Yes, the Constitution matters, but only if we use it

I repeatedly hear people say that the Constitution doesn't matter anymore. As we've seen that founding document trampled by politicians, judges, and media pundits, I can understand why people would think that. As the saying goes, though, it's always darkest before the dawn. Some recent court decisions are showing that the Constitution does matter, but only if we bother to use it. Will the American people take these Constitutional wins and use them to kindle the sacred fires of liberty in our own hearts?

Will we use that flame to illuminate the supreme law of the land? Will we take that law and use it to restore liberty and justice for all? Hello there, everyday Americans. Paul Engel, here with the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution, teach the rising generation to be free. Glad you could join me.

It's been a crazy, hectic week, as usual, but what you haven't seen, what's been behind the scenes here at the Constitution Study, are the number of really important Supreme Court opinions that were released at the end of their term that I've been going over. Man, there have been some real doozies. Best of all, most of them have at their core, the court actually saying, well, is this constitutional? Well, actually, they've focused more on constitutional law than the actual Constitution, but they're really coming back to this question of, does the Constitution allow these things? You had the bump stop, ban, presidential immunity, Chevron, administrative law courts, and more.

And, you know, when I write these, some of these have been real doozies.

Now, there'll be more coming out that, so keep your eye on americoutloud.

news because I'm releasing more of the articles and the videos that go along with these, but there's some good news there. And recently there've been some other news, not from the Supreme Court. that, well, I think they're really good as well.

For example, the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky that recognized something most of us really should. There are two sexes, male and female.

They actually decided based on, you know, they decided timeline case based on the fact that there are two sexes, period. And they've been joined by other courts. I've got an article about that. We talk about Chevron deference in this idea that when in doubt, the executive branch makes the rules. No, that's not what the Constitution says.

In fact, that's even what Congress said.

Then I'm working now on one on administrative law. And is it, you know, can you be denied your due process rights by being heard by an administrative law judge rather than an actual article three judge? And there's more, they're still coming. But there's a couple of things that popped up that I, this week that I want to focus on at the beginning here. If you remember, dealing with the presidential immunity case, in a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas questioned whether or not Jack's misappointment as special counsel was constitutional.

He said, no. I thought that was pretty interesting. when I wrote about it. I highlighted it. I said, that's a very interesting point, something we should keep in mind.

Well, apparently people were listening because Judge Aline Cannon, who'd been overseeing the Donald Trump's classified documents case, threw the case out because he said, she said that special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unlawful.

It's gone.

There's no more documents. case against Donald Trump. Now, they're going to appeal this, at least I expect them to appeal this, and it's going to be heard by a circuit court, possibly the Supreme Court. But she made a very important point. She said, wait a second, the appointments clause, actually, Justice Thomas first made this, but the appointments clause,

Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel didn't meet the appointment or requirements of the appointments clause, therefore it was unconstitutional. Therefore, it's as if it never happened. You see, article two, section two, clause two says, the president shall have power bind with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of senators present concur, and shall nominate and bind with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and counsels, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, which shall be established by law. Now, let's stop there for a second. So, in order for the president, and by the way, the attorney general is acting under the authority of the president, in order for him to be able to appoint an officer to a position, it has to be established, the position has to be established by law.

Apparently, there's no law from Congress creating a special counsel. It was made up by the attorney general.

Now there's another point. because it goes, the appointments clause goes on to say, but the Congress may by law vest appointment of such inferior officers as they may think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Meaning Congress can say, you don't need approval. Congress could have said, you know what, if they could have created a special counsel office, they could have said, listen, we're going to vest the appointment of such in the attorney general, but they didn't. Another example of a rogue attorney general. The fact that Merrick Garland doesn't follow the constitution. He's rogue.

He just makes stuff up as he goes along. And just think of what he has put this nation through with this illegal appointment.

Think about it. Think about the, not just the expense of the special counsel and all the legal stuff. Think of what they've put President Trump through, how it's been used to manipulate the elections.

Now there's another case involving the.

classified documents, scandal, fake scandal, in my opinion, that is also being run by Jack Smith as special counsel. Now this judge, Judge Cannon, has no legal authority to do anything with that case. It's not her case. It's not her district. It's not even her circuit.

But guess what? Now there's a precedent set. I wonder if the judge in the other case is going to turn around and say, Oh, you know what? That's right. Jack Smith was never legally appointed to a position that never legally existed.

So that case could be gone as well. Now they'll probably wait to see what the higher courts say. Like I said, I'm almost assured that this is going to be appealed, probably the circuit court, possibly even the Supreme Court, which is going to push this out well past the election.

But again, hey, you know what? We look at the constitution. Constitution says, wait a second. The appointments need to be, offices need to be created by law. This office wasn't created by law.

So we throw the bomb out. Okay. So let's look at a couple of other things involving judges. One deals with Wisconsin. Now, Wisconsin law requires that for each absentee vote, there must be a witness.

giving their name and address. Seems pretty simple and straightforward. However, there have been people who've given incomplete addresses. Their votes have been rejected and there was a suit. So back in January, a county judge in Wisconsin said, you know what?

Trivial errors like missing zip codes, they should not invalidate the ballot. A judge went on to say that an address means a place where the witness can be communicated with and that a witness address requirement is met if the face of the witness certificate contains sufficient information to allow a reasonable person in the community to identify a location where the witness may be communicated with. In other words, it comes on at that point to a question of detail.

Okay. I kind of see the point. I see the legislators point. The legislators, by the way, appealed that decision, the Wisconsin state legislators saying it says address and there's a dictionary definition of address. Shouldn't it meet the dictionary definition of address, the common definition of address?

So again, the Wisconsin legislators appealed and the fourth district court of appeals stated that, you know what? The legislators didn't specify what components of the address were needed in the law, even though they've done that in other places. Therefore, the address requirement that the county judge upheld or stated is upheld. It's correct.

Now, I have to admit, I have a bias against mail-in ballots. I think they should be rare for only certain circumstances. So, I want to do things to make sure that they are safe and secure. Having a witness sign that gives a name and address seems reasonable to me. I kind of see the county judge's point, right?

If you forget the address, I mean, what? Are they going to require zip? Are they going to require zip plus four? If you use PL instead of place or DR instead of drive, I mean, you could get really, really nitpicky when it comes to addresses. If it is a reasonable address, if you could reasonably expect to drop that in a mailbox, you know, put it on an envelope with a stamp and drop in the mailbox and have it show up at the right location, yeah, I'm okay with that.

I should say, I understand that. The problem I come into is, okay, if the Wisconsin legislature says address and we're not going to use the common definition of address,

is not the courts kind of making up the law rather than enforcing law? This goes back to the case, the article we're going to shove on deference, right? What is a sufficient address? You know, when I was a kid, you could send a letter to the Angles, Canaan, New York, and it would show up in our mailbox. We lived in a small town, right?

If it got to the right post office, it was ending up in our mailbox.

So, I want us to think about this. How far, you know, do we want to go? If the legislature says an address and there's a dictionary definition for address, should that not be the definition that the courts use as well? Another consideration. And as I mentioned before, another federal judge has placed an injunction against the U.S.

Department of Education's Title IX Final Rule that wants to redefine sex to mean sexual orientation and gender identity. This one covers, I believe, Texas. It's Judge Matthew Kaczmarski of the Northern District of Texas. He said, the statute protects women in spaces historically reserved to men. The final rule inserts men into spaces reserved to women.

Again, a judge, I'm a little, I'm not 100% sure about the Wisconsin judge, but here, you have a judge that looks at the law. The law says sex. Sex means sex. There are two, male and female, done. I like this.

This idea that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean is not only, it's not even wrong, it's evil.

Because basically you're saying, well, whoever can bully enough people to agree with them, they're right. So, you have no rights if it's merely a question of.

a bully.

You know what? If I can get enough people to agree with me, I can infringe on the rights of others. So, I'm glad to see these changes. Could it be, what's the old saying, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times, bad times make good men. Are we turning a corner?

I don't know. It's too early to tell. But you know what I will? I will take these wins, this upholding of the Constitution. I will discuss it.

I will advertise it. I will promote it. I'll help explain it, because it's important. It's an important part of our freedom. And I think it's worth, I think it's worth acknowledging.

I think it's worth promoting, because I already had people arguing with me about these things. They argue with me about everything. I'm kind of used to it by now.

But does it light that sacred fire of liberty in your heart? Oh, we've got the Constitution. We've had several Supreme Court cases in the last couple of years that seem to be based on the actual language of the Constitution, not what some judge made up their mind about decades ago. We're seeing cases now in the district courts. Maybe we might even start seeing them in the circuit courts, where they take the language of the Constitution and say, yeah, it says that.

That's what it means. We have to follow it, not because we like it, but because it's the law. It's what it says. It's what it means. That, ladies and gentlemen, helps kindle that sacred fire of liberty in my heart.

Does it do so in yours? Will it illuminate your study of the Constitution? Hey, maybe it's worth learning the Constitution.

I'm working on an idea because I've been seeing a lot of videos lately. For some reason, the YouTube algorithm has been popping up videos about attorneys and people who are standing up against encroachments by law enforcement. And you know what I found interesting is I've yet to hear one that actually quotes the Constitution as a justification for what they're doing. Got me thinking. Maybe we can use this sacred fire of liberty to illuminate our studies of the Constitution so we, as John Jay said, can be better prepared to defend and assert our rights.

Now, listen, that's going to take a lot of work. It's going to take a lot of effort, which means you really need a good night's sleep. If you're going to be healthy, sleep is crucial. Now, if you don't sleep well, if you have a problem falling asleep, there are several different supplements. However, some of them, many of them, are hormone-based.

They can actually disrupt your hormones and make you either dependent on them or just plain disrupt your sleep-wake cycle. The Wellness Company has a product called Restful Sleep, though. It uses natural ingredients to calm the mind, to reduce stress, so you can get a better, more restful night's sleep without hormones or drugs. Thankfully, I sleep pretty well, but there are some days when the mind just doesn't want to shut down. That's when I reach for Restful Sleep and it works.

This is backed by documented research. It's vetted by the chief medical board of the Wellness Company. And you, ladies and gentlemen, because you listen to America Out Loud, you can get 25% off Restful Sleep or any of the products at the Wellness Company. You can also get 25% off your first month of membership. All you need to do is use the code OUTLOUD at checkout.

So go to americaoutloud.

shop, find Restful Sleep and check it out. Check out all the products there at the Wellness Company. When you check out, though, be sure to use the code OUTLOUD. You'll get 25% off all your products. And if you decide to join the membership program, you get 25% off your first month as well.

While you're at it, you know what? Let's start buying from companies that believe what we believe. I joined Patriot Mobile a couple of years ago. I've been very happy with their service. I joined them for two reasons.

One, they had a really good price, but, more importantly, they are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. I get great 4G and 5G coverage all across the country, with the same towers that the major carriers use, but I'm not funding their political agenda. So join me at Patriot Mobile, where they share your values, where they support organizations that are fighting for your constitutionally protected rights, your freedom, and your liberty. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and get free activation with the offer code CONSTITUTION. Just go to patriotmobile.com slash CONSTITUTION, find a plan that works for you, check out all the discounts, but make sure, when you check out, you use promo code CONSTITUTION in order to get free activation.

Are you worried about spike proteins and how they may impact your health? Are you looking for help? The Wellness Company has an answer in the form of our clean, pure, all-natural spike formula, developed by experts like Dr. Peter McCullough. The Wellness Company's spike formula includes the incredible natokinase, dandelion root, black sativa extract, green tea, and Irish sea moss.

Even better, the spike formula by the Wellness Company is vegan, gluten-free, and made right here in the USA, so you know that you can trust and rely on it. if you're concerned about spike proteins. Buying American-made, naturalistic ingredients of this quality separately costs over $100.. Our spike formula is only $65.99.. Get spike formula today by going to TWC.health.

Out loud listeners, use the code OUTLOUD at checkout for an additional discount. Go to TWC.health, promo code OUTLOUD, and get peace of mind if you're concerned about spike proteins. In 2008,, people could spend an average of 12 seconds on a task without becoming distracted. Five years later, it was only 8 seconds. The digital age is narrowing our attention span.

Trouble concentrating or recalling information is frustrating, embarrassing, and kills productivity. Advanced Nutrition Company, Healthy Cell, created Focus and Recall to boost your brain power. And, unlike other supplements that don't work, Focus and Recall is not a pill. It's a patent-pending gel you swallow, with ultra-absorption of science-backed ingredients to help you immediately sharpen focus, concentrate longer, and strengthen recall. These physician-formulated gels come in a small gel pack.

Tear off the top, shoot it down. Thousands of five-star reviews proves it works. Supercharge your brain and see the difference. Go to HealthyCell.com and use limited time. code OUTLOUD for 25% off your first order.

Risk-free, love it, or your money back, guaranteed. HealthyCell.com, code OUTLOUD. Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but our diet and the way we eat has, creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums. For better oral health, get Spry Dental Defense, an oral care line designed to combat acid-creating bacteria. The toothpaste, mouthwash, mints, and gum all contain xylitol, a natural ingredient shown to dramatically improve oral health.

Spry can be found online and at all fine natural retailers.

Welcome back, Everyday Americans. You've rejoined the Constitution Study. We've been talking about, you know what, the Constitution does matter, only if we use it. But of course, this week has been so, so crazy. You know, I've tried not to be directly on the news cycle because information is changing so quickly, but let's face it, they tried to assassinate a candidate for president, or I should say, a person tried to do so.

20-year-old man, I refuse to use his name, it's kind of on my own policy. But what I found interesting is, well, there's been a lot of how people have looked at this, how people have spun this, and I kind of got what I expected, including the fact that people are going to focus on the fact that it appears he used an AR-15, they call it, or an AR-style rifle, is what I hear a lot of. I believe it was an AR-15..

And I find that very interesting because it's, again, it's not just here in the U.

S.

, right? In the United Kingdom, in the UK, the Independent made a big deal out of the fact that a 20-year-old gunman fired on Donald Trump with a rifle that has been at the center of the national debate over gun control and that the former president and Congress have resisted calls to ban.

I've already heard calls to ban the AR-15, as if the problem was the gun, not the idiot behind the trigger.

And I find this very interesting. I'm not going to get into all the debates about it, but isn't it interesting that, of all that was going on, with everything with, you know, the fact that why was a rooftop with line of sight to the president not guarded? Why was there not anti-sniper protection against that? Apparently, this man was known to the Secret Service, or at least being tracked, as a potential problem. If he was in the area, they knew he was in the area.

They'd been following him. They lost him. Why was President Trump, why was this speech not delayed while they found this person and made sure he was not a threat? There's a lot of going on. And some people are focusing on the AR-15, which apparently he purchased legally.

Again, the Independent, it's Great Britain, right? They don't understand. are we on guns? You know, it's like, well, how dare you not ban this gun? Why is it?

that gun is a problem? What if I took, now the AR-15, there's two variants. There's what's called the 223 and the 556 NATO. It's almost the exact same round. There's slight difference in the amount of powder, but it's a 223 based round.

It's approximately, it's less than a quarter inch in diameter.

So if I take that same round and I put it in something other than an AR-15, does it really matter?

See, if you follow the Independent and the others that are calling for the bans on the AR-15, it's the AR-15, that's the problem. I could take that round and put it in other weapons. There are other 223 rifles. What if it wasn't a 223? What was a 308 or another 30 caliber weapon?

It's the irrational, it's the hoplophobia, it's the irrational fear. And again, I kind of expect it from the UK. I mean, they don't, their history with guns is drastically different than ours. And they don't have a second amendment. They don't have the idea of protecting the state against the government, at least not in their history.

But it got me thinking about others that are already calling for bans on the AR-15 and more gun control. Well, take this line from Anna Navarro and Joy Behar. I believe this is on The View. And I also need to say, I hope that at some point in this country, we do have a conversation about what is happening, because we can't just react when it is our side. What was this?

again? It was, you know, a 20 year old lone wolf, white, whack job with easy access to a gun. And we have to have a conversation about that. The problem is, Ms. Navarro, we keep having a conversation about that.

And you keep focusing on the wrong things. Okay, so the dude was white, I'll give 20 years old, and he's white. How do we know he's a whack job? How do we know that he was mentally disturbed? How do we know whether or not there were other things that led him to this?

There's a lot we don't know. But when it comes to the focus, the focus on, oh, it's the gun, how dare there be a gun? Would it have mattered if he had showed up and, I don't know, threw a bomb or, you know, used a drone? I mean, they've been using drones in Ukraine. Maybe he could have used a drone.

You're focusing, again, the focus is on the gun, but there's more. Because it wasn't a drag queen. It wasn't an immigrant. It wasn't a pissed off liberal woman. This is, and this keeps happening.

And we need to react, not as left or right, not as Republicans or Democrats. We need to react as Americans. I find it interesting, she says, we need to stop acting as left and right. when she just acted as a leftist. She focused in as she's a racist.

It mattered because he's white. She's a sexist. It mattered because he's a guy. Because he's not, apparently, I don't know, I've never seen a report as to what this person's sexual orientation is. But the point is, she's like, it was a white guy.

Yeah, okay. Guess what? A year and a half ago, we had a transgender woman that shot up a school, shot children. Do we pretend that that never happened? It's this nonsense.

But what do you hear this one from Joy Behar? Okay, I just want to add that the shooter, yes, it was a 20-year-old kitchen worker from nearby Bethel Park in Pennsylvania. According to a CNN report, a senior law enforcement official said that he bought 50 rounds of ammunition from a local gun store hours before the rally. Shouldn't that have been reported? Somebody buys a 20-year-old white guy?

I mean, we've seen that many times now, young white men with guns, and nobody reported that he bought 50 rounds of ammunition. So, Joy, if it was a young black man that walked in and bought 50 rounds of ammunition, should that have been reported? And why is 50 rounds a big deal? 50 rounds, that's not even a good afternoon for me. That's less than a half an hour on the range.

50 rounds, it shows your ignorance of firearms. 50 rounds, again, in target practice or in competition, that's nothing. But you say, oh, this person used it for a bad purpose. It wasn't how much ammo he bought. I think he only shot eight or 10 rounds.

If he had bought a dozen rounds, in other words, your argument there, Joy, is irrational. It's legal to own firearms. It's legal to own ammunition. Why should somebody report it for doing something legal? The man did not commit a crime until he fired on the candidate for president of the United States.

That was the crime. That's what we should be focusing on. But instead, you've got these blithering idiots focusing on the person's gender, their sex, their color, what type of firearm they used, how many rounds they purchased beforehand, everything. But the real question, why did this young man think it appropriate or useful or even his duty, possibly, to attempt to assassinate a candidate for president? What was that?

And how do we prevent such a thing from happening in the future?

People were talking about, we have to lower the rhetoric. We have to cool down the rhetoric. In a couple of days, President Biden was already calling.

Trump, if not Hitler, a threat to our democracy, showing that we're not a democracy, but you get the point. Was that part of what led to it? It's all about, let's get government to control the people, which leads me to an interesting story. This one came from Bearing Arms, a statement made by Senator Mike Lee. He posted using his personal account.

He said, this would happen a lot less if we didn't make the federal government and the presidency so ridiculously powerful.

He said, let's push power back where it belongs. He also added, they said, we need government control, not gun control. Otherwise, tribalism advances at the national level. You know, Mr. Lee, you're absolutely right.

We need more government control than gun control. In fact, gun control, if you read the Founding Fathers, gun control was a method of government control. Well, look at what Noah Webster said. He said, the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because a whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. Guns are government control.

That is their function. That is their purpose. That's why we have a Second Amendment. Now, again, Senator Lee, this is nice rhetoric. What are we going to do about it?

In other words, if this resurgence, at least in some of the courts, of the supremacy of the Constitution, of placing what it actually says as a supreme law on the land, has led to a kindling of the sacred fires of liberty, can we learn the Constitution and then learn how to defend and assert our rights? Preferably, we won't need firearms, but they should be there. The threat should be there, just in case. Not because I want armed conflict. I don't want another Battle of Athens, Tennessee.

If you want to read more about that, it's a very interesting story. You can find it at the website constitutionstudy.com. I wrote a whole article about it.

But that needs to be the threat.

I'm not looking for mutually assured destruction, but the recognition to the law enforcement officer, to the policymakers, that the people have not only the legal authority, but the power to say no, is what keeps government in check. That's government control.

He's right. We've turned the presidency into a kingship.

The book, I think I looked up all the federal government agencies and departments, 90% of them, nine out of 10 of those departments do not legally exist, because the legislation that created them was unconstitutional and therefore void. Nine out of 10.. Think about that.

We look at a Jack Smith's illegal appointment, nine out of 10 of the federal agencies have exactly the same problem that Jack Smith now has.

They were not created constitutionally. They were not legally created. Therefore, they don't legally exist. Just imagine the change that would make if we get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the USDA. Now, some of them, I think, do a good job.

I should say some of them, I think, serve purposes that really should be done by the federal government. Things like the FAA. I agree. We should have a national standard for aviation. I agree with that.

The problem is the states never authorized that. See, the constitution is a compact between the states. Since the states never delegated that power to the United States, they don't legally have the power, which means we, the people in the state, should encourage our states to say, hey, wait a second, we never authorized the federal government to have an FAA. We're willing to do it. We're willing to amend the constitution, but we're going to put limits on it.

We're going to define what the FAA is and what it does, and how it goes about doing that.

We're going to establish the rules. That, ladies and gentlemen, is government control. It's the constitution and the firepower to be able to enforce the constitution when those in government violate the constitution. Not because going to arms is our first choice. It's our last choice, but it has to be there.

That last tripwire, that last standard of when all else fails, the people can fight, needs to be there. Without that, there's nothing to control the federal government. There's nothing to control our state governments. That's why the second amendment says a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The militia, the armed populace, the regulated, knowing how to work together to regulate their operations are necessary to our state's remaining free, to counter an out-of-control federal government.

That's what they were talking about. That's why it's there.

Okay, I've got questions in the next segment, so I wanted to do that. before I go, though. You know what? Please head to americaoutloud.news every day for news and information. I do.

It's on my list of daily reading. I tell people I go through about 500, 600 articles a day looking for content for this and my other projects, and every day I go to americaoutloud.news. I'm going to ask you to not just go there, not just read this information, but to share it. I've shared with you information of what I found. Now I'm asking you to share that information with others.

So we talk about the blessings of liberty. We talk about enjoying the blessings of liberty, but we're not going to have the blessings of liberty if we don't exercise them. One of the best ways to do that, again, is to share the information. You know, find it, vet it, share it. Let other people know what's going on.

Let other people see there are other possibilities. Be a counterpoint to the mainstream propaganda. Share this information and help us all secure the blessings of liberty. As I mentioned, I'm going to do questions. I've got a couple questions.

I admit the number of questions has gone down dramatically. I don't know if it's because when I made a change in the system where it's asking you to verify your email address. I guess what, it still asks you to verify the email address so we can communicate directly, but you don't have to verify the email address for me to actually take your question. So I've got some questions. If you want to ask questions, head to constitutionstudy.com slash questions.

And if you want me to answer it here on the radio, hit the little check box that says, yes, please answer on the radio and I'll be more than happy to do my best. But questions are how we learn. It's how, if you don't know, ask, but it's how we learn. I think it's very important and we are going to defend and assert our rights. We need to learn what they are.

We can start by asking some really good questions.

Got gastrointestinal issues? We created a three-step, doctor-formulated, completely natural gut reboot system that takes less than two minutes a day to start working for you. Step one, gut detox formula, a gentle way to clean the intestines and balance the body. Step two, nano silver solution, a safe way to restore gut bacteria balance and protect us from pathogens. Step three, green 85 juice formula, a simple way to replace the 85% of nutrition farmed out of our soil so our body can repair itself and increase energy levels.

Go to chemicalfreebody.

com forward. slash out loud today, get the Malcolm Healthy Gut Bundle, reboot your gut and your energy and save 20% on your first order. Lean, pure with premium ingredients. Global Healings. Pure Plant Protein offers 20 grams of protein per scoop and it's the perfect way to maintain and build lean muscle while indulging yourself.

It combines enzymes and probiotics to maximize nutrient absorption, improving digestion and your gut health. Available in vanilla and chocolate flavors, elevate your protein consumption while supporting your overall wellness with Pure Plant Protein. Go to americaoutloud.shop and get 15% off using the code OUTLOUD. Global Healing, giving you the power to take control of your health naturally.

Since before your son burned hot in space and before your race was born, I have awaited a question. That's right, it's time for questions. I love questions. I do love answering questions and I do encourage you to please ask, you know, if you're not sure, ask, and, you know, there are no stupid questions. I may think you're wrong.

I may go into a bunch of things, but the point is you find out by learning and asking. I'm sure there are other people that are asking. Now, here's one. I'm going to show a question. This person did not ask to have it answered on the radio, so I'm not going to use their name, but I thought it was an interesting question.

It was something I wanted to talk a little bit about here on the program. The question is, if the election for president was today, who do you and your organization endorse or support, if anyone? Reasonable question. I actually get this fairly regularly and my answer is no one. Neither I nor the Constitution Study endorse or support any candidate.

Let me explain to you why. See, the problem with endorsing a candidate is everyone assumes that you then agree with everything that candidate says and everything that candidate does. There is nobody on God's green earth that I agree with 100% of the time. Not my wife, not my daughter, not my pastor, not even me sometimes. So if I'm not going to agree 100% with this person and with their policies, why would I endorse them?

Actually, let me back up for a second. Why would I support them? Let's start with what support them. Why would I support them if I don't agree with everything they do?

Now, that's an interesting question. What I do support is I support policies. If the policy is constitutional and I believe increases liberty and justice, then I will support the policy, but not the person, not the man or woman who presents it, because that same person, most likely in a few days or a couple of weeks, is going to do something I don't support.

I wish it would be nice and easy. Hey, pick someone, support them, and be done with it. But again, that's led to a lot of problems. It's why we support policies, not people. But the person also asks, who do I endorse?

And this one I take to the next level, because really, are you going to vote based on my recommendation? I don't want you voting for someone based on my recommendation. I am a voice on the radio.

Now, maybe I'm a step better than somebody who plays make-believe, right? Because what do you see? You see a lot of—we get endorsements from politicians, actors, and sports figures. All right, so politicians, people who lie for a living. How can you tell when a politician is lying?

Their lips are moving. I'm going to make my decision based on a politician? I don't think so.

Actors, again, they play make-believe for a living. Now, maybe they're really good at it, but they play make-believe for a living. I'm old enough to remember there used to be a commercial that says, well, I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV, so you should pay attention when I endorse this product. No, you play make-believe. How does that in any way mean you have any information for policy?

that makes any sense whatsoever?

Sports figures, okay, so you can throw a ball, hit a puck, run really fast. How does that in any way mean your opinion is more valid than anyone else's? No, I do not endorse anyone. You should not be voting based on other people's endorsements. To me, that's a bad way to decide who to vote for, because you're basically taking your decision of who's going to represent you and handing it over to someone.

I'm going to let somebody else decide for me. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not independence. That's dependence. It's the same whether you follow whoever's endorsed by a political party, by an individual, by an organization. Oh, this union endorses this candidate.

This company endorses that candidate. No. To me, that's one of the foundational problems we have in this country, is we're not picking our representation based on their fidelity to their oath to support the Constitution, based on their knowledge of the supreme law of the land, based on their fidelity to its words, their willingness to do the hard thing to fulfill their oath. We're not. We're looking at celebrities, politicians, and sports people to make that decision for us.

Do you want to know why? there are 435 people in Congress, and those are the best ones we could find? Part of it is we've turned the running for office into a blood sport, where you win at all costs.

Part of it is because the people no longer decide based on who is the best candidate. They let somebody else, they look at the endorsements and let someone else decide for them. That, to me, is a serious problem.

Okay, next question comes from Linda. Linda asks, I read that Biden is proposing cap rent increases. She links to an article. in the thing. She goes, does he have the authority or does Congress have the authority per the Constitution?

Thanks, Linda. Well, thank you, Linda. It's actually a very good question. I went to the article. It's actually on Newsmax.

Yes, it's an announcement that this is on July 16th that Joe Biden has called on Congress to pass legislation that would compel corporate owners of rental housing units to cap annual rent increases at 5% or lose some tax benefits.

Okay, the short answer, Linda, is no. Neither the president nor Congress has the authority to to regulate rent. They don't. The interesting thing is the way they're spinning this, and this gets back to the bribe, right? Because, notice, what they're saying is, we're not so much going to regulate it, but if you don't do what we want, we're going to take away some of your tax benefits.

That's called intimidation. It's coercion. They're saying, listen, we are offering you tax benefits, but only if you do what we tell you to. It's the bribe, right? The government says, hey, we want people to build more rental housing,

but why are people not building rental housing? Well, because the rules and regulations make it very expensive. It's hard to recoup your investment. It's not worth it. Well, okay, what if we give you a tax break?

We'll knock some money off your taxes. Maybe you'll go tax free for whatever it is.

Now, again, the federal government isn't authorized to play games with taxes for that purpose, but they do. But look what happens now. It's the drug pusher mentality. We'll give you the drugs, in this case the tax breaks, and then, if you don't do what we want, we'll just threaten to take away the druggie's fix.

But come back here. I want to come back to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, often pointed to as the General Welfare Clause. as part of this clause. It says, the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. But all duties, imposts, excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

So Congress can only collect taxes to do three things. Pay the debts of the United States. Okay, that makes sense. Provide for the common defense of the United States. Okay, that makes sense.

And the general welfare of the United States. Now, this is where people get tripped up. See, the general welfare of the United States, capital U, capital. S, is a proper noun. It's not the several states.

It's not a lowercase u, United States, meaning all the states. It's for the welfare of the United States, the very same United States, that the Tenth Amendment says, if the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize a power to the United States, it belongs to the states of the people. It's reserved to the states of the people. So in order for Congress to collect a tax for the general welfare of the United States, it's actually got to be the general welfare of not all the states, but of this entity called the United States, that was created under the Articles of Confederation and extended under the Constitution.

So no, Congress doesn't have the authority to lay and collect taxes to benefit rental income, to benefit rental opportunities. And this idea that, again, this is the very same as was it the student loan, quote, unquote, forgiveness. See, the federal government didn't have the authority to issue student loans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to loan any money to anyone.

Maybe you could say, well, in foreign policy, in foreign commerce, there might be something, but that's a bit of a stretch.

But what do you have? Now? you have a bribe. The federal government first bribed the people to build rental units, and now they're trying to bribe the people in those rental units by claiming the authority to tell them how much they can increase the rent.

By the way, there's going to be a twist. If this were to pass, even though it's illegal, unconstitutional, and legally void, people are going to follow it because they don't know any better, or they're just plain afraid.

But I guarantee, I can't guarantee, I'd be willing to.

believe that what you're going to see if this legislation were to pass is that suddenly, every year, if you pay rent, there's a 5% rent increase coming for you. Whether they need to raise the rent or not, they're going to raise it 5%. Maybe they only need a 2% raise to cover cost of living, they're going to raise it 5%. Because they know that one year, it's going to be 8%. It's going to be 10% that they need to raise the rent, and they can't.

So they're going to raise it at 5% ad infinitum. It is a guaranteed rental increase. But how many renters will support it?

They're not going to deal with the actual problem. They're just going to expect the federal government to come fix this for them. So again, Linda, thank you. That was a good question. I emailed you an answer because you.

actually verified your email address. But I hope everyone understands there's important information here. Just because Joe Biden says he wants to do something, just because he tells Congress to do something, doesn't mean they can legally do something. And a threat of someone's tax benefits, that's extortion. That's saying we're giving you something, we're going to take it away if you don't do something we want.

that has nothing to do really with what the tax benefit was probably related to.

But we should be used to this. This is how this government has run for decades. It's not run by the Constitution. It's a kingdom. It's an oligarchy.

It's a bunch of people in Washington, D.

C. that believe the Constitution doesn't matter. Whatever they can get away with, they can do. Which is why I go back to the beginning. Yes, the Constitution matters.

It matters only if we use it. Which means if you believe in the Constitution, you should find this article. I'll put a link to it in the show page. What you should do is you should go to your state legislature, say Congress has no legal authority to regulate rent. Therefore, I want you to pass a law that says this is invalid within our state.

Now, a lot of people are not going to want to do that because they're going to see this thing. Well, then, the rent's going to go up too fast. They're never going to see the fact the rent's going to go up. whether you want it or not. The only question is, who gets to decide?

Is it Joe Biden and the bureaucrats in Washington, D.

C.

? Or is it the people in your state, which you have a lot more control over? You have a lot more influence over.

Isn't the Constitution a wonderful thing? You're not changing Joe Biden's mind. You're not getting a chance to talk to Joe Biden. You're not going to get involved with Joe. You'd be lucky to get a meeting with a member of the House of Representatives.

I bet you can get a meeting with your state legislator,

maybe not the governor, but probably the state legislator, and explain to them that this is unconstitutional. That it's not only something they should do, it's their duty to stand up against federal overreach. The fact that they haven't done it for decades is to their shame. Encourage them to do the right thing. Look at the federal government in the eye and say, nope, we never authorized that.

You're not empowered to do that. The answer is no. Not only will we not allow that to be enforced in our state, if you try to enforce it, we'll come after you. We'll come after you for extortion. We'll come after you for theft.

We'll come after you. And when we start doing that, if we're brave enough to stand on the actual language of the Constitution and defend not only our rights, but the rights of our neighbors and across the town and across the state, when we're brave enough to do that, we'll once again become the land of the free. Because we'd be living based on the Constitution and the laws, not the whims of politicians as they try to bribe their way into power and into maintaining power.

The Constitution's there. It's a tool. if we'll pick it up and use it. Let's take these examples. Let it allow us to illuminate the words of the Constitution and let them embroil our hearts so that we will stand up to defend our rights, to assert our rights and the rights of our neighbors, so that we all can live free.

I also hope you come back and join us here for the Constitution Study every weekday at 4 p.

m. Eastern Time on America Out Loud, Talk Radio, Heard on the iHeart Radio Network. You can also listen to your favorite podcast app, but do me a favor, subscribe to the show. Leave us ratings and reviews, especially on Apple Podcasts. It helps raise us in the algorithm so people can find us.

Yes, the podcast episodes come out a day or two after they're heard on the radio, but they're still a great way to share this information. So you can find the links at the homepage at AmericaOutLoud.News. But while you can share the link to the radio program, sharing links to the podcast keep going on. historically. If you don't listen at 4 p.m.

Eastern, you don't get the program live, but those podcasts keep staying there. And you can use them to share not only the Constitution Study and America Out Loud, but the blessings of liberty.