulings were egregiously wrong. Dred Scott, for example,
that's the most famous one, overturning Roe v. Wade in
the Dobbs decision. Right. The Court has this doctrine called
starry decisives, which I think is Spanish, and I'm just kidding,
it's not Spanish. It involves respect for precedent, Okay, so
the thing that was decided before should probably stay in place.
And this creates a consistency of predictability and law. Right,
so everybody knows what the rules are and they're not
changing willing nilly every other year or something. Right. You
want to be able to have an expectation that the
law is constant. So that's the starry decisive philosophy, this doctrine.
And this is why Democrats always ask about it during
confirmation hearings of particularly Republican appointees to the US Supreme
Court is because they always it was their way of
asking their opinion of about Roe v. Wade and cacv.
Planned Parenthood, the abortion rulings, and they'd be like, what
do you think about story decisives, do you commit to it?
Here to starry decisives and what they're talking about, or
what they were talking about, was abortion rulings.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: A major aspect of this assumes that some decisions are
wrong and wrestles with whether they should be retained. Nonetheless,
this is part of the problem with starry decisives is
that if a Supreme Court gets it wrong, then the
wrong ruling stays for a long period of time. That's
the downside. As Thomas Soul says, right, there are no solutions,
only trade offs, and this is one of the trade
offs with starry decisives is if you get a bad ruling,
it could stay in effect for a long time, like Roe,
like the dread Scott decision. Thankfully, the default position of
today's Supreme Court is to resist judicial intrusions into realms
the Constitution consigns to others decision makers, says McCarthy. And
this is very important too, because if you have an
activist court like we have had for decades for basically
my entire life, with Democrat appointments making up the majority
on the court, then they divine all sorts of things
like the right to privacy in the constitution somehow gives
you the right to commit abortions, and it's very difficult
to then overturn that because of starry decisives. But when
you have a judicial philosophy of restraint like we see now,
which is the Supreme Court saying that's not our job,
that is the role of the executive and legislative branches
or whatever, then it is less likely that the court
weighs into this stuff, which is why these lawsuits that
have been brought on Trump's executive orders don't seem to
have a lot of chance for success in the long
term if they go up to the Supreme Court, which
they most assuredly are going to. And this is why
there is a there is a thought out there that
this is all by design, right, this is this is
a you know, don't throw me in the brier patch strategy,
that not only are you going after these waste, fraud
and abuse examples in all of these different executive agencies, which, oh,
by the way, have also been used as personal fiefdoms
for leftists to you know, draw paychecks and funnel money
to their political pals, that not only do you have that,
but you will also then get some rulings from the
Supreme Court that say, no, you can't stop the president
from reining in waste, fraud and abuse and rooting out
this kind of corruption in the branch of government that
he oversees or she oversees. Regardless of what you think
of the president's scruples, he says, he is the president,
and he is constitutionally supreme in such areas as foreign policy.
And this is very important on the USAID front, because
that is all foreign spending, right, I mean, theoretically, that's
where that money is supposed to be going. So that's
clearly under the president's purview. A court has no business
interfering with him based on fears that he might disrupt norms. Now,
Andy McCarthy had a follow up piece. This one was
titled the courts are slowing Trump down, not necessarily stopping him.
He says, there are some progressive judges who are philosophically
sympathetic to claims that the president is interfering with the
safe professional operation of the administrative state, as if the
chief executive has no say in how executive agencies conduct business.
For the most part, though, what we're seeing are the
normal effects of litigation which slow down government action. This
does not mean all or even most of Trump's directives
will be stopped. Okay, Again, this is all by design.
I would say this for years, which is that I
don't want government moving fast. A government that moves fast
is an abusive, tyrannical government. That's not what it was
supposed to do. The founders recognized this. They wanted all
sorts of checks and balances. They wanted ways to put
the brakes on fast moving legislation. That's why it's got
to go through the House and the Senate and then
get a signature from the President. Right. Gridlock is okay
by me because it means government is not doing more stuff,
and as one who doesn't want to see government doing
a lot of stuff, gridlock is fine. This is not
some sort of constitutional crisis going with the different Okay.
So this is not that this is normal. This is
a normal process. This is where you're supposed to fight
these issues out. So I'm fine with the litigation, and
I am comforted by a belief that the US Supreme
Court is going to behave in the way that it
has been heretofore. That's just my opinion on it all right.
I hope you had a happy holiday season. But tell
me if something like this happened at your house. Your
family and friends are gathered around, maybe y'all are in
the living room and you're laughing, swapping stories, reminiscing, and
then somebody says, hey, Dad, remember those old VHS tapes?
Did you ever get them transferred? And then the room
gets all quiet. All eyes are on Dad, who says, oh,
you know, well, I've been meaning to but I just
having gotten around to it. Look, don't let those priceless
memories sit in a box for another year. All right.
Create a Video has been helping families in the Charlotte
area preserve their history since nineteen ninety seven. Simply bring
in your old camquarder tapes and Creative Video will transfer
them to a USB flash drive for just fourteen ninety
five per tape. You have a big collection, they've got
a discount for you. And next year, instead of talking
about those memories, imagine gathering the family to watch them together.
Talk about a memorable gift. So do what I did.
Trust the experts at Creative Video, conveniently located in mint
Hill right off I four eighty five and online at
create a Video dot Com. All right, let's take a
phone call and speak with Bo. Hello, Bo, welcome to
the show.
Speaker 2: Bo. Hey, how are you?
Speaker 1: Hey? I'm good? What's up?
Speaker 2: Hey?
Speaker 1: Listen?
Speaker 2: I love your show. I really appreciate having you out there.
A voice of rationality.
Speaker 1: Well thanks, I appreciate it, and that I.
Speaker 2: Think that will be one of your call signs, the
voice of rationality.
Speaker 1: A voice of rationality. It's too close to that rationality
conference or whatever though that I was talking about yesterday
with that trans vegan cult got all hooked up together.
Speaker 2: You're right about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't want to get smeared with that. I
watch out for that train, man, watch out for that
train there is, Hey, watch out for that. Uh so
let me comment, are you like right at hang on both?
Are you right at the railroad track? I am you?
Are you what crossing are you at?
Speaker 2: I'm in Gastonia. Uh's in York?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: All right, all right, so listen. So this is a
big bite the sandwich. I'll try to do it quick.
That massive amount of waste and fraud that we have
going on that just is I mean not small billions,
it's many, many, many, many billions.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: We if we look at a complicated problem, and there's
a lot of complicated problems you can't just fix with money.
But if we look at something as complicated as homelessness,
and we'll hit California first. California has roughly one hundred
and seventy seven thousand homeless people.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll take your word for it. Yeah, I know
it's a lot. I don't know the exact number. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, if they got one hundred thousand apiece in in
a combination of paid and training and housing, et cetera,
that's seventeen billion dollars. If it got two hundred thousand,
thirty four billion, let's give them three hundred thousand. Now
we're up, though, I'll call it fifty billion. Okay. They
have a train that was that they're supposed to a
high speed train that was supposed to cost twenty eight
billion dollars. Their bill on that is now expected to
be approximately one hundred and twenty billion dollars. They could
cure their home will and not cure it. I don't know,
you can't cure it, but they could make a massive
impact on homelesses in California. You know, for thirty billion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they could build they could literally build a skyscraper
to house every every homeless person. Yeah, you can put.
Speaker 2: Them everywhere in the United States. If you look at
the same problem we have roughly we have under eight
hundred thousand. It's supposed to be seven hundred and seventy
five I mean eight hundred million. No, I'm sorry, eight
hundred thousand. Yeah, seven hundred and seventy seven thousand is
what Google says currently homeless. And you look at the
same numbers. If we gave them eighty billion, eighty billion,
they get one hundred thousand apiece towards aid education, you know,
new job skills, housing, et cetera. We give them two
hundred thousand. We spent one hundred and sixty billion, We've
committed two hundred and twenty billion to Ukraine had already
given them ninety Why can't we take care of Americans
for a change?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I think that's what I think. That's
what Donald Trump and the doge dudes, yeah are doing.
And this is why, like there was an argument to
be made here that the these lawsuits are not trying
to stop Donald Trump. They're trying to stop the people
that voted for Trump, right, I mean, this is what
people knew. He he said he would do this, and
now he's doing it, and now you've got lawsuits to
stop him from doing it. So I mean, in essence,
it is Democrats working to thwart the will of the people. Right.
Speaker 2: And but you would think that every Democrat wants to
stop homeless this rightly.
Speaker 1: No, I actually don't.
Speaker 2: They want their pockets, right.
Speaker 1: I mean it's that you have a cottage industry. Much
like at the international level with the NGOs, you've got
the same sort of dynamic going on at the local level,
state levels, where you have all of these nonprofits that
feast off of the taxpayer funded grants and if you
solve the problem then they don't exist any longer.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm just absolutely ecstatic about rooting out all the
thief yeah thiever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I am too, Yeah, bo I appreciate the call, buddy,
watch out for the train.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like that. That's when you look at the incentive structure, right,
that is surrounding whether it's the local stuff or the
USAID international stuff. Right, they are behaving in a way
that if you believe that their mission is to help,
then it doesn't make sense why they're stopping it because
again I said this the other day, when all of
this fraud started coming out, we started seeing some of
these programs and where the grants were going. And if
you assume that they start the programs to address the
thing that they say they want to address, you would
think they would be the most angriest people at the
waste and abuse and fraud because it is redirecting money
away from the thing that they say they want to fix.
But they're not. They're trying to protect the system as
it is constructed. They don't want anybody coming in and
fixing the waste, fraud and abuse. So go back and
reassess your assumption. The assumption was that they wanted to
fix this stuff. Perhaps they actually don't. And if you
reassess the assumption and say, maybe these programs are designed
to personally enrich themselves and their allies, well now their
actions make a lot more sense. Right. Of course they do,
of course they do. Kurch Slichter retired colonel. He writes
a town hall dot com, but he's also a trial
lawyer in California. I think he's the only conservative lawyer
left in that entire state, and he's advising people not
to panic about quote all the stupid legal decisions from
leftist judges that the left is getting from judge shopping
in leftist jurisdictions. Okay, do not panic about this. And
he then goes through a series of explanations why this
is all part of the plan, and he talks about
it in a legal way, like from a legal strategy standpoint.
There is a method to this, I'll explain in the
next hour. All right, that'll do it for this episode.
Thank you so much for listening. I could not do
the show without your support and the support of the
businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like,
please support them too and tell them you heard it here.
You can also become a patron at my Patreon page
or go to vpetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so
much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.