The constitutional questions Washington keeps ignoring

0:11Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is the Constitution Study on the American Outloud Network with your host, Paul Engel. Are you familiar with the game show Let's Make a Deal? Well, it seems there are those who think that the game show is actually an instruction manual for governing. Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with a Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution. Teacher I actually generation freak. Glad you could join me today. Again, this idea, Let's Make a Deal. And of course, if there's one thing that Donald Trump was famous for before becoming president, it was this idea of the deal. He wrote a book, The Art of the Deal. He was a real estate in Tycoon. I mean, he was all about making deals. In his second administration, of course, there was this whole deal with Greenland. First, he wanted to buy Greenland. He started all this in order to get control of Greenland. Now, from a defense standpoint, I kind of understand the idea, right? If you understand a little bit about uh global navigation, uh most of the routes from our greatest enemies

1:29to the United States proper involve going over the North Pole, which the Greenland is close to the North Pole. It gives us it's a strategic point in on the earth. So I kind of understand it. But you had this whole thing of, oh my God, we gotta, we gotta, why do we gotta buy it? Why do we gotta own it? Why do we gotta run it? Well, of course, that I think was more let's make a deal in order to come to a negotiated agreement that, well, let's say is a little less insane than the United States buying Greenland. Uh, it involves a lot of diff of in areas around defense, right? About military installations and and access to property and and the ability to use it as a defense platform. But what I found most interesting was the number of stories about the deal, which was again recently signed uh by the US, by President Trump and the Prime Minister of Greenland and and and and of uh Denmark about this this agreement about how to treat Greenland. Greenland will still be a self-governing province of Denmark, that doesn't change. Um, the United States basically we take a a previous agreement and we

2:40kind of extend it for a while, pat it out a little bit. But here's the interesting thing I thought that I haven't heard anybody on the news mention. A lot of people mention that this is a great deal. Look at all the signatures, this is wonderful. Um, by the way, it doesn't mean anything until it's ratified by the governments of Denmark and Greenland. What happened to the Senate? You see this quote-unquote agreement? It's it's a compact, it's an agreement between two or more independent nations, i.e., it's a treaty. And we have in the constitution this little thing called the treaty clause, which says the president uh uh shall um have the power bind with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators president concur.

3:33So this agreement is legally not worth the paper it's written on unless and until the president gets the advice and consent of the Senate. Yet, in all the news reporting I've heard about it, not one person has mentioned Senate ratification of this treaty. Now, why is this? What's going on here? And I have my own theories. So I remember when uh previous presidents created agreements. You had the Paris Accords, uh Kyoto involving um uh you know the climate scare and and and plenty others. And this idea that, well, the president can sign an agreement and somehow that's legally binding on the United States.

4:16Now that's absolutely not true, but again, we live in a world where truth is basically based on, well, whoever has the the the loudest mouthpiece or just the ability to control the media to say, oh no, we can do this. Certainly it's not the courts that are paying attention to the law. I've talked enough about the Supreme Court, and as often as they've well basically ignored the Supreme Law of the Land for their own political agendas. They don't always get it wrong, and not all of them get it, not all the justices get it wrong. But again, this document is not legally binding. In order to be legally binding in the United States, it must be a treaty ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. Then it not only becomes legally binding, it becomes a supreme law of the land. Now, again, this is important for multiple reasons. One is, well, it's the law. I know it's maybe a radical concept, but uh, you know, following a law, especially one that's the supreme law, well, that's would be something I'd consider rather important, especially in an employee that's representing the American people, i.e., a member of Congress or

5:20a bureaucrat or anything like that. But to me, there's a more important scenario. See, the more the president can make deals that are not supported by Congress, that are not ratified by the Senate, the more the president acts like a king. Now, again, I I've I talked about this under under Biden, I talked about it under Obama, I've been talking about this for years. In fact, well, even before this program, I was talking about it. It's our fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concept of the Constitution that leads to this frightful despotism that George Washington warned us about.

5:57This uh uh this seeking of an individual to uh effectively treat like a king. Whether it's an executive order or an agreement that's not a treat that's not treated like a treaty, these are all examples of the president uh assuming dictatorial powers that he doesn't have. The president does not have the legal authority to bind us in in any foreign escapade without the approval of Congress. That's why the Constitution says, remember, uh Congress was designed to represent the states, the parties to this compact called the Constitution. So, in order for the president to bind the states legally to some foreign agreement, it's got to get the approval of the Senate. And I don't know which disturbs you more, the fact that this agreement, that everyone's focusing on this agreement with Greenland, or that nobody, and again, nobody I've heard in the media, I'm not saying it hasn't happened, nobody I've heard has once mentioned the need for this to be ratified by the Senate.

7:03Now, what what can we do? Well, from what I've seen, most of the agreement has to do with military access. And I don't know who in the military is going to sue the federal government saying you can't uh build that base or expand that base or implement that in Greenland because that's not legally binding on the United States. Um, there's nothing that actually comes into the United States that is that is part of this. Uh, there is some talk of investment in rare earth minerals and mining and stuff up in Greenland. But again, if you're a company that's in that wants to mine for rare earth minerals, you're not going to complain because you're getting what you want. Who's going to complain? Who's going to sue? Who's going to point out, hey, wait a second, this is not legally binding on the US? In order for that to pop up, you'd have to have somebody. I mean, basically, what happened, what the only way I see this happening is uh something goes on in Greenland or Denmark says, hey, you know, the United States, you've violated this agreement, and they try to sue, and then what the the Supreme Court says, oh, sorry, there's no treaty

8:11here. This is not legally binding in the United States. You don't have standing to sue. I don't know. But to me, and again, I don't know if this is a good deal or not. I'm not uh, you know, when it comes to international diplomacy, military upstanding, it looks like it's got some good stuff. It certainly is not what Donald Trump promised. But then again, I'm not in all surprised because Donald Trump's now a politician. How can you tell when a politician is lying?

8:37Their lips are moving. Uh, you know, so uh again, that to me, this is more, you know, bombast, right? You you you you ask for the moon, you settle for low Earth orbit. I mean, that's kind of the way the way deals are done. But I am somewhat disturbed that not a single news outlet I've seen mentioned that, by the way, this doesn't legally bind the United States to anything. Not legally, not until it's ratified by the Senate. I don't know if the Senate's even looked, I don't know if they've been getting a copy. I don't know. Tell me, uh, where's the senator saying, hey, wait a second, Ms.

9:13President Trump? You do realize that this isn't legally binding until we okay it, don't you? Again, another example why I tell people they need to read and study the Constitution for themselves. It's understanding the limits of these powers. This says the president can't uh any agreement the president signed is just an agreement between him and whomever. It has it's not legally binding on the United States until it's ratified as a treaty, not with foreign actors. So, what could happen? Let's say, let's say um uh 2028 elections and um Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, some other uh uh you know Marxist wack-a-doodle wins the presidency, they could turn around and say, nope, we're just gonna pay no pay no attention to this agreement. Uh, because again, it's not legally binding, it's not the supreme law of the land because it wasn't ratified as a treaty. Now, again, once it's ratified as a treaty, it's not just legally binding, it becomes a supreme law of the land as long as the action is in the authority of the United States. So, again, we're talking about setting up military bases, mining agreements. Is this

10:21all, you know, interstate commerce, or I should say, foreign commerce? That's within the authority of the United States. I don't see this as questioning the authority of the United States, but it's not legally binding. It becomes a supreme law of the land when two-thirds of the Senate agrees to it. When they ratify, when they consent to this. And uh really, do you think that's gonna happen right now? Is it simply people are ignoring it because they don't think it's gonna happen?

10:48In other words, i is this just more political shenanigans? Oh, well, you see, we don't want this, you know, we don't think it's gonna pass, we're not gonna mention that, we're not gonna talk about that. But again, I'm surprised even the senators that are maybe opposed to this uh deal, and I'm sure they're out there. Why are they not mentioning it? Have we just completely lost the point, the plot of the American Republic, the Constitutional Republic? That the president is not the, you know, he's the commander-in-chief of the military, he's not the king. He doesn't get to make deals, he gets to propose deals.

11:24He can make deals with the advice and consent of the Senate, but not all on his own. Why is this idea lost? Could it be that our civics education is so flawed in this nation that we don't even most Americans don't even realize they don't see the problem here? Now, whether you think this is a good deal or not, I don't know. Right? You're free to your opinion. Whether you think it's something we should do or not do, that's an interesting debate. And that's a debate I'd like to see happen. But the fact that people aren't even talking about this going before the Senate, um well, that concerns me. I mean, I even went to the Senate website, Sen.gov, and I searched for Greenland, and there's literally nothing about Greenland on the agenda anywhere. In fact, the only mention of Greenland is described in a painting entitled Leave Ericsson Discovers America, AD 1000. So the Senate isn't looking at this, and in Paris, nobody else is. And again, I wonder why. What can we learn? What can we learn from this? Um, well, it learns that uh yeah, the frightful despotism apparently is alive and well, because now the American people are

12:34once again treating the president as a king and uh pretty much letting him do whatever he wants to. All right, yeah, there's the lawsuits about things, but I find it uh again, part of me just finds it interesting that people will will get all bent out of shape and sue about certain things, but here you have a president acting like a king, signing a treaty, right? They call it an agreement, but it's it's a treaty, it's an agreement between nations. Um, and uh everyone's thinking, well, this is now true, this is gonna happen because well, the president signed it without the advice and consent of the Senate. Again, to me, this is a concern.

13:16Am I the only one? Are there other people out there that are concerned? If so, hey, please let me know. Uh, this will post uh on the website in a couple days. You know, comment, let me know. What do you think? Am I am I missing something? Is there a clause of the constitution I'm not thinking about? Or is there some other scenario where this Greenland agreement becomes legally binding without the advice and consent of the Senate? And what does it say about our federal government? What does it say about the American people that they're willing for this to pretend to go into effect even though it's not legally binding because it was never ratified by the Senate?

13:52What does that mean about the American Republic? Because I see no good answer, I see no good outcome of this ignoring of the Constitution, even for whether it's political games or foreign affair games, any of this. I I don't I don't see it. Again, it's nothing new, but it's the latest issue, and it's it's one that's well, it's top of mind because people have been talking about it. Now, I have a break coming up before I go, you know, the other thing people have been talking about, they're still talking about COVID and the impact of COVID. And of course, I talk about the impact of well what government did under COVID. Would that be the the shutting down of businesses to the the mandating of uh experimental treatments? Yeah, the the the so-called uh COVID vaccine, which is not doesn't meet the legal definition of a vaccine, it's gene therapy. See, they got the government tried to convince you to put something in your arm that would teach your body to make the spike protein. That's the toxic part of COVID-19. That's the part that actually makes you sick, and they wanted to teach your body how to make it. Now there's

14:59a there's a certain logic to that, except well, they didn't teach it to make a a dead version of it. No, they didn't teach your body to make something that was inactive. They tried to to inflame your body to react to something that your body created, and it's causing all sorts of problems. Long COVID, um, vaccine injury, even shedding of the uh the spike. These are all concerns. And a lot of people are concerned about this. So, what do we do? Well, if you're looking for government to solve the problem, I think you got a long way to head. Now, I what I like is what our friends at the wellness company have done. They've created a product called Daily Spike Support that can be taken to protect against the effects of the vaccine, of shedding, and of COVID itself.

15:45It's a combination of ingredients designed to block and dissolve that spike protein, that that toxic part of COVID-19. Now, I'm not a doctor, I don't play one on TV, but when doctors I've talked to and that explain things in ways I can understand tell me that this works, this combination agreement works well, that they've got documented research to back up their statements, that the experts on their on the chief medical board of the wellness company, they have vetted the science behind this. I think it's worth giving a try. Now, how do you find out? Well, head to americautloud.shop and go to the spike support panel, click on it, and then please do your own research, right? I want you to be an informed consumer. I don't want you to buy it because you heard it here. I want you to buy it because you did your research and you're willing to give it a try.

16:33By the way, when you do, use the code out loud at checkout to get 20% off of your order. So if you're concerned about the spike protein or whether it's COVID, vaccine, shit, whatever, and you want something to try and protect yourself, well, check out spike support from the wellness company by going to americaoutloud.shop and uh click on the spike support panel, do your own research. Check the the research, uh uh check what's being said by the people who've developed this and the people who've used this. And then because you're an American Out Loud listener, when you check out, use that code out loud, and you get 20% off of your order. So uh how about we stop letting the government run everything? How about we take control of our own lives, including protecting us from that nasty spike protein by going to americautloud.shop, clicking on the spike support panel, doing our research, and then purchasing the product using the code out loud to get 20% off of your order.

17:38Are you tired of struggling with low energy? We get it. That's why we created organic energy juice. In just one minute, you'll have clean, natural energy all day and never struggle with low energy again. And it tastes amazing. And there's no toxic chemicals or stimulants that make you crash. You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy, and with organic energy juice, you won't. If you're struggling with low energy, then buying organic energy juice is the right decision. With our double your money back guarantee, there is zero risk to try it. Go to chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud. Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body. Are you doing enough to keep it strong? Introducing the wellness company's Breakthrough Healthy Heart formula, designed by Dr.

18:25Peter McCullough, now upgraded with taurine. This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health and works to protect cells against oxidative stress, packed with D-ribose to boost heart function, taurine to help maintain heart and muscular health, coenzyme Q10, and selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease, and a vitamin B complex with L-carnitine for energy and muscle support. Endorsed by the wellness company's chief medical board, this formula is your ally for heart health. Reclaim your health now at twc.health forward slash outloud and use code Outloud for 20% off your first order plus free shipping. Have you been looking for a healthy snack on the go, although the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar? Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.

19:11Bear bars are a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. Beer bars are plant-based, organic, gluten-free, contains six grams of protein, and are low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups or sweeteners. But bear bars are a simple and delicious combination of veggies, nuts, and seeds. It's a perfect snack for hikes, workouts, or busy mums and dads. To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get a special offer just for listeners. That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R.com forward slash out loud.

19:49It means country is not a certain area of land of mountains, rivers and wavers. And I'm looking at some of these deals that are being made that completely divorce themselves from the Supreme Law Land. I talked in the first segment about the Greenland deal. And again, whether or not the deal itself is a good one is not the point. It's the fact that nobody's talking about the fact that it doesn't legally bind the United States unless and until the Senate ratifies it, uh consents to it via a two-thirds majority.

20:56So uh that's one thing. Well, here's a new one. This one actually was reported by, I think it was CBS News first broke this one. And uh I I'm actually reading it on the Daily Caller, and it's funny because they talk about um the title is Trump invokes rare authority to cancel nearly a billion dollars in congressionally approved spending. And uh the White House, it was last Friday, announced that they're gonna rescind roughly $800 million in appropriated funds through what's called pocket rescission, which is just a fancy political term for the executive doing what the executive does. Now, as a bit of a reminder, under the Constitution, Congress appropriates money, right? It's Congress that appropriates the money, but it's still the executive that uh spends the money.

21:45Right? I know it's it's it's a uh it's it's a bit of a thing, but it's important to understand. It's part of the checks and balances. See, under Article 1, Section 9, we read, no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. So before money can be pulled from the treasury, the treasury is part of the executive branch, right? So before money can be spent from the treasury, there must be a law appropriating the funds. But the appropriation of funds is not the requirement to spend the funds. Right?

22:19I know it's a little crazy here, but remember, there's there's permission and there's action. For example, right, uh uh let's say a husband uh uh decides that that he wants to buy a new car. And he talks to his wife and he gets permission to spend the money to buy a new car. The wife appropriates it, but the husband goes out and writes the check and actually buys the car, or I guess signs the loan nowadays, but it's kind of understanding that that's how I know that's I know that's kind of strange for Americans nowadays. But yeah, there's a difference between appropriation and actual spending. There's permission and action. Now, why is this important?

22:54Well, again, since Congress appropriates money, does that require that the president spend that money? And that's always been that's been, especially lately, uh an interesting argument. I mean, first, like I said, you got the separation of powers. You have checks and balances. One body appropriates, the other body spends. I think, like I said, I'm on the board of a nonprofit, right? The nonprofit, the board may approve the spending of money, but it's still got to be spent by somebody. We don't actually cut the checks. In the government way, the the Congress can appropriate the money, but it's still up to the president or the tr uh, or they should say the executive authority vested in the president to actually spend the money, to draw the money from the treasury. Um, that's done by the the president. Now, why is this important? Well, we've never seen Congress approve money that that isn't needed anymore. We've never seen them appropriate money for things that are politically stupid uh or politically motivated.

23:57We've never seen, right? No, it always happens. So here's where we're sitting now. So the Trump administration says it's roughly $810 million is no longer necessary. In fact, most of it um was appropriate for health and human services to fund nonprofits serving refugees and asylumes that but we don't have as many anymore. In fact, officials in the Trump administration said we don't need the money because illegal crossings have fallen so sharply under the Trump administration that we don't need so much money. So why should we spend money we don't need? Isn't that wasteful and harmful to taxpayers? Now there's other money, right? There's what the administration calls the Woke International Education Fund for the uh housing and urban development, um, grants for migrant student education that includes uh therapy for Latinx workshops. Yeah, there's a whole lot of crazy political nonsense in here. Again, it's one thing to appropriate the money, it's nothing to spend the money.

25:01So here's the interesting question. The question I have as a constitutional scholar is this really a rare budgetary tool, as some people describe this pocket rescission, or is this simply the president actually doing his job? Saying, listen, as a as a constitutionally created office with the with all the executive authority of the United States vested in me, should I be spending money on this? Now, he can't spend money that Congress doesn't appropriate appropriate, but does he have to spend all the money that Congress appropriates? I've told the story before. See, when I worked in in corporate America, uh I had a lot of customers that were most state and local agencies. And uh yeah, every year, right about this time, usually, I'd be getting a phone call or an email from somebody saying, Hey, I've got money I haven't spent for my budget. I have to spend it, otherwise, I get my budget gets cut next year. So, what can I spend money on?

26:03That was common, and that wasn't that that was, I mean, I had it in New York, I had it here in Tennessee. Everywhere I went, this was a common occurrence. It's this mentality of once money has been appropriate, we have to spend it, otherwise, we get less next year. And again, to me, that's that's problematic. So when I talk about the deficit and the debt, you know, I most uh frequently focus on Congress because Congress has the power of the purse, they have the power to appropriate money, to authorize the spending of money. Um can they compel the spending of money? That to me is an interesting question. Right? Do they have the power to tell the president you must spend this money? Um I don't know, maybe because it's law and he's required to faithfully fulfill the laws. The question is does the simple appropriation involve the automatic you have to spend the money? And to me, the answer is no, and I'd even go so far as um the Congress as a as a separate branch of government, um, their ability to compel the president, um I can't say it's absolute, right? And and the only reason I say that is yes,

27:18he's required to faithfully execute the law of the United States, but only laws that are actual the Supreme Law Land that are actually um made pursuant to the Constitution. So if Congress were to uh tell the president to spend money on something that's blatantly unconstitutional, I think his oath of office required him to put the supreme law of land above an act of Congress and not spend the money. But I rarely see those types of arguments, mainly because, well, I don't even know that most people, much less most politicians, understand these particular powers and their uh limitations.

27:54Speaking of powers and limitations, let's talk about the Department of Energy. Now, again, I've said it before, I'll say it again. The Department of Energy does not legally exist. Why? Well, because Alexander Hamilton in Federal 78 and the Supreme Court in at least three cases have said that legislative acts contrary to the Constitution cannot be valid. They are void, they are empty, they are meaningless. And since nothing in the Constitution delegates to the United States the power to regulate energy, well, then the Department of Energy is the when Congress uh passed the act that created it, that was not a power delegated to the United States. That was an unconstitutional act. That act is therefore void. The Department of Energy, therefore, does not legally exist, even though it is, it exists. It's there, but its legal powers are, well, shaky at best if we actually follow the Supreme Law of the Land. Now, this is where life gets interesting, though. So the current energy secretary, Chris Wright, has been ordering certain coal plants to remain in operation past their planned retirement date. Now, the Department

28:58of Energy announced on September 19th that they were ordering uh Indiana's R.M. Schaefer and F.B. Cully coal plants to remain open and available through December 18th. Now, this gets interesting for a couple of reasons. First, uh the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated a previous emergency order uh for Michigan's J. H Campbell coal plant, um, which the the uh secretary had issued back in May of 2025. Again, the the plants had planned to retire, and that you now have the secretary ordering ordering private companies to keep these plans, these plants open.

29:38Now, if the DC circuit for uh has already vacated his order for the Michigan plant, why would they issue new orders for these two Indiana plants? Well, the Department of Energy disagrees with the decision and as a statement made, is working with the Department of Justice to assess uh repealing and and and he appeal options. So we don't we think it's we we don't think the court got it right. We want to appeal. We want this to be reheard. Now, according to a press release, uh the Department of Energy says forcing coal generation off the grid would compromise energy reliability and needlessly raise energy costs for Americans. And again, that's an interesting point. I I heard a report, I haven't been able to fully vet it yet, but the report claimed that um uh you know the Americans pay on average 12 cents a kilowatt hour uh um for our our electricity. Now, what's interesting is China, which builds something like a new coal fire plant every month or something like that, they pay four cents a kilowatt hour to burn coal, which they then use to make uh solar panels that they sell to Americans so that we can generate power at

30:4912 cents a kilowatt hour. Sounds like they're making quite a deal. Now, again, I understand the concerns about pollution. I lived in upstate New York, I dealt with acid rain. Uh, there are technologies that can help mitigate that. I understand that, but I have a problem here. And the problem is where in the Constitution does the United States get the authority to order a corporation to keep a plant open for their own benefit. And again, it's not just these plants, there are other plants that are impacted by this whole brouhaha about whether or not the Department of Energy has the authority to order a private company to continue operations past their planned retirement date. Now, looking at the uh Campbell plant in Michigan, it's reported that uh it was supposed to shut down in May of 2025, it was supposed to retire. The fact that it kept open because the federal government illegally demanded that they do so has cost almost 260 million dollars.

31:48In other words, according to the financial filings, um, this company is losing money because of the plan. Now, I understand the concerns about the the energy grid. Uh, you know, we don't you know the part of the problem is you don't produce enough energy. Part of the problem is we don't have enough grid infrastructure, to my understanding of the but here's the interesting thing. You see, the judge in the case, a uh uh Cornelia Pillard, uh said, basically, you know, what the states have the responsibility uh to plan for and avert risk to reliability on an ongoing basis.

32:27In other words, we want this plant closed, and um it's up to the states to figure out how to fund power without it. Again, I understand the dichotomy here, right? There's with when I was in IT, there was no saying you can have it quick, you can have it fast, you can have it right, pick two. All right, you can't have everything you want. Now, again, our our our fear of coal uh I think is is there's a rationale for it that is no longer maybe as rational as necessary. Meaning I I think it's kind of gone too far.

33:01I I think it, you know, it doesn't deal with modern technology. But there's also the concern of, you know, we are a power-hungry nation. And we have done everything we can to prevent the development of nuclear power, especially safer, more reliable versions of nuclear power. Um we've, you know, uh uh we've we've demonized coal, we've demonized uh uh oil and and natural gas. You gotta get your power somewhere. I don't know if this judge made this decision because she hates coal-powered plants and wants them shut down. Or if she actually looked at the constitution and said, wait a second, the pr the the executive branch doesn't have the authority to order a private company to keep operating. Um they have a contract, I'm assuming, when that contract expires, it expires. And uh uh I I do like the fact that she said it was up to the states, not the federal government, to deal with um availability. But you know, I I keep coming back to this. Where in the in the constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate energy? Where they authorized to tell private organizations to remain open. Again, we're not

34:12you know, are we talking a national emergency? No. What is he saying? It's gonna cost more for your electricity. Well, guess what? If electricity cost more, maybe these coal fire, this coal fired plant, this Campbell plant, wouldn't be losing so much money. Uh uh again, you you you're this is a kind of a backhanded tax, you know. Um you can't shut down, you're losing money, but we're not gonna let you shut down, so you got to pay a tax so that you we get what we want. Only you're not really paying a tax, you're paying to operate something at a loss. Uh, that's what communist countries do, ladies and gentlemen. Is that really what we want for this country? Is it, hey, let's make a deal. We'll sell our rights in order to get uh to get electricity, and that includes the right to say, I've had enough, I want to quit.

35:00I mean, just imagine a situation where you're unhappy with your job, you don't think you're making enough money, you go into the boss and you say, you go to your manager and you say, Hey, I'm I'm gonna quit. You know, I'm here's my retirement date. Um, pick a date, I'm gonna retire then. And then the boss comes in and says, No, you can't retire. Yeah, but I'm not making enough money. It doesn't matter, you can't retire. We're not you can't quit. If you don't quit, we're gonna uh, I don't know, sue you, uh, you know, put a lien on your home, whatever. That's kind of what's happening here at the federal government level. But again, that's the problem with let's make a deal is when you dump power in a central government like we have, you end up with uh tyrannical central governments. Okay, listen, I have another break coming up. Uh before I go, though, you know, I want to remind you, you have a choice of who you do business with. You look at what's going on around you and you say, Oh, you know, we've got the craziness going on here, we've got the Greenland deal, we've got this, we got elections, we got all

36:00these craziness. And uh what are we gonna do? Well, believe it or not, you may be funding some of the craziness. Well, what do I mean? I don't mean you're cutting them a check. I mean you're doing business with companies that are supporting organizations that may be trying to shut down all the coal plants or or you know are trying to to kill the the the uh uh the Greenland deal. See, you're buying you're doing business with companies and they're funding these organizations that you disagree with with your money. Now, how do you make sure you buy from companies that believe what you and I believe?

36:33Well, it starts a little bit of research. For example, I joined Patriot Mobile years ago, not because they're America's only Christian conservative water provider. Yes, I'm a Christian. Most people would say I'm conservative, but that's not why I joined them. I didn't join them for the great 4G and 5G coverage all over the nation, which by the way works really, really great. I didn't join them for their 100% U.S. based customer support. I joined them for the simple reason that they not only share my values, they put their money where their mouth is. They support organizations that are fighting for your constitutionally protected rights, freedom of religion, speech, press, to be secure from unregulational searches and seizures, not be deprived deprived of due process. By the way, they all support the sanctity of life, our veterans and our first responders. And now they also support The Constitution Study, which means you can get free activation if you switch to Patriot Mobile today by using the code constitution at checkout. Just go to patriotmobile.com slash constitution, find a plan

37:30that works for you, and don't forget the code constitution to get free activation. Oh, by the way, are you a veteran, a first responder, a family with multiple lines? You may be eligible for a discount as well. Find out more by going to patriotmobile.comslash constitution, finding a plan and discount that works for you, and don't forget, use that code Constitution at checkout to get free activation. Now, I also hope you'll swing by AmericaOutloud.news today to pick up some news and information. I go there every day. And not just for the radio program or the website. We live in the information age, but where do we go to get our information? Who can we trust yet still verify? For me, one of those is AmericaOutloud.news, which is why I want you to join me. Yes, read the stories, read the articles, but then share them. Friends, family, neighbors, maybe listen to a podcast or watch a video, share that with uh, I don't know, social media, a community group or some community leader. It's important that we not only gather this information, but that we share it with people who otherwise wouldn't find out.

38:29That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we secure the blessings of liberty for all of us. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, 2020, 20 minutes, 20 minutes, 23, 33, 10, 20, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30 minutes, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 10, 10, 30 years, 20 minutes to 20 years, 2020, 2020, 2020, 50, 50, 20, 20, 20, 80, 10, 20, 31, 20, 10, 12, 10, no drop, no rebound, no draw, unstoppable, daily breathing power. Go to clear.com right now. That's next to L E A R dot com before your nose lites out on the greatest spray in the universe. Claire, breathe better, live better. I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book. I want to share something that's powerful. You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop. Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days. No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer. Just seeds, water. For under a dollar a serving, you can grow nutrient-dense packed greens anywhere: city apartments, dorm rooms, off-the-grid cabins.

39:49In a time when food prices are rising, sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind. Join the Self-Reliance Revolution. Go to thesproutingcompany.com slash out loud and use the code OutLoud for an exclusive offer. Feeling off lately? Bloated, brain fog, low energy? It could be parasites. These silent invaders that weaken your gut, immune system, and mental clarity. That's why Dr. Peter McCullough and the doctors at the wellness company formulated ivermectin and mabendazol cleanse, a medical grade solution designed to help eliminate parasites and restore balance. No gimmicks, just real medicine trusted by top doctors.

40:26Go to twc.health forward slash outloud and use code outloud for 20% off your first order. Take control of your health today. Today we're talking about let's make a deal. And well, sometimes that deal is just um it's just plain goofy. It's just plain strange. It just plain makes no sense, at least as far as I'm concerned. Um let's go back to Missouri. This is kind of a uh is it three strikes and you're out? So for the third time, uh Missouri has gone to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the state Supreme Court.

41:09Let me back up a little bit. So in 2022, the Missouri legislature passed a redistricting map. I think it was 2022 is when they passed the map. Um that's called we we call it the 22 map. Now, the in response to Donald Trump and several other states, Missouri went through another redistricting process and and passed a new map in 2025. Now, not everybody in Missouri is happy with that map. Why? Well, under the 22 map, it's expected that um the Republican seats of the of the uh eight seats available to Missouri in the House of Representatives, six would go to Republicans and two to Democrats. Right? So the the way the map is laid out, six districts are are heavily Republican, two are heavily Democratic. The 2025 map would change that to seven districts heavily Republican, one heavily Democratic, meaning a and they would the Republicans in Missouri would pick up an extra seat in the House of Representatives. So, of course, I'm sure the groups that are not happy about this are Democrats. I understand completely.

42:22So what did they do? Well, um, interesting, they didn't sue, or in this case, the issue isn't sue. The issue is they proposed a referendum for the people to vote on whether or not to adopt the new map. Now, the Missouri Supreme Court decided unanimously back on September 3rd that the state had to use a 22 map for elections until the people had a chance to vote on this referendum. The referendum got enough uh petition signatures to be on the ballot. Then that then, according to the Supreme Court of Missouri, that map cannot take effect until the people vote on it. There's there's a city bitty little problem. And I'm gonna get to that problem in just a minute. But here's what happened. So this group called um uh what do they call them, People Not Politicians, they sued, they petitioned the Supreme Court to uh overturn the or to stay the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Now, here's the interesting thing. I have no clue where they seem to think the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction. Or in fact, any federal court, because Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution says the judicial power

43:32selects into all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies to which the United States shall be party, to controversies between two or more states, between a citizen, a state and a citizen of another state, or between citizens of a different state, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or between a state or citizen thereof and a foreign state, citizens or subjects. In other words, nothing about citizens suing their own state. This is not within the federal jurisdiction.

44:11So I questioned why they went to the Supreme Court in the first place. And I haven't seen actually anything that actually explained what where they seem to get uh uh uh the Supreme Court gets jurisdiction. Right. Now, the first couple times that this went to the Supreme Court, they simply said, no, we're not hearing this. And they didn't explain why. The third time, though, well, they offered an opinion that uh, again, was unsigned. Nobody put their name on this, so we don't know anything about it. But it reads Um, in 2022, the Missouri legislature enacted redistricting map for the elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2025, the Missouri legislature enacted a new map. But under the emergency of the Missouri Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Missouri, a new law such as the 2025 map does not take effect unless and until approved by the voters in a referendum in the next election, or at least whereas here the number of voter signatures on the petition suffices to trigger a referendum. So, in other words, the Supreme Court says, listen, the the Supreme Court of

45:12Missouri has decided this. This is state law, this is state constitution, um, they've decided this. There's just, of course, a little problem here. Actually, it's two problems. Problem number one, um, the Supreme Court of Missouri got it completely wrong. Right? Article 3, Section 5, subsection I, I believe it says, no redistricting plan shall be subject to the referendum. Let me say it again. The Constitution, contrary to what the Supreme Court of Missouri said, that the constitution requires the map be suspended until approved by the the by vote, the Constitution of Missouri actually says that no resisting plan shall be subject to the referendum.

45:53So the uh uh Supreme Court of Missouri just played ignored their oath to the state constitution and got it completely wrong. So now this goes to the Supreme Court, and they said, listen, the Supreme Court of Missouri has already decided this. Um what I had didn't see, and again, I I only took a quick look at this uh opinion. Um where do they the really what they should do? The Supreme Court should say, listen, it's not a jurisdiction, it doesn't fall under the Article III jurisdictions, therefore we have no say in this. This is a state problem.

46:27Now it's interesting is this situation first came to me um because somebody asked, somebody I know in Missouri uh asked me, hey Paul, can you take a look at this and kind of ex give me your point of view on it? Which I have. And as far as I can tell, again, the Supreme Court of Missouri completely ignored the Constitution of Missouri, and um the state of Missouri should follow the 2025 map. Here's a reason why. I can the let me give you two reasons. One is again, Supreme Court of Missouri, um they they got it wrong. They violated the constitution of Missouri. The other thing is there has been no legal decision as of yet to invalidate the 2025 um map.

47:14The 2025, the led the the the they said, well it's got to go to the referendum. That's a that violates the constitution of Missouri. And and the Supreme Court of Missouri didn't say that the 2025 map was invalid. They said because there's now a referendum, you have to wait for the referendum, but they've got no legal basis for it. They've made that up, they pull it out of their backsides, so it's a complete mess. And uh I I think it's time for some um impeachment proceedings for the Missouri Supreme Court. I think it's time the legislature of Missouri start and say, wait a second, the Constitution says it can't be subject to the referendum, therefore the Supreme Court got it wrong. It's only it's only your opinion. Um, you can put that stay on it, but guess what? It's based on a on on false information, so it's wrong. So what you have is now Missouri is probably, based on what I've seen, is probably going to use the old map, not because they're legally required to, but because of this idea of let's make a deal with the court.

48:14And the courts decided we're going to place our understanding. Either they either they don't understand the Constitution of Missouri, which case I think they fail qualifications, at least in my mind, or they're placing their own politics above the supreme law of the state, the constitution of Missouri. And um, either way, this is not good. But this is what happens when we pretend like uh courts are are full of kings and queens that they rule, right? Because they keep referring to this as the Supreme Court rule. The Supreme Court of Missouri didn't rule anything, they issued a stay, but courts don't rule, not in a republic, the people rule and they rule through their elected representatives, not the courts, not the unelected bureaucracies.

49:01This is the problem, and to me, this is the the let's make a deal. Now, while we're at SCOTUS, let's take another look at another let's make a deal. This time it involves elections. And I don't know, I'm talking about the Save Act, but not the SAVE Act that's been in the news a lot lately. So um in 1986, Congress passed what's called the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program or the SAVE program. And what it was, it was a system by which federal, state, and local agencies could query a database to find out if a person was their their citizenship and immigration status, right? So uh, you know, you've got somebody's coming in uh and they're they're they're requesting benefits. These benefits may be limited to citizens or lawful permanent residents. This is a place where the agency could check and put in their name and and find out if they were actually a citizen.

49:58Now, um okay, that's fine. The problem came along in March of last year, March of 25, when uh Donald Trump, by executive order, expanded the save system to uh uh include using the social security number. Uh they he ordered the social security administration to make its records available to the Department of Homeland Security for the SAVE system. Um when DHS launched their modified save program. Now, in addition to giving the name first and last name of an individual, they also have to give the person's social security number. All right. So now that caused that caused concerns for several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and others. They sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration and other agencies, claiming that there were three violations in the modified SAVE Act. First, that it violated the confidentiality provisions of the Social Security Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other Social Security Act records. Second, that it violated the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the non-consensual

51:19disclosure of certain information regarding uh uh requiring agencies to notice before you uh uh reveal certain information. And third, that it was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. So they are suing that uh this, ladies and gentlemen, is separate from um DHS asking for voter rolls, which is another part that gets folded. This has to do gentlemen with the the requirement of Social Security and other private data to be used to verify citizenship. Now, uh this went to the Supreme Court, um, which uh actually first it went to a district court and uh it was said no you can't put this new thing in place. Um it made its way up to the Supreme Court, which recently decided that the government's request for a stay on the lower court decision would be granted, meaning the expanded data can be used.

52:19Now, I'm I I have to admit I'm I'm I'm kind of interested in in this uh for a little more details. First of all, yes, I don't know about you, but I don't like giving out my social. I don't even like giving out the last four of my social, right? Because that that's that's frequently the way I do it only when it makes sense for financial reasons, right? There's a uh, you know, if I'm creating a uh uh bank account that has to have tax reporting, uh they need the social security number to only report. That makes sense. But let's say I'm applying for something, all right, some at a state or local level, and in order to verify that I'm a citizen and therefore eligible, they need my social security number. Again, okay, I I'm sure there are more Paul Engels in the country than just me. So how do you determine how do you think between me and maybe someone else who may or may not be a citizen?

53:12But on the other hand, that social security number was always supposed to be kept private, it was not meant as an ID number because it it was attached to certain critical information. So I'm kind of torn there. So I I I understand the desire to accurately identify does this person is a are they a citizen or not? But I also understand our right to have certain financial information, private information kept private. Um this case is not done. All right, so the case hasn't been heard. This is merely uh DHS asked for a stay on a lower court decision, and we'll have to wait and see. The lower court decision said no, you can't expand this data. Again, we'll have to wait and see. But again, it's actually this, let's make a deal. The Social Security number, when it was created, was never supposed to be used as an identification number. It was supposed to be an account number, like a bank account number. That obviously has changed, and in my opinion, not for the better.

54:11But what do I know? I'm only a guy who studied the constitution for the better part of the last 15 years. Now, speaking of studying the constitution, you know, I like I said, I've known this for more than 15 years, and um I I back in 2020, I published my book where I took my study, clause by clause, through the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, all seven articles, all 27 amendments, and I wrote them down in plain conversational English. This is my study, and I published it as a book, The Constitution Study, Returning the Constitution to We the People. It I've gotten a lot of great reviews on it. People love it because, again, it's in plain conversation. If an 18th century farmer could understand the Constitution, I believe a 21st century American could. We should, and it's important that we do. So find out more. You can find the book, the Constitution Study. Anywhere books are sold. You can buy it on Amazon, or you can buy it from the website. Just go to constitutionstudy.com slash shop. You'll find it under the book section with my other books. These are great tools to help everyday Americans read and

55:12study to understand the Supreme Law on the land and how they can defend and assert their rights, the rights they claim to care so much about. And by the way, every nobody here gets a salary. So every time you buy a book or donate to the cause, all the money goes to keeping the constitution study up and running and to allowing me to do events at other locations without charging them a fee, which I think is important. It's been a guiding principle here is I don't want to charge people to have me come speak to them if I can avoid it. So again, you help when you buy the book, you help when you donate.

55:45But the best way to do it is to go to constitutionstudy.com/slash shop, buy a book, donate to the cause, help keep the constitution study up and running. In fact, I hope you'll come back and join us here for the Constitution Study. Heard every weekday at 4 p.m. Eastern Time on America Out Loud Talk Radio, heard on the iHeartRadio Network. You can listen via our media player or our apps for Apple Android and Alexa. And of course, you can also listen via podcasts. It does take a day or two for an episode to go from talk radio to podcast, but you get to listen in your favorite podcast app. Do me a favor though, subscribe to the show. Leave us a rating on Apple Podcasts. All that helps the algorithm show us to more people. The more people that see the links, click the links, and join us here, the better. Speaking of links, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at americaoutloud.new. Please share those links, share this program, and help share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation.

56:40nation home.