Time for the channel light first one and weather forecast juny mostly sunny day to day, turning partly cloudy with a chance of storm's best opportunity for that they're saying between one and eight pm APM is the end of the heat advisory in effect. Ninety three are high today with a heat index north of one hundred overnight down to seventy four. Just a slight chancer rain pop up
afternoon storms tomorrow kind of like today. Ninety two for the high, overnight muggy and seventy four and a high of ninety four on Friday again with a chance of afternoon storms up to eighty. Right now, time for a traving update. Chuck Ingram from the US see health.
You find comprehensive care that's so personal, what makes your best tomorrow possible. That's boundless care for better outcomes, So expect more at uc help dot com. A bit of good news eastbound two seventy five traffic is starting to move again between Hamilton Avenue and when it's going to take a while to get rid of the backup. Eastbound Reagan Highway continues heavy, yes, so looks for looking for alternatives to the closure between two seventy five and seventy
five northbound. Seventy five are wrecked near Gabrith southbound an accident near Tylersville. Look, it's really hot, so let's give you a few tips on how to stay cool like the Yankees. No wait, they're cold, Stay hydrated, wear light colored clothes, fine shade or air conditioning, and listen to the judge. He's next. Chuck ingramon fifty five KARS the talk station.
Eight fifty five airc DE talk station, A very happy Wednesday. It's like, I hate to say it out loud for fear of things tanking on us, but it looks like our systems are actually working today. I can see Judge Ennapolitano. Welcome back, sir. One of my favorite times of the week having you on my program. It's good to hear you back.
Thank you, Thank you very much, Brian.
And why why did Ingram have to mention the Yankees at a time like this?
Watching the game yesterday, my wife's.
Not exactly in a hot streak, and we know who they're playing this week. I want to thank your producer Joe Strecker and mine Chris Leonard for fixing the issue that caused me to kept getting bounced off last week, But you're in good company. I was being interviewed by the Foreign Ministry of Russia and kept getting bounced off.
No, no, let's go.
I'm in New York.
There in Moscow and we had to go to my iPhone. But all is well here.
All is not well in Washington, d C.
Where the President thinks he can start any war without a congressional declaration and then drive from office one of the few people who understands and defends the Constitution, in this case, the premiere defender of the Constitution, Congressman Thomas Massey, And all is not well when the president dispatches police wearing masks to arrest people without search warrants or arrest warrants and claims that somehow that is consistent with the Constitution.
Hence my piece this week, the Coming police State.
Yes, the coming police State. We'll get to that just a moment. On the attacks on Massy, I was similarly thought. I found it rather preposterous and ridiculous. You know, when you elect someone, they're not going to be one hundred percent lockstep in line with what you believe each and every time. But he is a staunch defender of the supreme law of the land, a document that Donald Trump and every other member of elected capacity has sworn an
oath to uphold. And I know there are different thoughts and opinions about that, but you know, and I've had to sort of defend Massy as well as defend Trump and kind of do this balancing act since the bombs dropped, and the balancing acts brought about by things that you and I have talked about, like, for example, authorizations for use of military force, as well as the War Powers Act in nineteen seventy three, two things that fly in the face of the delegation of powers within the Constitution,
and things of which not have been tested in court to see if they are on constitutionally firm grounds. So you have people arguing that he can react, he has sixty day window where he can pretty much damme do anything he wants as Commander in achieved. That's what the War Powers were access But that's a delegation of power that Congress holds correct.
Right, correct.
This is Massi's argument that the War Powers Resolution, which was vetoed by President Nixon, not because it passed along to the presidency too much power. But yeah, Nixon was on the other extreme of this. Remember Nixon said it once in his interview with David Frost after he left office. If the president does it, that means it's not illegal. Translation, the president do whatever he wants. Nixon thought the War Powers Resolution krimped his style rather than gave to the
president the powers that the Congress has. Congressman Massey's argument is twofold one. The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because the power to declare war is a core function of Congress. What is a core function one that has articulated in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled many times core functions cannot be transferred from one branch to the other.
That's argument number one. Argument number two.
Even if the War Powers Resolution it's a law, it's an act, but its official title is the word resolution.
Right, I don't know why.
Even if the War Powers Resolution is constitutional, there's a condition in there. The President can only fight these wars, drop these bombs, attack where every once for sixty days if there's an imminent threat.
To American national security.
What imminent threat did Iran pose to the national security of the United States? When American intel says they didn't have and weren't developing and haven't been working on a bomb.
Since two thousand and two.
Well, we can all ask the same thing. I mean, I mean, obviously eras before the War Powers resolution, what eminent threat to North Korea or Kosovo or Libya or Vietnam or any other conflicts we've been in over the past multiple decades, none of which represented a fifty the American people, But we ended up in long term, embroiled conflict with those countries and lost lots of lots of life.
My stomach was turned yesterday and by a piece in the Washington Post op ed because it was written by three well respected law professors whom I know. Their argument is an interesting one, but it's constitutional nonsense. Their argument is, Okay, we haven't declared war since December eighth, nineteen forty one. Actually there was a subsequent declaration of war a little bit later, but it was for World War Two, and
we fought thirty six wars in the interim. Because Congress didn't challenge those wars, it actually enabled the president constitutionally to declare them.
That is absolute hogwashed. But that's their argument.
Yeah, their argument is that a regular, consistent, systematic pattern violating the Constitution somehow magically makes that violation constitutional when it's unchecked, unstopped, and accepted. I have read, so where the case is that were the case, you could change anything in the Constitution.
It's like remember open, notorious, hostile underclaim of right. He just declared it's yours, and you squat on it and you keep waving it around. Finally it becomes yours. Well, this is like they're acting in reliance on nobody's follow through with accountability for prior acts that are unconstitutioned. Now here's a great question.
Though.
They obviously were going to try to impeach Trump on this, even though they let it slide when it came to Reagan and Bush and Obama and Biden and everybody else who's played fast and loose with the declarations of war and dropped bombs and regions that represented a threat to our nation. So this time they plan on going through an impeachment process. Obviously that got shot down. Yes, they were an overwhelming supported Democrats. They don't want to type this with a ten foot poll.
And impeachment in this environment is absurd. Let me point out something else. This is how smart Congressman Thomas Massey, who's an engineer and MI I t top of his class.
Engineer, not a lawyer or a.
Constitutional scholar, although he knows more about the Constitution than these three that wrote this nonsense in the in the Washington Post and are high paid professors at eminent law schools. When Barack Obama bombed Libya at Missus Clinton, then his secretary of State, at Missus Clinton's assistance, remember she said, we.
Came, we bombed, he died. Ha ha as if that's something laugh about.
In order to avoid the constitutional issues, he did not use the military. He used the CIA. They were dressed in uniforms, they flew planes, they dropped bombs, they shot missiles, but they were not the United States military. The War Powers Resolution only requires reporting and eventual approval. If he used the military, why because in nineteen seventy three it was unthinkable that the CIA would have its own army. Today it does. Barack Obama used it. He didn't give
any notification. He made an announcement from Brazil, which is where he was while Congress was on spring break. We just destroyed Bolbyan government never used the American military, so My argument is these people, Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump, they all took the same oath I did when I became a judge. Excuse me, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as it's written, not as you want it to be. They all find ways around it. Is that what we voted for?
Well it's not what I voted for, of course, But see, Congress doesn't want to do its job. It does not want the responsibility of having the heavy load of an actual consideration of war. And it's unlikely that these that you could hurt enough cats to get get to engage the military, which obviously in these you know, everybody's looking for expedients rather than actual you know, a faith in the law and the Constitution. It's easier for them to
just let it go. And since we have a history of them letting it go, it's just it's status quo, I mean. And I wanted to get to the question what would be the how could you hold a president in account if everyone was in accord that this exceeded the presidential authority? Is impeachment throughoute that you go you've done something? Is that represent a high crime and misdemeanor to deploy military forces, or inn Obama's case, the CIA, to get the dirty work done.
Well.
He spent one hundred million dollars. He bombed tunnels that were empty. He didn't set back the nuclear program at all. The nuclear program was lawful, authorized by the IAEA and the Non Proliferation Treaty, which the United States has signed and Israel is not. It was inspected and improved by the UN. Could you imagine if somebody did that to us, if somebody attacked one of our nuclear reactors because they didn't want us to have a nuclear weapon, even though
we've signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. Thomas Massey I think the rest of the Congress is afraid of him because he points out how they don't do their job. Because they like Donald Trump, they will just overlook these things, or because they're lazy, they will overlook these things. When Obama bombed Libya, at that very moment, I was on air interviewing the late Great Harlem Congressman Charles Wrangle, who sounded like this, and I said, Congressman Wrangle, why did
the Congress look the other way? Without imitating his voice, I'll say, well, it's very easy if it's a success will applaud him.
If it's a failure, it's his failure.
Well, that is a rejection of your obligation under the Constitution.
So what's the follow through? Then, going back to my question, if.
You know there is no follow through.
If Congressman Massey were to bring a lawsuit before a federal judge to enjoin Trump from violating the Constitution, the federal judge will say.
This is a political question. Yes, this is not something we can resolve. You have to enact more time.
You have to elect more Thomas Massey's to the Congress, or elect a Thomas Massey like person to the White House. This is not a justitiable issue. So we're stuck with it.
So one of the mechanisms, though I suppose the only ones, sin say the power of the person will be to cut off funding. But that would require cutting off all funding to the American military. Otherwise you play fast and loose with the pile of money that's handed over to the American military to keep it running.
Right, you can, because the president doesn't have a line item veto, he'd have to veto the entire budget, so you can put in there, none of these funds shall be used for and list a bunch of things, but be very difficult to enforce that, very very difficult. You're talking about a budget of a trillion dollars. The Pentagon hasn't passed in audit in the past twenty years, and nobody knows where the money goes.
Well, I suppose that for this long circuitous defense of Congress, Fomasse and the Constitution, we find ourselves at a rather interesting point here, Judseph Palatano, which is it sounds like there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it.
Well, a lot of this will change if the Democrat I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, because there's a down, a tremendous downside to this. If the Democrats take either House of Congress, that will at least keep Donald Trump's feet to the fire. He didn't even give war powers resolution notice to the Gang of Eight, which he's required by law to do.
The Gang of Eight is which is also in constitution in Congress.
Within a Congress, a constitution doesn't authorize that. But they are the ranking the chair and the ranking members of the two intelligence committees, and the Republican and Democrat leaders.
In both houses.
He didn't even give them notice, But he didn't get constitution because when he gives them notice, he does so under the veil of secrecy. So they can't tell anybody. They can't tell their spouses, they can't tell the press, they can't tell other members of Congress, they can't tell their constituents.
What the hell kind of a democracy is that?
Well, I guess it was widely reported that you give the notice to Congress after the bombing, which is within forty eight hours under the War Powers Resolution. So I was I had read pretty much everywhere that that actually that he followed through on that, unlike some prior presidents who didn't even bother along those lines, consider Secretary State
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with the CIA. So anyhow, again, I think we just found ourselves sort of reaching this conclusion that he is free to do what the hell he wants, just like all the other presidents before him have done.
And then watch for him to start warning about Iranian and Mexican sleeper cells and about the need for the FEDS to know everything we're thinking and saying in order to root out the sleeper cells.
Going back to your depression.
Of civil liberties, keep us safe. Absolutely not. Who will keep us safe from the people doing the suppressing?
Yeah? Well, and one might argue that nobody knows that better than Donald Trump considered he was the focus of many lettered agencies nefarious activities under his first term. Oh, judgment Napolitano. Always a pleasure going through these fun topics with you.
It's nice we get to see each other this week.
Yeah, yeah, that makes it great. Well, who you talking to today judging freedom?
I have the great Max Bloomenthal. I have Professor Glenn Deeson. I have Ambassador Craig Murray. I have Phil Giraldi, the CIA agent who told George Bush Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush threw him out of the Oval office, announced to the country that Saddam Hussein did have them, and GERALDI resigned. And a Bright a bright intellectual PhD and political philosophy and retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwadkowski who writes great things for Judge napp dot com.
So I have a busy day coming up. On Sunday, I had Scott Ritter on on a special show because of the bombing that occurred on Saturday night. So far seven hundred and seventy five thousand views.
That's great and the numbers keep going up.
In my world, those are over the top numbers.
Well way over the top of mine. I have no idea, but I did find out you yesterday that I have listeners in Nigeria, believe it or not, and that just tickled me to death. Judge Jennena Polatana, every Wednesday here we have the blessing at eight thirty to talk with him, get his insights, thoughts and opinions. I appreciate your time and this time. You spoke my listeners each and every week and I hope you have a wonderful week and until next month when.
Joe Strecker, thank you for your helping getting us set up today. And remember I want to be on with Congressman Massey one of these days soon.
You got it, man. All we need to do is work out the logistics, but that can be done. Take care of my friends, guys. Thank you to you. Eight forty four to fifty five KRC DE Talk Station fifty five KRC