Point of View February 13, 2025 – Hour 1 : Back to Reality

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Thank you for joining me, it is a Thursday edition of Point of View and we have in studio, as we advertised yesterday, Lathan Watts, who is the Vice President for Public Affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom. We're going to talk about one of his columns, it's the first one listed there.

[00:00:34] You're also going to hear a little bit later as we talk about some of the columns from Jonah Goldberg, Karl Rove, Byron York and a number of others. So, it's quite a smattering of different perspectives as we get into what is happening right now in terms of, of course, the issue of the Department of Government Efficiency, as well as some legal issues that have surfaced. And so, we'll get into some of that and then some real challenges.

[00:01:00] That's why I use the Karl Rove piece because he talks about five trials of Trump in the future dealing with the legislature. There are a lot of things that we can be talking about today, but first of all, Lathan, it's always great to see you. Yeah, great to be back, thanks for having me. You start out with, of all things, C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Mere Christianity, the book, was so instrumental in my conversion and I meant to bring a copy of you here to hold it up.

[00:01:24] But you have a quote there that most people aren't familiar with, but it illustrates maybe what's going on right now in Congress and in the White House. Yeah, so the, the quote talks about when you discover that you're on the wrong path, the, the only way to make progress is to return to the right path. And in that case, the person that turns back is the most progressive man.

[00:01:46] And I use that to sort of introduce Donald Trump's executive order declaring, you know, for all intents and purposes in the executive branch and in federal law, there are two sexes, male and female. And I, and I point out that I doubt that Donald Trump would ever characterize himself as a progressive, but by C.S. Lewis's definition, he is maybe the most progressive because he's returning back to the right road.

[00:02:11] And again, as we're going to get into this, we're going to talk about a couple of court cases, one that you have, which is known as Medina. And if you get this, a particular article by again, Latham Watts goes on for three pages and is a very good reason to follow what ADF is doing. Also, I would encourage you to support them. It's a worthwhile organization. A little bit later, I want to talk about one that I mentioned last week, one that actually comes from the Beckett organization, but that one's an LGBTQ issue. But this one is pretty straightforward.

[00:02:40] We would, I think most of us, except those who are maybe just very woke, would recognize they're male and female. But it turns out that this issue of defining a female is or a woman as an adult human female. There's the actual definition there. What a concept that then. And by the way, this is what a majority of Americans agree with. Even interestingly enough, 67 percent of Democrats. So obviously this is not controversial.

[00:03:09] But that then takes us to the state of South Carolina. We broadcast in South Carolina. But this case has the impact possibly for the rest of the nation. Can you explain? Right. So and I should say that after this article came out, Trump signed another executive order that basically said the government was no longer going to fund anything that has to do with puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for minors.

[00:03:34] And so that's why our case in South Carolina, which when you first look at it, the cases about the state of South Carolina made the decision to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a qualified provider for state Medicaid funds. And most people would say, well, what does this have to do with these transgender drugs? Well, because Planned Parenthood brags about being the leader in the country of providing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

[00:04:04] And you've got a link there in case somebody doubts that. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah, exactly. And so the Medina versus Planned Parenthood case, it started because the state, as I said, made the decision to disqualify Planned Parenthood from receiving state Medicaid funds as a medical provider. And Planned Parenthood then sued, and a district judge actually agreed with them and reinstated the funding.

[00:04:30] So the legal question is a little bit wonky, but it's technically about whether or not the statute that authorizes the Medicaid program and then the states administer the funds, does that create a cause of action for a recipient of those funds to challenge the state's decision to say you're not a qualified recipient? And if you think about it, like, there's nothing in the statute that does this. No.

[00:05:01] But to have somebody who is a recipient of the funds have the legal ability to go against what the state legislature and the state government has done and then have a judge reinstate it, well, then the people who are elected to make these decisions really don't have any authority. Right. That can't be right. Yeah. Right. And so – This one seems, again, very obvious. Well, you know, all of our cases seem obvious to me. Yeah.

[00:05:26] I mean, this is – it would be hard to think of how even if you're a liberal justice on the court, you would argue against this. But I'm sure they'll come up with something. I'm sure there's – And that is yet to be decided, right? You know, obviously. Yes. We're going to – that's going to be argued at the United States Supreme Court in April. So we're assisting the state of South Carolina. Right. So we're going to argue in April and then hopefully the decision probably by June.

[00:05:51] You do say something in passing, and I meant to bring in my book also about Darwin's racist and it's all about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. And that is you talked about the organization's eugenic roots. Now, eugenicists are those individuals that believe we should actually breed human races, human fitness, and those kinds of things. Get rid of worthless eaters. Get rid of human weeds.

[00:06:16] Those are phrases used by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, right? Right. And that's why that line and the piece is in there that given their eugenicists roots, it shouldn't come as a surprise that an organization that is dedicated to ending life in the womb would also be involved in providing these drugs that eventually sterilize people. Right.

[00:06:43] And it's tragic that it happens, and you're talking about minors who are irrevocably harmed by these drugs. And so even though the case in South Carolina is about the state's ability to decide who gets Medicaid funds, that's a huge source of funding for Planned Parenthood. And I had no idea until I read your article.

[00:07:09] And so if South Carolina prevails, then other states in the country that want to do this would have a precedent to back them up to do it so that if they defund Planned Parenthood through their state Medicaid funds, Planned Parenthood will not be able to then go find a judge to say, no, you've got to give them the money. Yeah. And that was my next question, but you already answered it, and that is some people might say, well, our listeners in South Carolina say, great, but we broadcast in 40 other states. What happens there? This would be a win for them as well.

[00:07:38] And since we're coming to a break, it's not a good Latham Watts commentary without at least one musical quote. So you used one here, didn't you? I did. Yeah. You know you might be reading a piece by me if you hear C.S. Lewis and The Who quoted within 600 words of each other. But again, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, and that's one of the lyrics from The Who.

[00:08:06] And again, goes into all some of these very important issues because we're going to come back. I want to talk briefly about another Supreme Court case, which is not yours, but nevertheless, Beckett Fund is doing one that parallels this, which is also one which is a matter of prayer. And again, we oftentimes post those. If you go to the website, you'll see a place where you can pray for America and sign up. We give you some prayer targets, and these are two prayer targets. But then I want to get into this whole issue. Are we headed for a constitutional crisis?

[00:08:34] I do not think so, but you would think so if you were watching the news. And so we are going to focus on that right after these important messages. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.

[00:09:04] America keeps spending more and more money on public education, and those tax dollars don't seem to make a difference. Schools keep flunking. The National Assessment for Educational Progress is often referred to as America's report card, but this isn't a report card you want to show anyone. The latest report shows that fourth and eighth grade reading scores declined by two points on average since 2022. Even more concerning is the fact that a third of eighth graders scored below basic on the reading exam. This is a record low.

[00:09:34] Math scores for eighth graders were eight points lower than in 2019. Also concerning was evidence that the achievement gap has increased. High math performers in both grades scored better last year, while low performers did worse or the same. Test scores for students scoring in the upper percentiles in reading improved since 1992, but they declined for students in the lower percentiles. The reason for this decline doesn't take an expert,

[00:09:59] But the Wall Street Journal editors quoted an education expert at Harvard who talked about three problems. Student mental health problems, less test-based accountability, and increased screen time. The head of a teacher's union suggested that schools needed smaller class sizes, good ventilation, and 21st century technology. The editors responded, Sorry, children aren't doing worse because of bad air filters or old computers. They scored better without 21st century technology. Public schools are flunking.

[00:10:29] That's why educational choice is a hot topic today in many states, so that parents can take their tax dollars to better schools. And that's why more parents are looking at private schools, Christian schools, and homeschooling. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free copy of Kirby's booklet, A Biblical View on Loneliness, go to viewpoints.info slash loneliness. That's viewpoints.info slash loneliness.

[00:10:58] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, if you'd like to join the conversation at any point, 1-800-351-1212. We are privileged to have in studio with us for this first hour Lathan Watson. I thought I'd mention another case. This one, of course, is not from your group, but you are very familiar with the Beckett Fund. And this one is Mahmood v. Taylor, as you can tell by the name, which I think is very intelligent.

[00:11:26] It is concerning the fact that, indeed, there's been a coalition of parents in Montgomery County, which is in Maryland, and they have been very concerned about the fact that their children, and we're talking about Muslim children, Jewish children, and Christian children, or children that come from those three religious backgrounds, have been subjected to the LGBTQ-themed ideology because they have been required to read the LGBTQ-themed storybooks,

[00:11:55] and parents should at least be allowed to opt out of that case. So, again, one of these other cases, which, again, we might put down for a prayer target, is as the court considers this. Again, this one seems pretty straightforward. I mean, who controls the education of your children? I think you do, as the parents, and some people don't necessarily agree. Unfortunately, you know, we do a lot of work in the parental rights sphere, and we're definitely going to be watching this case as well

[00:12:25] because parental rights are, you know, when you talk about fundamental rights, I mean, parental rights are pre-political. Parental rights were around before there were laws. I mean, it's, as Jefferson would say, the laws of nature and nature's God. Yes. You, the parent, have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of your children, and that includes their education. And particularly, if your taxes are paying for the education,

[00:12:53] you have a right to have some say-so in what's going on there. I would think so. And at the very least, as you mentioned, to be able to opt your student out of this, if not have a say, you know, I mean, you obviously have school board elections. You could, you know, elect a whole new school board. And that's been happening, too. It has. Yeah. Yeah. To get this sort of stuff out of the schools. And particularly, and I don't know the age group specific to this case, but particularly some of these things, they're children's books.

[00:13:23] You're talking about- Very young. Very young. I'll give you that in a minute. Kindergarten, first grade, second grade. Like, why would anybody be discussing this topic with that age group for any reason? But, you know, if you're going to get into human sexuality, you know, maybe middle school, maybe high school before you start doing it. And, you know, still, the primary responsibility for that conversation is with the parents.

[00:13:49] You know, I don't know that I want any school teaching my children about these issues. That's up to me. But at the very least, if this curriculum is going to exist at this age group, parents ought to be, number one, informed beforehand, and two, given the opportunity to opt their kids out of it. Yes. Well, let me just quote from Eric Baxter, who is with the Beckett Fund. He said, cramming down, are you going to look at this? Controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents' permission is an affront

[00:14:18] to our nation's tradition. Parental rights and basic human decency went on later to say the court must make it clear. Parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality. The only argument I've heard, Lathan, against this is, well, there's another example of the high court trying to wade into the culture wars. And my answer to that is, is, you know what?

[00:14:45] I think the high court, the Supreme Court, would love to stay out of the culture wars. So maybe the best way to prevent that and to avoid such cases is for the activists to stop trying to inject their gay and transsexual ideologies into the classroom. You know, law and politics and culture, they're all intertwined. I mean, the culture informs the law and the law informs the culture.

[00:15:11] And you can look at, you know, very controversial subjects throughout history where the law moved the culture in the right direction. The culture, particularly in the civil rights era in the South, had not accepted civil rights for blacks for equal treatment of blacks. And the court imposed that. And it led the culture in the right direction. Right.

[00:15:37] And that's one of those times where I think, yes, politics changed the culture. In most cases, culture informs politics. Yeah. There's a phrase that law and politics are always downstream of culture, but I don't really buy that. I think it's more of like a whirlpool. They're just constantly influencing each other. That's good. And which is why. Maybe I should use that illustration instead. Which is why it's so important to get the law right. Yes. And, you know, the court has been wrong on some issues that impacted the culture.

[00:16:08] But, you know, there's always the opportunity to come back for the court to overturn bad precedent that they themselves, that the court had set. But this is why we do the work that we do in the law, in the courts, in public policy, and what we just deem the public arena like this. Like we're trying to inform the culture. Because if you only focus on the law and you abandon the culture, you'll eventually start losing in the courtroom.

[00:16:37] And when the culture, if you completely let the culture go, and you see what we've seen in some elite law schools. You know, our own CEO was shouted down and had to be escorted by police. Right there at Yale. At Yale. Yale Law School. Well, those are your future attorneys. Those are your future federal judges.

[00:16:58] And so if you abandon that culture and it informs those legal minds, then inevitably when they're on the bench or in the courtroom as advocates, you're going to face a much steeper uphill climb to get the law right and to get the cases right, which is why we do the work in all aspects of the work, in the courtroom, in the courtroom of public opinion, which is what I get to do, which is the fun stuff. Leave the litigating to the litigators.

[00:17:28] I'm a recovering attorney is what I tell people. That's good. And a columnist and really just an activist in some respects. And back to that, some people might say, well, then what happened to those people? Shout it out. Well, you know who Judge James Ho is down there in Fifth Circuit Court. And a few others that said, you know, the ones that shouted down your boss, the head of Alliance Defending Freedom, maybe we should just make sure that they don't get various kinds of positions that would allow them someday to actually be judges. That's exactly right.

[00:17:57] Judge Ho wrote an open letter to the entire federal judiciary. It's amazing. And let them know that if that's how Yale views the First Amendment, he would no longer hire clerks from you. Oh, boy. That really affects you if you want to have a higher standing in the future, right? Absolutely. And being a law clerk is really important. And to Yale's credit, they invited her back and they had the event and went off very smoothly. I bet it did. It's a good example. If you don't see the lights, you'll feel the heat. Sometimes. Yeah.

[00:18:25] When we come back from the break, we're going to get into some of the heat that individuals are facing right now because of some of those decisions. But again, just for a minute, let's talk about any other cases you have going on because we will tomorrow talk about First Liberty and they're hoping they will have some cases. But you're waiting right now for an oral argument in one case. Of course, this one, I guess, hasn't been an oral argument as well. But pretty soon there are going to be some other very important decisions.

[00:18:50] And I think we have more religious freedom now in this year of 2025 than we've had in almost a century. Is that fair? Sure. Yeah, I think you could say that. I think the court's jurisprudence on religious liberty over the last 10 years is moving back in the direction of the original intent of the religious liberty clauses in the First Amendment. We do have the South Carolina case that we argued in April.

[00:19:19] We also have the Drummond case where the state of Oklahoma created a school choice program and an online charter school that's run by the Catholic Church applied to be a part of it. And they were rejected because it's run by the Catholic Church. And this is where sometimes like the line between free speech and free exercise and establishment clause, it can all kind of blur together. But that's fine. They're all protected by the First Amendment.

[00:19:47] Because when the government creates a forum or a government program and they create it, they open it up to the public. You cannot exclude religion from it just because it's religion. Right. And that's another ADF president, the Trinity Lutheran case made that very, very clear. So the Drummond case will also be argued this term. And we have three or four others that are at the cert stage where we're waiting to hear if they're going to take it.

[00:20:14] Probably the most famous one is Liam Morrison, young man up in the northeast Massachusetts, I think, where his school was celebrating all things LGBT and encouraging kids to express themselves. And so he wore a T-shirt that said there are only two genders and got sent home for it. So he came back with the shirt and it said there are only. And he had the word to covered up with a label that said censored. And they sent him home again. Well, it's kind of the same principle.

[00:20:42] You open up a forum for free speech when you told the kids to express themselves. And you cannot exclude his speech just because you don't like what he said. It's, you know, that's First Amendment 101. That's first year law school stuff. Yes, there it is. So hopefully the court will take that one and correct it as well. We will be talking a little bit about school choice tomorrow. And, of course, we also posted an article yesterday that kind of told you what was happening in all of the different states. And, of course, we are broadcasting right here from the state of Texas. You've been down there in Austin a few times.

[00:21:10] But it was amazing looking around the country, places where we broadcast some things that happened in the state legislature. So we're going to try to cover some of that tomorrow. But when we come back, one of the things I love about Latham, not only does he have a legal background, he has a historical background. And that's important in terms of this piece by Jonah Goldberg. We'll come back right after this. In 19th century London, two towering historical figures did battle, not with guns and bombs, but words and ideas.

[00:21:40] London was home to Karl Marx, the father of communism, and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. London was in many ways the center of the world economically, militarily, and intellectually. Marx sought to destroy religion, the family, and everything the Bible supports. Spurgeon stood against him, warning of socialism's dangers. Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just religious truth.

[00:22:08] It is truth for all of life. Where do you find men with that kind of wisdom to stand against darkness today? Get the light you need on today's most pressing issues delivered to your inbox when you sign up for the Viewpoints commentary at pointofview.net. Every weekday, in less than two minutes, you'll learn how to be a person of light to stand against darkness in our time.

[00:22:35] It's free, so visit pointofview.net slash sign up right now. Pointofview.net slash sign up. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:02] The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. I'm going to try now to take on an issue that is going to be, I think, front and center for some time. And that is, is it within the responsibility and the power and authority of the president to actually allow individuals like Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency

[00:23:31] to investigate and find places to actually hold individuals accountable and actually cut funds? You would think that would be pretty obvious because just a few days ago, you heard me quoting from Yuval Levin. And he talked about the idea that we really just need to develop a rule of thumb. And it's pretty straightforward. When it comes to the president's authority over the executive branch, his power is supreme. And the reason for that, go to your constitution.

[00:23:59] The executive power shall be vested in the president of the United States of America. When the government is involved, and you're talking about the responsibility of Donald Trump or any president to the government, well, then you have checks and balances. And in many cases, that role of the president might be constrained, even sometimes overshadowed. And so, not only did we talk about it a couple days ago, I did a commentary, which will not air till Monday,

[00:24:26] in which I predicted, based upon that ruling, you would probably have a number of these federal judges that would be overruled. Well, I should have already been considered to be prophetic because I have in front of us one of the articles in which a judge in Massachusetts said, you know, that pause that was put on Donald Trump's decision to defer resignation. In other words, if you now think we're up to 65,000 individuals that say, you know,

[00:24:52] I'm not sure I want to come back into work, and I'd be glad to get this generous retirement benefit you're giving to me. You're going to pay me severance till September 30th. Where is that? Anywhere else. And that apparently is now considered to be constitutional. But there's some other crises. And that's why I wanted Lathan Watts to kind of help us out here, because I've posted one article by Dan McLaughlin, another article by Jonah Goldberg. Both of those individuals at one time or another have been on Point of View,

[00:25:21] but it's been years since either of them have been on. And they do disagree with each other a little bit, but not a whole lot. It's kind of like the synoptic gospel. Same story, but maybe a little different perspective. And then it brings us to one other, because for those of you that really want to dig deeper, one of the things you suggested, Lathan, is there's a very good article today in The Federalist. First, Trump and Vance aren't defying the Constitution. They're following it by John Yoo, who also has been on the program with us,

[00:25:51] and Robert Delahaney. I don't know him. But this is a big issue, because a lot of people are saying, how dare the president or even Elon Musk or anybody on the executive branch know where we're spending our money? And I think that's a pretty difficult argument to make, but that's the one we're hearing out there on the streets these days. Yeah, it's been a fascinating couple of weeks.

[00:26:15] If this is what we can expect for the next four years of Trump's second term, it's going to be a very, very interesting time to be alive. I think maybe the most important thing about a lot of these executive orders and then the legal challenges to them

[00:26:36] will be once they're challenged, if one or two or several of them make it all the way to the Supreme Court, you will have this court weighing in on where the lines are between executive authority and congressional. And those move around a little bit, let's be honest. They can. They certainly did under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Exactly.

[00:27:05] And they later moved the other way under Richard Nixon. Yeah, and I think that might be ultimately the biggest result of all of this. I mean, I'm all for cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. That's the bottom line, yeah. But the long-term impact may actually be the judicial opinions that come out of analyzing the challenges to these things and hopefully providing a little clarity going forward.

[00:27:33] But I think the other big-picture thing that all of this stuff that has come out in the first couple of weeks with Musk and the waste and the fraud and the money that's been uncovered is it shows you, at least – and this is just my opinion. This is just the world according to Watts. We're not talking about ADF cases here, so I'm not – this isn't ADF speaking.

[00:27:56] But it shows me that the unconstitutional fourth branch of government, the administrative state, is so big that no one can manage it. Yes. It has gotten to the point where the best president, whoever lived, cannot keep an eye on everything that's going on, which makes the case for reducing it because he is supposed to be the head of the executive branch.

[00:28:21] And so if we're going to have executive branch agencies, they need to be manageable by the executive. I mean, that's the job. And just in the first couple of weeks, all of the stuff that has been – that has come out – and you mentioned – and I was just thinking, because you just sort of mentioned in passing, like 65,000 people that are going to take – basically be laid off, but they get paid until September,

[00:28:48] and then they're officially out of a job. That's double the size of my hometown when I was growing up. I know. And it just hit me as you said that. I was like, that's – it just shows the massive scale – Yeah, just it's vast. – of the administrative state in this country, which was not anticipated or planned for – Or sure not. Or certainly not authorized by the Constitution.

[00:29:18] They were keenly aware of the concentration of power. They tried to keep that from happening. That's why we have three separate co-equal branches, and there's supposed to be a check on the authority and the power of each other. But what has occurred over time – and you mentioned Wilson and FDR – is this growth of the executive branch agencies, and frankly, Congress abdicating their lawmaking authority to those executive branch agencies.

[00:29:48] And so if you're really going to pare this down, Congress is going to have to be involved. Of course. They're going to have to take back some of the lawmaking authority that is rightfully theirs from these unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch agency. And so as Trump keeps doing these executive orders and then people keep challenging them in court,

[00:30:15] eventually some of these are bound to make their way to the Supreme Court, and I'll be very interested to see which ones do and how the court lays out the opinions in these cases that hopefully make some clear delineations of – yes, I mean the assumption should be if it's executive branch and he's the head of the executive branch, he can deal with the executive branch. But the devil's always in the details.

[00:30:41] But hopefully we'll get maybe some good court decisions out of this that clarify executive branch authority and where it interlopes with congressional authority and where the lines are, what you can do and what you can't do. You know, one of the things you just said in passing is how big the administrative state is, how big the government is. I did a commentary a while back in which I tried to compare the size and scope and funding of the federal government to even the biggest companies in the world.

[00:31:10] And at the time I used Amazon and Walmart. I need to go back and maybe I could do all of the things that Elon Musk touches with his hands or even the size of the Trump empire. But at the time I wrote it, we had an individual who was a former senator from Illinois who hadn't really run anything and talk about an individual now running something as massive as that who's had no CEO experience.

[00:31:37] You may like or not like Donald Trump, but certainly an individual that's been a CEO has a much better sense of maybe how to run this massive organization than somebody who just won a 50 senators who then got elected president of the United States. And it's, you know, I think to his credit, I don't think anybody would put Donald Trump in the category of lacking confidence.

[00:32:04] But I think it's to his credit that if you look at, excuse me, like, you know, his business career in the real estate development, building and construction, and I did a little work for the construction industry in my career, you can see how he does things. He subs things out. Right. Right. And it's, I think, to his credit to know what you don't know and then find the guy who does. Right. And I think that's exactly what he did with Elon Musk.

[00:32:33] He's like, this is a massive problem. I saw what Musk did with Twitter. He came in and got rid of 80% of the workforce. And Twitter is more successful than it ever has been. I want to reduce government. This guy's good at finding ways to reduce things. Turn him loose. Yeah. And we're seeing, you know, some of the results of that. One of the articles is by Jonah Goldberg, who I think very highly of. Matter of fact, I might even grab his book here. The Suicide of the West may be one of the best Jonah Goldberg's books out there.

[00:33:02] But when we come back, I wanted to talk about this for a minute because it gets into the issue of history because he says, okay, I'm right there in the Caribbean right now. So maybe it's the rum drinks. I don't know. But I'm not too concerned because there's comfort in history. And I'm sitting across an individual that knows history. And you kind of think about some times in which you could have been really concerned about what Woodrow Wilson did or even, further than that, what Abraham Lincoln did, what certainly happened under FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[00:33:32] And there's a sense in which maybe, I don't know if we'll calm down the people out in the street shouting right now, but maybe calm some of us down to say, we've had what was seen as a constitutional crisis before. We did okay. We'll be back right after this. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again.

[00:34:01] We have in studio with us just a little bit longer, Latham Watson. Also, at the moment, focusing on this piece by Jonah Goldberg. We'd love to get him on. I know Steve, our producer, has been trying to make that happen. But he talks about comfort in history. And, of course, there's a back and forth. And at one point he says the obvious, which we all know, two wrongs don't make a right. And so just because this particular group did it, and in some cases you can see that there is a sense in which Barack Obama

[00:34:29] and Joe Biden did some things, and Donald Trump said, well, why can't I do that? If it's sauce for the liberal goose, it should be sauce for the conservative gander. But we need to come back to the Constitution, obviously. And in some respects what he does is takes us through history and reminds us of a number of things. Of course, there are all sorts of phrases that people have been using over the years, talking about whether or not the Supreme Court should have ultimate authority and all the rest.

[00:34:59] And I love this one line here. He says, look, America has slipped the bounds of constitutionality many times in the past. Andrew Jackson may or may not have actually said, it's probably apocryphal, that Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. I think both of the individuals we quoted here, Dan McLaughlin and him, are there. And then we talk about the Commerce Secretary under FDR, Harry Hopkins, saying,

[00:35:25] I want to assure you that we're not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to be legal. And that for a while was a problem, because if the court wasn't going along with FDR, he wanted to pack the court. Well, that didn't work out so well either. So I still believe in the resilience of the American people, the checks and balances we have. And, of course, let's face it, we also have a media that sometimes actually does its job.

[00:35:52] All of that together says, you know, maybe we should just calm down a little bit when some of the people are shouting in the streets that Elon Musk needs to be impeached. This is a constitutional crisis, and this is how democracy ends. I don't think so. No, and, you know, there's – it seems to be, especially a lot of folks in traditional media, never read the story of the boy who cried.

[00:36:21] I wonder if we're going to get there. Just in the last week, I've probably heard the phrase constitutional crisis more than I have in years leading up to it. And what they're claiming to be a constitutional crisis is basically Trump bringing in Musk to look at the federal government and find ways to save money. If everything is a crisis, nothing is a crisis.

[00:36:51] And if you keep saying every time Trump does something that you don't like, that he's forcing a constitutional crisis upon us, eventually people are going to stop listening to you. And if he does actually do something that would create a crisis, they're not listening to you anymore because you've been saying this about every time Elon Musk walks into the Oval Office and does a press conference with his kid on his shoulders, which I thought was awesome. Oh. So – And the son's name is X. X. Yeah.

[00:37:21] Gotta love that. Gotta love that. Yeah. So Goldberg is right is that there is comfort in history. There's an old phrase that those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Right. And I think it's more accurate to say those of us who do learn from history are doomed to watch the rest of you repeat it while we stand around yelling, pick up a book. Read something, please. It's like Buckley used to say conservatives stand a fort history yelling stop. I remember stand a fort. Yeah.

[00:37:51] A fort. Yeah. And so those – I remember that line. Yeah. And so those – History nerds and constitutional nerds are like, you know, we stand a fort progress, I guess, yelling read. Yeah. Like, please read the Constitution. Please read. Please read the Federalist Papers. You know, please, you know, read the history of this country. Look at the history. And there are some times when I think you could honestly say under FDR we were in the midst of a Great Depression. He was pushing the New Deal. He was going to try to pack the court.

[00:38:20] And, you know, at that point you have to say – and, of course, Woodrow Wilson, he really just didn't think we should even really take the Constitution in a literal sense. And so I'm just picking off two presidents. I can pick off three or four more, including even the current one who did have said some things that just make my head explode. But the bottom line is that's why we so appreciate the structure that the framers gave us. That's right. Exactly.

[00:38:45] And, you know, you have an entire branch of government that exists for citizens to challenge the overreach of the other two branches of government. Right. And weigh in and say, no, you can't do that. And, you know, at ADF, like I said, we work in law and public policy and in the public square. And we're nonpartisan. If this president goes too far and we feel like we have to challenge him in court, we will. Yep.

[00:39:13] When the previous president did often, we did often. But it has nothing to do with the RRD by their name. It has everything to do with the Constitution and the law and what how this country should be governed. Yeah. And just because it's your guy and you maybe like the result, the ends cannot justify the means. Well said. So that's why it's important to know these things. And like I say all the time, you don't have to be a historian or a constitutional scholar.

[00:39:44] But you do need to know enough about your rights to know when they're being violated and when you know when you need to know to find somebody like ADF to help you out. One of these, actually both articles we've posted and then one that I would recommend if you want to go into it for 10 pages, all quote J.D. Vance. So I thought just beforehand we'll mention because J.D. Vance said if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tries to command the attorney general on how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that was also illegal.

[00:40:14] Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. Now, I think it's fair to say Jonah Goldberg is concerned about that. I would say that maybe Dan McLaughlin isn't as concerned about it. And John Yu, who we have – I guess I could post that tomorrow. It's 10 pages, so it's going to be tough sledding for people who don't have a legal background. I'd say not only is that not unconstitutional, illegal, it really makes a great deal of sense.

[00:40:40] And he starts out with this quote that if you don't know where it came from, you'd say that had to have come from a MAGA-Trumper. And it turns out it's a quote from John Marshall, probably the greatest chief justice of the Supreme Court. So sometimes we need to step back a little bit. This is why I like the Jonah Goldberg piece so much, because he gives us some history and recognizes we've been here before.

[00:41:03] And he holds out for the possibility that sooner or later Donald Trump's going to do something that actually violates the Constitution. And as a result, we've been there before and we have remedies for it. And up until that time, I think anybody shouting Constitution crisis is like the boy crying wolf, right?

[00:41:20] It is, and the Vance quote is, you know, he said that judges don't have the authority to do this to the executive's appropriate or legitimate power, I think is what he said. But there are times when they have to, of course. So it's when the executive acts outside of that legitimate power that the court does have the authority to say so. And so I think we're going to see that, like we said in the earlier segment, you know, with a lot of the executive orders, a lot of things that are going on, they're going to be challenged.

[00:41:50] There's going to be court opinions, and I think we will get this sort of clarified. But the reason it's so important for Congress to get involved in some of these things is because even if the court says he does have the legitimate authority to do what he did by executive order, the next president can undo it just as simply as he did it. Which is why if you want this to last, you've got to get Congress involved and make it legitimate federal law.

[00:42:17] We haven't changed our take action item, but I was just communicating by email with our president, Warren Kelly. I think we've already identified 10 bills that might be part of our take action. So very quickly, we're going to start suggesting that you can contact your member of Congress or your two senators about some of these pieces of legislation. Because if it passes the House and Senate and signed by Donald Trump, then it's law of the land. Executive orders can be reversed. So very good. Latham Watts, always appreciate you.

[00:42:46] I would encourage people to find out more about you, and they can go to our website, pointofview.net. And as they click down there, it will take them to obviously your website, which is adflegal.org. Correct. Looking forward to the next time, and we need to take a break. We'll come back with more right after this. It was not that long ago that censorship appeared to be almost inevitable.

[00:43:16] Free speech was being attacked and strangled in many places. And some of us wondered if this was the end. But now, many feel a new sense of hope, a chance for a fresh dawn. Let me caution you. Now is not the time to relax. It's a time to press forward, to use this fresh opportunity to proclaim and learn how to apply truth to current issues.

[00:43:42] By the fact you're here, listening right now, that tells me that you recognize the vital role Point of View plays as a voice of truth. For more than 50 years, we've informed and equipped people who have made a real difference. And when you give to Point of View today, you breathe life into what can be a new golden era for the truth. Please, take a moment right now and invest in truth.

[00:44:10] Visit pointofview.net or give it 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net. Click in now or call 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.