Americas_Criminologist_10_7_25_Guest Douglas V Gibbs

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Col steal salsait, just dressing me as fate, shadows secrets,
The Scraminologist co sales of the law, eaosys A crown

(00:30):
break and jag.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
And here's America's Criminologist, doctor Kerry Myers. All right, all right,
all right, how's everybody doing. Welcome to another episode of
America's Criminologist, where law, order, virtue, and constitutional integrity intersect.
I'm your host, Doctor Curry Myers, retired sheriff, applied criminologist,
and an apologetic federalist. On this program, we challenge cultural decay,

(00:59):
ex and the moral fractures in our society and promote
a return to the pillars that once made America strong.
In my book The Advent a fairroal Man, I talked
about the importance of faith, family information. You can view
all my published works on Substack at doctor Curriemeiers dot
substack dot com. This segment of America's Criminologists is brought

(01:19):
to you by Howard Wagoo. Premium beef from the enriched
Plains of Kansas, ethically raised, incredibly marbled, and delivered to
your doorstep. Visit Howardwagoo dot com to order today. Taste
the tradition, and hey, did you know that they actually
have wago beef tallow lotion. Now you can put it
on your face. It feels good. None of that process junk.

(01:41):
It's all natural. I notice my dog following me around
more often and wants to lick my face. But you know,
I must must be the beef. I don't know, but anyway,
it's good for you. And like I said, a lot
of people, it's just they're selling it in droves. Here's
my riff for the day. The streets of Chicago have
become a stage for moral anarchy, a tragic case study

(02:04):
of what I've called again feral man unmoored from faith, family,
and moral formation. This just isn't about crime, It's about decay.
The federal deployment of the National Guard units Texas, Illinois
to cite just some of them to cities like Chicago
is not tyranny. It's triage. Quite frankly, it's a moral

(02:25):
and constitutional response to lawlessness that local and state officials
refuse to confront. We're witnessing not just the rise of chaos,
but also what I've written about before called okaphobia. It's
a hatred of one's own nation. And values. Sanctuary policies
have allowed criminal opportunities to thrive under a guise of compassion.

(02:47):
But make no mistake, this is not compassion. It's a
cowardice and it's killing our cities in our country. Order
is not oppression. It is the bedrock of freedom, and
where local leaders fail, the federal government must intervene, not
as occupiers, but as guardians of the republic. Joining us
today to explore these themes further as Douglas V. Gibbs,

(03:11):
known as Mister Constitution. He's the president of the Constitutional Association,
a fellow with the American Freedom Alliance, and host of
the Constitution radio show on KMET right here as well
as other multiple platforms. He's a tireless educator, speaker, and

(03:32):
author who believes, as I do, that the Constitution isn't
a relic, it's our Roadmack to renewals. Let's welcome mister
Constitution himself, Douglas V. Gibbs. Doug, welcome to the show.

Speaker 3 (03:44):
Hope you're doing it. Thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
It's always a pleasure. So how does the Constitution define
the role of federal government in maintaining law and order
in the States.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
Well, you know, the federal government is limited in its authority,
so there was fears of it interfering. But at the
same time they recognize the necessity. Whiskey rebellion is a
great example, dear in George Washington's presidency. So in Article four,
section four, it indicates that it is the responsibility of the
federal government to guarantee a republican form of government. Then

(04:18):
you get into Article one, section eight, and it calls
for the ability of the federal goverment to call up
the militia. Today we call them the National Guard. At
least that's the organized militia. Unorganized milia be the rest
of us to suppress insurrections, invasion, and to execute the
laws of the United States. That's very important. Then in

(04:42):
Article four, section four, at the very end of it,
it does indicate that for domestic violence, this is something
that doesn't reach the level of insurrection or national sec
national security basically, then the federal goverment may also come
into the state, but only in that case if it
has permission of the legislature if they're in session, or

(05:04):
the governor if they're not in session. So this is important.
This is all a part of it I think the
key thing that we need to focus on is what
they thought insurrection was. They thought that the Whisky rebellion
was insurrection. Whisky rebellion was a bunch of people upset
over eight federal tax and it got to the point

(05:25):
where there was gunfire. The tax collectors, who were not
armed like today's iris agents were being strung up and
tarred and feathered in the whole bit. And so not
only did the militia under federal command come in, but
President Washington himself on horseback that enough was enough to
quell it. But this makes us see, we recognize what

(05:48):
they saw as insurrection, that even something like that, especially
when it came to a federal lawbying force, could bring
in the federal gunment to bring about blaw and order
and get it under God and make sure that federal
laws being executed.

Speaker 2 (06:05):
Well, it's so important for people to understand that. I
love history, and I think more people should study history.
And what's so important about bringing you on is the
fact that the Constitution has to be interpreted as it
was back then by the founding fathers. There's many people
who say, well, how can they interpret how can we

(06:25):
interpret the Constitution? When it was done such a long
time ago, and how could they have even have managed
today's society and the things that we have and the
technology that we have. It's kind of that argument that
we that they always say, and I always make the
argument back, is, well, there were wise men that would

(06:46):
be able to articulate anything based on what they're seeing,
what they're told at that time. So it doesn't necessarily
have to be the fact that we have AI and
all that kind of stuff if you have to apply
it as you would from its original intent, and the
Founding Fathers would have said, okay, based on that, this

(07:07):
is the framework of AI, and this is how it
should be used in government. It's not something new, it's applicant.
It's applied back to the original foundation of the Constitution.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
Right well, liberty and tierny and all the other things
that go along with it doesn't change. The logos might change,
the people might change, the technology might change, but liberty
and tyranny stays the same. And it's really a basic idea.
And the Founding Fathers understood that, and that's the reason
why sometimes it feels like they're a little ambiguous. For example,

(07:40):
in the Second Amendment, arms didn't get specific why because
they knew arms were developing, there was going to be
greater arms, and they wanted to make sure that all
of them were still included, for example.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
Right, So, when it comes to things like freedom of speech,
for instance, is that also there are some there we
have freedom and pieces, but we also have consequences for
saying certain things. But there are things that you can't
say that would would cause a problem, you know that
that you could be arrested for, such as a threat

(08:15):
against somebody. I mean, there are things that within the
Constitution of the United States, there are things that can
be said that that could be taken as a threat. Right.

Speaker 3 (08:25):
Well, first of all, that comes down to who has
the authorities as well. First Amendment begins with the words
Congress shall make no law. That's pretty that is pretty definitive.
Congress shall make no law regarding speech. And they were
targeting specifically political speech and religious speech, but speech so
from a broad point of view. From their point of view,

(08:47):
then that would mean that if there's going to be
laws against screaming fire in a theater or slander or
something like that, then it would need to be done
at the state level. Now, if it does need to
be a law that needs to be made federally, then
we need an amendment to the Constitution Congress makes shall
make no laws. Like I said, pretty definitive. There's no

(09:08):
wiggle room there. Now. That said, there's the old saying, well,
if you don't have something nice to say, don't say
anything at all. The culture is supposed to also kind
of take care of our own. If someone's really messed
up that they're going to be shunned by a lot
of people. You know, the culture was important. Our local
government was important. The more local government comes to you,

(09:29):
more democratic it becomes, the more involved in your life
it becomes. The federal government wasn't created to be involved
in your life. It wasn't created to make laws regarding
your speech. It was created to handle the external issues
trade with other countries, maritime law, or disputes between the states.
But really this local stuff like slander or something like that,
or screaming fire in a theater, this is really supposed

(09:52):
to be your local government making those laws. But what
happened is during the War between the States, we saw
a dramatic shift. The fourteenth Amendments are part of that,
but we saw a dramatic shift from localism to this
centralized power with the federal government because you know, those
states need to be kept under control, those shameful states

(10:14):
that seceded, and it was just an excuse to centralize
more power into the federal government. So and I often
say this context is everything a and which is what
you were talking about earlier from the point of views,
and it depends on where the authority lies. That is
so important. We have to remember the federal government is
not a national government. It is not like other governments

(10:36):
where they just control everything. They have authority for only
certain things. What isn't given to them according to the
Tenth Amendment, nor prohibited states that belongs to the states.
That's up to the states. Now, if there needs to
be a federal law, that's what the amendment process is for.

Speaker 2 (10:52):
And since there is a federal law on immigration, which
is some of our oldest laws in the nation, I mean,
customs was one of the first federal agencies that was
designed with the US is from a law enforcement point
of view in.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
The USA, and the authority is given twice in the
Constitution in the first seven articles as well.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Oh wow, and then you know US marshals were designated
to be able to go act on behalf of the guest. So,
based on the Constitution, the fact that we do have
federal immigration law, do you believe that the current federal
response to lawlessness in cities like Chicago, Portland, other areas
is constitutional and justified based on what the current status

(11:32):
is in those cities.

Speaker 3 (11:34):
Absolutely, And once again Article one, section eight, Congress may
call up the militia. Then once they're called up, present
becomes the commander in chief over that militia. It's up
to him to deploy them aware and how in order
to execute the laws of the United States. This is
in Article one section of our Constitution, the militia being

(11:54):
the National Guard in today's vernacular the Militia Act. I
believe it was a nineteen oh two who establish the
National Guard as being the organized militia and they belong
to the states and to the federal government. Federal government
can call them into their service and be used for
the execution of the law. Remember, the president's job is

(12:15):
executive branch. He executes the law. That's his job. He
uses the tools available to him, his agencies, his departments,
and if necessary, the National Guard. This is the job
of the president to execute the law. And there is
nothing in Article one, Section eight that says, well, he
has to ask the states domestic violence Article four or
section four, Yes, but to execute the laws of the

(12:37):
United States, No, he didn't have to ask them. He
has to be able to execute the laws. Now, if
it's a bad law and everybody's like, whoa, wait a second,
that's an unconstitutional law, then we need to change it
through our representation who we put in office. Abraham Lincoln
has a great quote that if there's a if there's
a bad law, enforce it. What happens when of law

(13:00):
is bad and you enforce it, people start screaming. So yeah,
so there you go.

Speaker 2 (13:05):
Well, and the things I mean, if you look at
what's what happened with Lincoln at the same time, there
are many things that are occurring then that are occurring
now in how Abraham Lincoln had to respond to those states.
So it's I mean, it hasn't got that bad yet.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
And in his case, he was stumping on the Constitution
quite a bit. His suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland,
for example, is a great example. In this case, we're
dealing with persons who have allegiance to a foreign power,
they are subject to a foreign power in a way,
sort of like the Tories in many ways were during

(13:43):
the Revolution of War. The Founding Fathers when they established
this system, and you see it throughout the Constitution. One
of the big deals and the citizenship clause of the
fourteenth Amendment, which Senator Trumbull and Howard wrote, also very
important is allegiance to the country is They wanted to
make sure that the leadership had allegiance. It's why natural

(14:03):
born citizen those types of things. There was a fear
of infiltration. This is the reason why immigration law was
one of the seventeen ninety I mean we're talking a
year after Congress went into effect March of seventeen eighty nine.
In seventeen ninety, the Immigration and Naturalization Act was in place.
This was a big deal to them, partly because the Tories,

(14:25):
because they wanted to guard against foreign influence. And you
know so, I think the Founding Fathers would not only
see what's going on as justified, they would cheer it on.
This is what needs to happen, and it's unfortunate that
we have so much foreign influence that's been in our
schools and our entertainment system, so that we have Americans

(14:47):
themselves who can't even really don't even realize what they're
screaming about.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah, and then we have the social contagions of the
Internet that just kind of fment this behavior and repeat
right lessons that aren't necessarily true or or you know.
And then you have politicians that are now actually I
can't believe that they're they're not educated on the constitute.
I mean, you can't tell me that the governor of

(15:14):
California doesn't know his purpose in administering the California National Guard.
He knows that the presidents takes priority and the federal
government takes priority over the National Guard. I mean, don't
you think, I mean, can you imagine? I mean, it
doesn't even make sense that a governor has sole power

(15:37):
and purpose over a over their national guard when it
can be federalized at any time. And it's almost right. Yeah,
they just don't. They don't, I don't.

Speaker 3 (15:48):
Well, and they're all about states rights when it fits
their narrative. They hate states rights when it doesn't fit
their narrative. That's what's funny about it. But to kind
of go on a little bit with what you were saying.
First of all, the Constitution, they understand is not the Constitution.
It's case law, it's precedent, it's judicial opinion. It's not

(16:08):
the original intent of what's on paper, first of all.
Second of all, and this was kind of funny because
I was talking to another speaker. I spoke in Lake
Havasu a week ago, and while I was there, one
of the other speakers says, hey, you know, you were
influential in my journey. So really, she says, yeah, because
I had run for a city council, got elected, and

(16:30):
I'm given this oath to the Constitution. I'm and I'm thinking, gosh,
I've given an oath to a document I've never read.
And so I turned to the guy next to me
who was re elected, and said, hey, you know, we're
given an oath to a document I haven't even read.
And he says to me, none of us have. Don't
worry about it. And she was stunned. So a couple

(16:51):
of weeks later, she was just so happen to be
at a meeting where I was speaking, and that guy
her going, and she, you know, got into the education
part of it. But so the question is how how
many of these people that hold office have even tried
to read it, much less understand any of it. And
like I said, the Constitution they know isn't what's on
those pages anyway, it's what they've been told by political

(17:13):
hacks and the judicial system and so on and so forth.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
Yeah, there's so many professors. I mean, when I build
curriculum and teach classes, of course it's in criminal it's
in some sort of criminology class. But I'm always saying,
I'm always pointing it back to how the Constitution states
regarding this particular issue, or they should consider the Constitution
when they're talking about these particular issues. But I know

(17:39):
as a matter of fact that the vast majority institutions
do not allow that. They don't even allow it, let
alone teach it. So we have all these educated idiots,
if you will, that are roaming prowling the earth seeking
the ruin of man. As a result, so if we

(18:00):
concur that the federal government has the ability and should
respond to places like Chicago because of the lawlessness, because
of the enforcement of immigration law, that's so we've agreed
upon that. So when you have states and cities that
then say we're going to be sanctuary. We don't want
to have any part of that. We don't want to

(18:21):
play any role in that. Where is the fine line
when you are going against federal law as opposed to
just saying, well, we're just going to be over here
by the side and not taking any action on our own.
Where's that kind of fine line where they shall or

(18:41):
it doesn't really matter what they do.

Speaker 3 (18:44):
Well, the answer lies to something I said earlier. It
depends on where the authority lies. If the authority, if
there's a federal law and the federal government has no authority,
the states have the right to nullify and say, you
know what, that's unconstitutional. We're not going to play along.
But if it is a federal authority, then they're violating
Article six. Article six says that the Constitution and the

(19:07):
laws of the United States made a pursuance thereof, and
treaties made or Shelby made, or the supreme law of
the land, and the states can't have any laws contrary.
So the immigration law is like I said twice, Article one,
Section eight, Arc one Section nine both give the federal
government that authority. It is a federal authority. It's been

(19:29):
understood to be a federal authority since the first Immigration
Naturalization Act in seventeen ninety, so there's no question. So
any law that's gonna be contrary to immigration law by
a state is gonna be unconstitutional. They have no authority
to dictate regarding this issue at all. I love states' rights,
but when a state is not authorized, the state's not authorized.

(19:50):
It comes down to a federal authority. And Article six
is clear that if laws are made in pursuance Constitution,
they are the supreme law of the land. And Article
section eight is clear that the executive branch may execute
those laws regardless of what the state thinks. We have
And it's gotten to the point now where it cracks

(20:11):
me up because the projection is almost hilarious. We've got
some of these persons who are an anti constitution now
that are even talking secession. So you know, so it is.
It is an amazing thing to watch as.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
A constitution theater is alive and will.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
Yeah, well, I say something, you want to watch heads explode.
I say something often on my shows and in person,
I usually can find out what caliber person I'm talking
to with just one statement. President Trump is one of
the most constitutional presidents we've ever had. He's follow the
Constitution more than any president that I am aware of
as a historian since John Tyler.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
Wow, I'm not surprised just because he the actions that
he's taked has been rooted in the proper legal advice.
He's he's gotten great legal advisor, good people around. Yeah,
and he's been able to take those actions. And he's
also he also picks things that the public also wants. So,

(21:14):
I mean, if you talk about an issue, it's like
sixty seventy seventy eighty percent of the public said, yeah,
that's common sense. That makes sense to me as well.
So not only is he legally right, but he's also
the people are going, yeah, what you know, what's the problem.
So if this is occurring, then what happens when you

(21:35):
have states and cities that are say we're going to
be sanctuary, We're going to pass a Are are they
actually passing a law or are they just are they
just saying that they're that? And at what point do
you what point do you have to take enforcement action
against the cities to say that you can't do that?

Speaker 3 (21:55):
Well, you know, it's funny. I've been asked that a lot,
and I don't believe it would be wise, although it
probably be. They'd probably be okay to do it, but
I don't think it'd be wise for federal troops going, Okay,
that's it, you're out of office. We're pulling it out
of your seat. It has to be the people. It
really needs to be the people to realize this and
remove those Now that said, the federal government needs to

(22:16):
do as is doing. Operate and operate, and try to
enlist local law enforcement to assist, and if they don't
do their operations, and then that's just the way it is.
My biggest frustration has not been that as much as
it has been the courts. We have a court system
who thinks that its role, despite the separation of powers,

(22:37):
is to micromanage the executive branch to then somehow enforce
their rulings on the executive branch. The enforcement arm of
the federal government is the president is the executive branch.
They have no enforcement arm. When Thomas Jefferson was told
by John Marshall to give Marbury William Marbury his commission,

(23:00):
Jefferson said, I don't have to, and it's not going
to happen, because he's the enforcement arm and whether and
what happened here may may or may not been good,
but it's a great example. And also when you get
into Andrew Jackson with the trail of tears and the
court says, well, you can't do that, and he says,
all right, John Marshall's made his decision. Now let's see
him unforce it. Right. You know, it's understood there's a

(23:23):
separation of powers. That separation of powers in the Constitution.
People say, well, I don't see the words separation of
powers constituted. That's where the word vested. If you look
at the first three articles of the Constitution, it says
that the legislative power is vested in Congress, that the
executive powers vested in the President, and the judicial powers
vested in the courts. And that word vested means two things.

(23:46):
A it's it's exclusionary, in other words, it's only them
that has it. And then secondly, that it is irrevocable.
They can't just give it away with law. If it's
going to be changed, it has to be done to
an amendment. And so for the courts to legislate from
the bench or to tell the president how to execute

(24:09):
the law, they are violating that separation of powers by
trying to dictate to the other two branches. If there's
a problem with what those branches are doing. There are
other checks and balances. There is ability, There are abilities
to defund what's going on, their abilities to impeach or
vote out for the states or the people to get
involved through Congress. Course, the states not anymore, sin it changed,

(24:32):
but that's the way it was originally intended. We are
supposed to be those final arbors. We are supposed to
be doing our job, but we haven't. And so the
courts are stepping in and filling that void, and that
we scream they can't. But we haven't done anything as
a people about it. Now we did when we elected
this gentleman, Donald J. Trump as president. But it's going

(24:52):
to take more than that. It's not time for us
to throw Oprehanson, say hooray, and then do nothing and
become apathetic. We need to continue to be involve.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
Has the Supreme Court been to las a faire with
the lower courts? Or is it or they are or
is that what they're supposed to do and they're only
supposed to hear things that come up to them. How
is that supposed to work, because it seems like even
when they the Supreme Courts made a decision that the
president's the executive and they keep putting down the lower court.

(25:23):
But we just saw another judge the other day say no, no, no,
you can't do X, Y and z. When it comes
to something that an executive power can do. It seems
like it keeps happening even though the Supreme Court has
kind of slapped them.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
Down, you know. And it's funny too, because when I've
talked about in Garland versus the United States twenty nineteen,
Clarence Thomas said that if a ruling is unconstitutional, it
must be overturned. It's necessary. And when I used to
bring that up, the left or those who opposed the

(25:57):
constitutions used to scream at me about no, no, president,
it's important. And then when it comes to the higher
courts being respected by the lower courts, I used to
also hear that all the time. Suddenly that's gone out
the window because it comes down to the narrative. So,
first of all, it's just a judicial tradition that lower
courts respect the rulings of the higher courts. That's just
the way it is. But The other thing is this, Ultimately,

(26:20):
it's up to Congress actually to take care of those
lower courts. They created them. They can they can disembody them,
so to speak. It's not the case of the Supreme Court.
Is their job to take the cases that come to them.

Speaker 2 (26:36):
And so in Congress has even talked about maybe not
funding particular courts or actually not having as many courts.
They'd about that, and they have the authority to do that. Correct, Yes.

Speaker 3 (26:48):
Twice in the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (26:50):
Man, that's nice having you on. So we're going to
come back again. We're going to take a commercial break
and we're going to come back with mister Constitution himself,
Douglas V. We'll be right back.

Speaker 4 (27:15):
Take KMET Radio with you everywhere you go by downloading
the new, updated, free iPhone, Android, phone and tablet remote
app found in the Apple App Store or Google Playstore.
Listen live to your favorite shows on all of your
remote devices. Information can be found on the kme et
Radio website at km E T fourteen ninety am dot com.

(27:39):
That weapon Dress again km E T fourteen ninety am
dot com. Download your free new KMET Remote app today.
Go to the Apple App Store or Google Playstore for
your free new kme T Radio remote mobile app.

Speaker 3 (27:56):
Today, our records indicate that you've been lied to. Listen
to The True Constitution Radio with Douglas Viegibb's Saturdays at
one pm on kum e T.

Speaker 5 (28:17):
The Fat Greek in yu Kaipa where you can get authentic, delicious,
true Greek food, authentic heros, Greek salads, pedas, falaffel, Tambergers, burritos,
and oh yes, blah blah blah. The Fat Greek has
a large selection of wines, ice cold, domestic and imported
Greek beers. Come on down to the Fat Greek located
on u Kaipa Boulevard in the city of u Kaipa,
open ten am to night pm, seven days a week.

(28:38):
The Fat Greek has delivery, drive through, sit down in
a catering service. So bring in a family or give
Nicholas and Christopher a call at nine oh nine seven
ninety seven six zero one eight eight Greek livelong. Remember
if you want authentic Greek food, it's The Fat Greek
in u Kaipa.

Speaker 2 (28:57):
Check us out online at k.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
Dot com.

Speaker 6 (29:04):
As you know, I have been talking about standing up
for our country, doing something These big box stores stayed open.
Let the little guy's clothes? Will our voices be heard?
Does voting with our dollars work? Patriotswitch dot com gives
patriots the power to walk away from the big box
stores forever. Stop supporting the enemies of freedom.

Speaker 2 (29:23):
Now.

Speaker 6 (29:24):
That's why patriotswitch dot com was created for those who
support America. Patriotswitch dot com.

Speaker 7 (29:33):
Hello listeners, this is Christopher from The Christopher Show. Hey,
if you miss one of our shows, you're at KAM
to you don't worry about it. You can go to
our web page and that's kme et fourteen ninety am
dot com. Go to the homepage, click on the SoundCloud
tab and hear any show anytime you want.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Hi, folks, Doctor curry Myer's here to let you know
that my new show It's called America's Criminologist with Doctor
curry Meyer every Tuesday at one pm between The Dave
Ramsey Show and Kevin Mcola Show. As a former State
Trooper special agent share for a major county, I will
offer sharp insights into the pressing issues shaping American society today.
I'll have guests, news and my insights as an applied

(30:15):
criminologist throughout the one hour show, so criminals and the
progressive politicians that allow them to fester. Beware because this
show is directed at you, America's criminologist, every Tuesday at
one pm on k m E T. Hey, folks, are
you looking for deeper conversations on faith, family and formation.

(30:36):
We'll have another podcast called the Saint Michael's Group Podcast,
my weekly podcast where I examine the root causes of
cultural decays. You can subscribe to Saint Michael'sgroup dot substack
dot com. Truth needs a voice, Let it be yours.
You can also book me for an event or retreat
at Catholic Speakers dot com. That's Catholic Speakers dot com.

(30:59):
We have been blood talking to Douglas V. Gibbs, known
across America as Mister Constitution. He's the president of the
Constitution Association, a fellow with the American Freedom Alliance, and
host of Constitution Radio right here on km E T. Doug,
thanks again, you ready for round two?

Speaker 3 (31:19):
Ready for round two? Let's do it.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
You said we're in a post constitutional era. I agree
with you, even though I'm not an attorney that focuses
on the Constitution, but the practical sense says that you're
absolutely right. Can you expand on what that means?

Speaker 3 (31:36):
Well, we are and we're not. Let me rephrase that
a little bit. We're on the edge of being in
a post constitutional era. We have not crossed that rubicon
just yet. We are on the verge. We're on the edge.
The fact that we still have the electoral College, the
fact that it still takes three quarters of days to
ratify an amendment, things like that are still in place.

(31:59):
Once those are on and they're targeting them. They also
want to target the two states two senators per state
deal as well, because you know, democracy, once we cross
the rubicon, we stopped being a constitutional federal republic and
we become a pure democracy. That's what they're shooting for.
Then we're in that post constitutional era, and then it's

(32:19):
a quick downward spiral to chaos. Pure democracy historically is
always always a one way ticket to utopianism, as the
founding fathers will put it. In fact, I wrote a
book called Repeal Democracy, which I thought the title would
catch a few people's attention. Every time they complain and say, well,

(32:40):
this person or that person Trump or the Republicans or whatever,
they're trying to destroy democracy. I hope, so we need
to get back to being a republic exactly exactly.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
You know, it's frustrating to me because recently, of course,
with the the same problem the Chicago has was occurring
in Washington d c. Uh And you know the use
of federal troops in Washington d C. It's not a
long term thing you got to have. It's not designed
to do that. It's where law enforcement has to take
a greater hand, of course. But this goes back to

(33:15):
people have a strange understanding of Washington d C. Washington
d C. Really isn't a city. It's a federal enclave.
It never was property. Yeah, it's never was designed to
be a standalone city. And then we had we had people,
actually very important politicians in this country, wanted to turn

(33:36):
Washington d C. A into a state where they have
two senators and and a congress person, maybe more than one,
because there's more than one hundred thousand people in that
in that area. And it's amazing to me that once
again people lack from a historical perspective that Washington d C.

(33:56):
Is a federal enclave and was never designed to do that.
For me any reasons, Washington, Washington himself was the main
arbiter and said, no, we need an enclay. We're going
to take this property for some of the states, and
it's going to be a enclave that's going to be
ran by the federal government. And I've made the argument

(34:17):
that we they when they went to home rule, I
think in seventy three or seventy four, Washington d C.

Speaker 3 (34:24):
One seventy one.

Speaker 2 (34:25):
Think, I see, I knew, you know, more better than
I would. But when they went to home rule, it
was a huge mistake.

Speaker 3 (34:34):
Well and what they really they added territory, and they
added territory for the city part around the district. You've
got to understand that in the Constitution it says is
to be the seat of government. By that language, what
they meant was it was only for federal buildings. It
wasn't even supposed to be residents like the Hague. Exactly
does the Hague have residence? No, that's the way it

(34:55):
was supposed to be. But and here's what, and here's
the interesting part. Let me let me throw this at
you real quick. So in in eighteen sixty two, Washington
d C. Finally got rid of slavery completely, you know,
a year after the war. That was supposed to be
about slavery started. I wonder if it was about slavery
or not, but that's a different topic for a different time.

(35:15):
And so what was happening is is you got to
remember Maryland was still a slave state even though it
was a part of the Union, and Virginia's, you know,
the home of the capital of the Confederacy after it
had been moved from Montgomery, Alabama, up to Richmond, Virginia.
So if you're an escaped slave and you're heading north
and you get to Washington, d C. You're surrounded by
slave states. But that's a safe place to be, and

(35:37):
the politicians aren't going to complain because these are people
looking for work, you know, to clean tables, shine shoes,
make beds. They're happy to have them. So we suddenly
have this massive population of former slaves amassing in Washington,
d C. So by eighteen seventy one, they're like, you know,

(35:57):
we got to do something here, so they actually so
Virginia and Maryland actually seated more property to Washington, d C.
For the Washington City and black people don't realize also
there's actually two Washington d cs. There's the Federal District,
the District of Columbia, and then there's Washingt, d C.
The federal city, which is around it. If they were

(36:17):
to make it a state, the district would still be
the federal capital and not a state. It would be
that area around it that was established with the Organic
Act of eighteen seventy one, as I like to joke,
could be the first donut shaped state in history. And
of course it's insane what they're trying to do, and
it was a mistake absolutely to turn that into a city.

(36:41):
And of course then you got what was it, I
think it was nineteen sixty two or sixty four when
the amendment passed given them a couple of electoral votes,
and then sixty four, yeah, I think it was sixty
two now i'm thinking about it. Nineteen sixty two when
the twenty third Amendment passed giving electoral vot They do
have representation actually in Congress even though the United States,

(37:03):
but they can't vote. They're observers. So because you know,
no taxation without representation, right. That was actually on the
license plate during the fifties. But it was a mistake.
It's supposed to be because what happens is now is
you have more ability for Shenanigans, because if you've got population,

(37:25):
what does it require court system in the city in Washington,
d C. That's kind of, in my opinion, that's a
conflict of interest.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
Yeah. Well, and you hear the terms attorney general of
the of the district. When I hear those kinds of
it just drives me that, you know what crazy, Yep,
when I hear the term I'm the attorney general of
the of the of Washington, d C. It's just I
just want to go back to Washington's vision in the

(37:56):
fact that Pierre leon Font structured it and designed it
to be a certain way, which to your point, did
not include mass amounts of urbanization and people being there
and make it be that shining light on a hill again.
And it's and I've wrote about this. If Washington d C.
Looks like it's in a state of repair, if it's

(38:18):
got high crime, if it's got people call it homeless.
I don't call it homeless. I call it a criminal
vagrancy because homeless is different. There is a percentage of
people that are homeless that certainly occurs, but the vast
majority of homelessness that we see today is criminal vagrancy.
That's not being enforced. Seeing all these things in Washington,

(38:39):
d C. When people from foreign countries and foreign lands
and political leaders from those lands come to our city,
our city and see the state of neglect and issue,
that's a representativetive, an observational lesson to them on that
we're losing it.

Speaker 3 (39:00):
Right. Oh exactly, he nailed it.

Speaker 2 (39:04):
We just have to we have to think about the
unattended consequences of what we do. And I don't think
we do that enough anymore. We don't. We don't discern.
We just feel. Everything's based on feelings and we're not
discerning things to make sure that they're correct. Okay, I'll
stop my but you nailed it.

Speaker 3 (39:23):
One of my biggest frustrations is you get the news,
the news reporter out there, they stick the mic and
so one's faces. So how did that make you feel?

Speaker 2 (39:30):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (39:31):
I don't care how they felt, report the news.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
Yeah. Oh yeah, yeah. So I mentioned earlier about okaphobia.
This is getting to be It's a social contagion that's
always been around. There's always been people who have had
a hatred for their family or culture. There's that okaphobrie
is that it's actually a phobia that people have, and
it seems like it's on steroids right now again through

(39:55):
the social contagion of mass media and social media, and
it's just setting there festering, you know, with people being
able to dive and look into everything that they everything
that they can. But do you think this hatred of
national identity has manifested itself in judicial activism more than
before or we are or have there been from a

(40:16):
historian historian point of view, have we seen these things
before and they're just flaming back up again and they
will again in the future every once in a while.

Speaker 3 (40:26):
As a historian, absolutely everything cycles around. It is a
social construct for the most part, but it is a
social contrastruct created by those who are pushing for something different.
The best way to destroy a republic is to turn
it into a democracy and then have the people hoist
the flag of utopidism themselves. It's the best way to

(40:50):
do it. Hey, that's what kruse Steff said he was
going to do. That's what Lenin said he is going
to do. That's what Stalin Seti is gonna do. This
is that that has manifested over time. The Soviet Union
is alive and well in the young people of America,
and that's what is pushing it, you know. And it's
interesting that I because everything that's going on, we were

(41:12):
told it was going to happen. We've been told it
was going to happen, either by the enemy or by
writers like George Orwell. We've been told this, and yet
we still are falling face first into it. And that's
what amazes me the most. But that's why they topple statues,
because those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

(41:34):
Have we seen this in history over and over. It
happened in Rome, it happened in Greece, It's happened here
a handful of times. But the great thing about America
is typically we take something that's designed to hurt us,
and we usually turn it into something great. I'll give
you an example. The salute to the flag, as you
do in school. You know, I pledge allegiance to the flag.

(41:54):
That was originally written by a Christian socialist in eighteen
eighty two. For some reason, his name is blinking right
now in my head. And he designed it so that
we would have a national oath to the country rather
than you know, to each other. And things like that.
It was a socialist word God or to God. Yeah,

(42:17):
and then and originally the salute. I won't do it
because the last thing I need is a picture of
me doing the salute. But today we call it the
Nazi salute. Back then, the Nazis had not been around yet.
The handout, palm down, that's how they saluted the flag
with the pledge of allegiance early on. I've got a
black and white picture of kids in the late eighteen

(42:37):
hundreds saluting the flag in that manner. But as and this,
I understand the flag salute was originally designed to destroy
us ultimately. But America, being so great, what did we do.
We brought that salute close to our heart. We added
under God, and it has become something that unites us
and is actually all about our liberty. Turned it into

(43:00):
something else. That's what America does whenever it's threatened, you know,
in this way. So when I see all these threats,
I know, based on our history of liberty, we can
turn it around. It's getting harder each time it happens,
every time it cycles around, but we can do it.
We have done it. And there's because Americans having been

(43:22):
raised in liberty can only take so much before they
finally do something about it.

Speaker 2 (43:28):
You know, you mentioned the electoral college earlier, and thank
god that we have the electoral college still in place.
Thank God that it's been addressed in the federalist pace.
I mean, it's it goes back in time, the importance
of the electoral college and why we must have it,
because if that's the only way you can have a republic,
a democratic republic is through an electoral college.

Speaker 3 (43:49):
I would say a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic.
But go ahead, yeah, okay, now you're absolutely right.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
I apologize. That's okay, and I knew better than that.
But one thing that bothers me is that the states
did not follow a similar example. And it seems to
me that the states have where major urban areas controlled
the states. And so let's look at California for instance. California.

(44:17):
We all know their problems. California has a lot of
red counties in it, and it's controlled by San Francisco, La,
you know, in those greater urban areas, and it's almost
like they should have that. I guess my question to
you is, should have the states thought about that when

(44:39):
they were rolling out their constitutions and in order to
rein in and have checks and balances where it's not
governed by the almost like a democracy where the mass
amount of people, you know, Kansas for instance, has one
hundred and five counties, you know, should should the county
weight of go wing in particular election be better than

(45:05):
the total voter count I guess.

Speaker 3 (45:08):
The states did, and then it got changed by, believe
it or not, the courts, the judges. So let me
tell you the story real quick. So originally most of
the states, the way they did it is the house
state house was as it is today, broken up into
districts voted in democratically. But the state Senate was different.

(45:29):
The state Senate was one per county and they were
voted in by the county legislators or appointed. They were
trying to emulate the US Senate, so it was one senator.
Let me ask you in Kansas, if it was one
senator per county, would the state Senate look a little different?

Speaker 2 (45:46):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (45:46):
Absolutely, absolutely every state. That's the case.

Speaker 2 (45:49):
Now, technically it was never The Senate was never meant
to be a kind of a populist right exactly, That's
the whole Let the let Congress or the legislature be
chaotic that the crazy people you know, whoever wins, wins.
But the Senate needs to be you know, like you said,
it needs to be where it's selected by people who

(46:10):
have been elected, just like the US senators right were
selected by the legislature.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
Well, the aim was to what a republic is is
you make sure even the minority voice has a voice
in a federal's paper number ten, James Madison explained that
the best way to control the factions is to set
them against each other. But if the minority faction doesn't
have enough popular strength to be set against the say

(46:37):
the cities, then the rural has to have a boost.
And the way to do it is one per county.
Now the rural areas get the Senate. The cities, because
they're democratic, have the House. Now you've got two factions
set against each other. Now you got debate. Now you
got compromised. Now you've got a government in which the
wheels grind slowly, which is the way it was designed.

(46:58):
There is such thing as a really quick efficient government.
It's called a dictatorship. Our wheels of government is supposed
to grind slowly. And so the idea now what changed.
So Alabama. As a matter of fact, most of these
states had in their constitutions, Utah being one of them,
that it was one per county for the state Senate.
They had it in their state constitutions. So Alabama, being

(47:20):
one of the states that were still doing it that way,
got sued because it's not very democratic, and so they
lost the lawsuit Reynolds v. Sims nineteen sixty four, and
the courts ordered all the states to break up their
senatorial elections into districts rather than one per county. Court
the Supreme Court, Yeah, Supreme Court. Okay, Warren Court, matter

(47:44):
of fact, Wow, that says a lot right there. The
moment I say Warren't Court, people go, of course. But
I'll give you an example. California was it had it
has forty centers, that it had more than forty counties.
What it did is it was one per county except
for the least populous counties. Some of them had two

(48:05):
counties with one representative, but the constitution said it could
be no more than two counties for one senator. That's
the way it was in California. Now today you've got
in the far northern end of California you have one
senator that represents eight counties, another one that represents twelve counties. Meanwhile,
Los Angeles County has fifteen senatorial districts.

Speaker 2 (48:23):
Right, so if you.

Speaker 3 (48:25):
Go back, you get rid of Reyals v. Sims. You
reverse that, you go back to one per county. You know,
you changed the dynamics. Now you've got the rural areas
in the State Senate the cities in the House. And
reason why that's important is then before the seventeenth Amendment,
who appointed the senators the state legislators And it was

(48:46):
one for each house. So the state House would appoint
one legislator one senator, the State Senate would appoint the
other a senator. So what would that do to the
US Senate by my calculation, so it would be some
tventy six rural minded senators.

Speaker 2 (49:03):
Gosh man.

Speaker 3 (49:04):
So and yes, now you have this total again holding
a dynamic.

Speaker 2 (49:09):
Does this mean that that that could go back to
the Supreme Court someday?

Speaker 3 (49:14):
Absolutely? And the thing is too, is they violated Article
for a section for a Remember I told you earlier
United State show guaranteed each state a republican form of government.
Where they're trying to guarantee each state a democratic form
of government that's not a republican form of government. They
violated the Constitution. It not only needs to be revisited.
I've actually been so. I have a friend of mine,

(49:34):
a Brady the war Hamster friend of mine. We do videos,
get mephic. We're going through Madison's notes on the Constitution
on his rumble page and renals Vy Simps is big
with him too, and so I told him what I
started doing. Because Utah was the last state to fight it.
They're like, we're not changing our state constitution, and the
courts ordered them to wow and so, but Utah was

(49:56):
also the state that was most adamantly against the seventeenth Amendment.
So I started contacting Utah state legislatures and I talked
to whole two of them, because that's how many would be.
We're willing to talk to me about it. Say, uh,
propose that Utah goes back to the way it was
just don't ask permission, don't ask federal, don't ask, just

(50:17):
do it so one per counting. Just go back and
do it the old way. What's going to happen a lawsuit,
it's going to go straight and if and if the
case is against the state. In other words, it's such
and such a versus utah if a state is a
party to a case. Article three says that the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction, so would have to go straight
to the Supreme Court. Now, the problem is I can

(50:40):
only get two of these guys excited about it. That
that's that's too small of a number. Uh War Hamster
has told me, well, the the living, the living, liver
or die state. New Hampshire is where he's at. He's like,
I think I can get New Hampshire to do it.
So we're actually now working on New Hampshire to possibly
do this. But the idea is if you reverse Real v. Sims,

(51:03):
the next domino is the Seventeenth Amendment. We got to
get back to being a republic. I've told people along
democracy is a our problem. We got to and you're
exactly right what you're saying. The states should have had
and they did, but the courts took it away from them.

Speaker 2 (51:18):
Well, I'm not an attorney, but I'm excited about the
fact that you guys are even walking on it because
that has driven me crazy from for years because we
we you know, we we had it set up a
certain way and we didn't continue to follow it. And
then look what we have.

Speaker 3 (51:36):
We have in the name of democracy, and you know,
Carl Marx.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
Democracy again, Karl Marx.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
They didn't say this directly, but he said this around
about I'm paraphrasing, democracy is the road to socialism.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
Yeah. Absolutely, And it's not a coincidence. It's demon you know.

Speaker 3 (51:56):
Well, you know it's funny because republic, council res and
publica from the from the Latin democracy actually comes from
the Greek demost meaning the people, and crossy meaning power.
If it came from the Latin, demos actually means demonic
and crossy means crazy. So democracy in Latin actually means crazy,

(52:21):
crazily demonic. But so true. I just thought that was funny.

Speaker 2 (52:26):
So true.

Speaker 3 (52:26):
It's true.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
We're running out of time, but we've got to talk
about this separation of church and state. There are so many,
so much misinformation, we probably can't cover everything just in
a couple of.

Speaker 3 (52:38):
Minutes, right, give you the thirty seconds there you go.

Speaker 2 (52:41):
Dive into that quickly so people can kind of understand
the reality here.

Speaker 3 (52:47):
Separation of church of state is not in the constitution.
It is about established churches only. Uh. This issue comes
from a letter between the Danburrie Baptists of Connecticut and
Thomas Jefferson, and where Thomas Jefferson says there needs to
be a wall of separation between churches state. They were
Baptist and Kinetic, were complaining because the Puritans basically had
them in an iron fisted control and they were asking

(53:11):
for help. And Jefferson, being the author of the religious
freedom law in Virginia, was just the guy when he
became president. He says, hey, I can't help you because
it's a state issue. The federal government cannot get involved.
And when it comes to Christianity or religion or that's
a state issue, it's between union state. That does not mean,

(53:32):
does not mean that federal officeholders or anything that get
received federal money can't have a cross on their desk
or something like that. That's ridiculous and that violates the
First Amendment restricting the or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
So if a county courthouse wanted to have the Ten Commandments,
that they can the Constitution perfectly allows for that opportunity
for them to do that. There's nothing that says that
they can't.

Speaker 3 (53:59):
The founding fathers. I wanted officers that prayed and preachers
that preached politics.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
Love it. How can you learn more about.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
You Douglas H. Gibbs dot com Right now the sites
having trouble, that's okay. You can also go to navigation
to Liberty dot com as navigation the number two Liberty
dot com and I'm on something six days a week.
Radio podcasting Mister Constitution nowur by Douglas H. Gibbs is
my podcast visited.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
We want to have you back, so stay tuned for
some more invites. Remember, folks, crime just doesn't start in
the streets. Starts in the hearts and minds of broken institutions.
Let's rebuild them together with faith, family and formation. You
can view my public works on substack at doctor Currymeers
dot substack dot com. And don't forget I'll be guest
hosting the Loudesmond and Company Show later today on km

(54:49):
E T.

Speaker 8 (54:50):
Thanks so much, Stay safe, wage shouts, just trusting men.

Speaker 1 (55:02):
As a fage America shadows a secrets light, Doctor Curry
Ns cuts through the scout American scram anologist, calling the
live seals of the law in the atmosphere. Cant goes

(55:23):
and crimes break in the chain through fun to start
through the fame