Jenline says, as far as the weather goes anyway, partly cloudy Skuy's breezing high sixty four today, rain possible after eight pm tomorrow with an overnight low forty. Partly cloudy sky's tomorrow during the day fifty four for the high. You may get some evening rain on your drive home tomorrow. Tomorrow's high or low overnight thirty one and a high have fifty on Friday with partly cloudy sky's thirty five degrees. Now, let's hear about traffic from chuck Ingram from the UCF
Traffics Center. Around forty percent of cancers are preventable. Lifestyle changes and screenings can make a difference. Call five one three five eighty five u.
CE see see sath Bend seventy one continues to run an extra fifteen minutes from above to seventy five to Red Bank. They clear the Wreckeddena northbound four seventy one's clearing out from Grand southbound seventy five, break lights through Lachland and northbound seventy five, and an extra ten between
Erlonger and downtown. It's International Tongue Twister Contest day. So our next guest as you might imagine it's busy selling seashells by the seashore, but perhaps with a nudge to budge, with flavoring fudge and holding no brudge through deep sludge. Here comes the judge Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs the talk station.
A thirty fifty five krcy Toxics. I think that's one of his best ones, your honor. Yes, you worked on that poet and.
He doesn't even know it.
It makes me wonder if if he went to chat GPT to help him write that one, because I know he didn't have a lot of time on his hands. But anyway, Judge Eddenapolaitano, everyone's here in the fifty five krs morning showing God love him for doing it. And you know, speaking about favorites, you this column you wrote, you know, of all the columns you've written, this is like red meat for Brian Thomas. I just I thought this was amazing. You just spell it out, you give
the history behind it. But I know the people aren't going like, but what what is it? What what's the you're talking about? We'll get to that. But loved, loved, loved this. I think you did a great job. You always do a great job, but you knocked it out of the park. About the administrative state, this monstrosity that exists behind the scenes, over which no one seems to have any control, including our elected officials. Nothing irks me more than you get a sub committee of representatives duly
elected by the American people. They asked one of these administrative agencies for records, and they metaphorically raised their middle finger in response, like, now we're not going to give it to you. What the hell is going on?
This is the fourth branch of government, unrecognized by the Constitution, established originally by that former constitutional law professor and former president of Princeton University and former Governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, who fervently believed that America would be a happier, healthier, safer, and more prosperous place if we were governed by experts, not by the people we elect, but by experts who would be high by the people we elect, And so
he created the administrative state. It's neither fish nor foul. You can't tell what branch of the government it's in. For example, food and drug administration rights its own rules, prosecutes sellers of products who don't comply with those rules in its own courts before its own judges, interprets its own rules and assesses punishment against them. These are not federal judges that are nominated by the President confirmed by
the Senate. These are employees of the Food and Drug Administration who put a black robot and call themselves judges. So this entity that rights rules, interprets rules, enforces rules, punishes violations of the rules, as I said, is alien to the Constitution. And Donald Trump, God bless him, has had enough of it. There are many, many of these administrative agencies. The CDC, the Centers for Disease Control that told all of us we have to see six feet
apart during COVID. We later learned that there was not a shred of scientific evidence to justify any benefits from that. Nevertheless, that is an administrative agency and nobody seems to be able to control them. Yes, the head of these agencies is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but the rules are written, enforced, and interpreted by bureaucrats who are always there. Trump, by cutting back the budgets on these entities, is trying to bring them in line
or eradicate them. I suggest in my piece which I expose all this and expose the history of it. It's not just me exposing that a lot of people have of late. It would be far better if Trump did this by legislation than by FIAT. Then the legal challenges go away. You know, as bad as these administrative agencies are, they were enacted by and are funded by Congress, so only Congress can en The President doesn't want to wait for Congress. He wants to more or less starve them to death.
And either it was an op ed piece, or at least I think it was an op ed piece. Well, guy was a Wall Street journal and they talked about, you know, Trump inviting and welcoming litigation on these topics. He knows, for example, that some of the things he's doing will be challenged in court, and he knows he's even on shaky legal ground on some of them, but he wants to get in front of the court because hell, they might confirm or approve that what he's doing is act,
is correct and right. I mean, we got the Chevron case out of the Supreme Court, which you bring up in the in the opinion piece. The deference that they courts were required to give to the administrative state when it comes to interpreting interpreting these rules and regulations, that's no longer the case.
I mean correct.
The Congress now has this.
This court got rid of the Chevron case. The Chevron case gave the administrative a no seas a leg up, prohibited judges from second guests in them, and said whatever the experts say is so. So when the EPA declares a mud puddle to be a navigable waterway, as absurd as that is, the Court is not in a position to deny, doubt or negate that. After we got rid of the Chevron doctrine. With this court, when the EPA is challenged, the challenger and the government are an equal
standing in court. There is no deference to the government. On the contrary, the government must prove its case in terms of the existence of these administrative agencies and whether they are unconstitutional to the core. There are two members of the Court who, in other opinions have opined, as I have, that Wilson was wrong, the Congress violated the Constitution,
and they all should go. That's a Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil gorris I don't know that there's a majority for that, but will We'll see the article on the Wall Street Journal. The uped on the Wall Street Journal to which you refer talks about the president's ability to fire the head of these administrative agencies. He is teeing that up to go before the Supreme Court. Last week. The Supreme Court basically said we're not going to get involved.
They didn't say can and they didn't say can't. They just said we're not going to get involved, and no one filed a dissent from that. We're not going to get involved. Sent it back to a federal district court trial court to address the issue. The President wants to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel. This is not what Bob Muller did. It's the same name, but it's a different entity. It basically protects whistleblowers in the executive branch, and Joe Biden appointed this person to
a five year term. The legislation says he can only be fired for cause that his personal misbehavior. Trump attempted to fire him anyway in the courts put a stop to it. In the Supreme Court declined to get involved. This is symptomatic of this whole big picture, Brian, Are these administrative agencies constitutional in the first place? Justice? As Thomas and Gorsach say no, three more justices say it. Two thirds of the federal government goes away overnight.
Oh, you give me something to dream about at night on that one.
You're when you're not writing poetry for Ingram. Yeah.
Now going back to the heads of these administrative agencies. Now, as you point out, there is a head of the administrative agencies. They do get you know, approval, and they go through the process. Do they have the ability to stop any given regulation that comes out? Like the navigable water, a mud puddle is navigle water. We know that one got dealt with by I think West Virginia versus EPA.
But in the fundamental LESSI is under the post Chevron era, someone can challenge It's the separate line of question I have for you. But if Trump has someone of the same mindset as you and I that these agencies have way too much power, can they prevent any given regulation from coming out by virtue of being head of that particular administration administra agency?
Yes, if Donald Trump were to a point, well he has a point at least Elden as the head of the EPA. Zelden can control what regulations the EPA comes out with. Now, if regulations come out without the approval of the head of the agency, I don't know what would happen under those circumstances. But theoretically, theoretically, the head of an administrative agency can control what the administrative agency does.
But even under presidents as conservative as Ronald Reagan and traditional as the two Bushes, I mean, these administrative agencies just continued to churn and churn and churn. One of the ones in Trump's crosshairs is everybody's favorite, the IRS. They just they're well north of seventy thousand pages of interpretations of their own regulations. This stuff's not written by Congress. This is written by bureaucrats, no matter who runs the IRS.
Justice Scalia, in a famous case called Marson against Olson, which had to do with the establishment of the Special Council, the one that Bob Muller ran, argued in a dissent that Congress cannot delegate away its power in this case of appointment of a special Council. That can't delegate away its regulatory power. Why because the Constitution says all quote, all legislative power herein delegated shall vest in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of two houses,
et cetera, et cetera. They can't give that power away. So if Congress wanted to say a mud puddle is a navigable water, would result, I would think in a lot of them getting losing their reelection hits. But if Congress wanted to say that, that is at least as absurd as it is constitutional. But when some group of bureaucrats, unknown, unidentified, unanswerable to the public, says it, and we're required to comply with it, that's the constitutional problem.
Now, the other component of the question I wanted to ask, in the post Chevron world that we live in now, where there's no longer that immediate deference, who has standing to bring a challenge?
You would have to be you would have to be harmed. In the West Virginia case, that's the mud puddle. The farmer whose mud puddle they attempted to regularly certainly had standing. He wanted to build a structure within twenty yards of the mud puddle, and they said, no, you've got to be back forty yards. Pretty simple facts to understand, but it resulted in a monumental constitutional clash in the Supreme
Court sided with the farmer, thank god. But it would take someone whose oxes Gord, someone who was actually personally uniquely harmed by this standing is not always easy to find him in some of these federal judges who are hearing challenges to Trump's refusal to spend money. This is another issue. Can the president and pound funds and not spend what Congress has totally spend. The short answer is no. But when these labor unions file litigation, the courts are saying,
you're not harmed. Still have the labor union. There's no harm, there's no standing. I'm not going to hear the case. I'm not saying what the president is doing is constitutional. I'm just saying you don't have standing. It's not always easy to get standing. Madison did that intentionally because they didn't want the federal courts to exist as monitors of the other two branches unless someone was uniquely harmed by what either of the other two branches did.
Judge Endita Paulatana wonderful insight, wonderful and thoughtful historic breakdown of how we got from Madison to here and what a wild he's rolling over in his grave and he has been for decades now.
I imagine, Yes, yes.
Judge Enda Paulatana, God bless you, sir, judging freedom of course your podcasts and your interviews, and I recommend my listeners search for that online. They're all using their search engine. Who are we talking to today, your honor Congressman Thomas.
I was waiting for you to ask me. You know, I also have Colonel McGregor and my other regulars. But at three this afternoon live Congressman Thomas Massy, and then of course it's posted for anybody to see. When I announced this yesterday, I can't tell you the laudatory emails that I received because Congressman Massy.
Is coming on and the only no vote on that resolution they passed out of the House yesterday, and he has good reason to vote no.
The title of the title of my segment with Congressman Massy is do we still have a Constitution? Oh?
That's going to be a wonderful conversation, as they always are. Judge Napolitan a best of health next Wednesday, already looking forward to it. As always, I'll enjoy hearing your conversation with Congressman Massy today.
Three Thank you, Thank you, Brian, all the best to.
You and to you, sir. Eight forty three I fifty five krsee
The talk station fifty five KARC