All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2022 - Lionel Nation
01:00:59
DAILY BRIEFING: Roe v. Wade Explained

It's not what you think or what SCOTUS thinks but what the original drafters thought. That's how it works.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code Dirty10 for 10% off your order.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man's Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Dirty Man's Safe.
All right, my friends.
This daily briefing might just be the most important that we have done in a long, long time.
And I'm going to ask a few things of you, if at all possible.
I'd like you to consider the following.
And this may be, and this is not meant to be rude or presumptuous, but you must take everything you have thought about abortion and row And Roe v.
Wade, if you have ever, whatever it is you think about that, whatever it is, I want you to remove it from your mind.
Because the analysis is nowhere to be found.
Nowhere.
It just isn't.
I'm not going to mention names, but some of the most Prolific and popular, conservative and Republican hosts and the like are missing the point completely.
Apples versus oranges versus legislation versus the Constitution.
What does this mean?
What is happening?
And I have been scouring.
I just did a brand new, brand new piece at LionelMedia.com and I'm going to be devoting a lot.
There is so much going on right now.
We are heading towards war.
We're going to get to that in a moment.
Maybe, excuse me, maybe not today, but LionelMedia.com But I want you to listen to me and listen carefully so that you will be the most intellectually, historically, and juridically equipped to handle this issue.
Now, number one, the left, whoever these people are, whatever they are comprised of, whatever they are, the left, the woke, whatever, and do me one favor too.
Try your best today to hold back from the usual name-calling.
Not that name-calling is not fun, not that name-calling is not warranted, but the name-calling itself misses the point because we get into this lunacy of this typical troll-like, petulant behavior, and it's a waste of time.
Whoever it was who leaked this draft opinion, however it is being done, you have nine justices, four clerks, 45 potential, potential leaks.
This is unprecedented.
Let us start with this.
Unprecedented.
The sanctity, the honor, the secrecy, The process of the Supreme Court, irrespective from the Pentagon Papers to Bush against Gore in 2000 to go down the list,
it always remained airtight, locked up, protected, respected.
This is unacceptable.
Everybody's saying unprecedented.
Unprecedented doesn't even begin to explain what this is.
This is so inside.
And we don't know anything.
We don't know.
But I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find...
And you know right now they have security.
You've got 45 suspects.
I do not believe...
I think you've 36. You can remove...
You can remove the nine.
I don't think the justices themselves are letting this.
We'll explain what's going on.
You can remove the nine.
I believe I'm going to be presumptuous.
Of the 36 remaining, you can probably remove Alito's four from this.
We can just basically go down.
I think it would start with the The liberal justices, Kagan and Breyer for the time being and Sotomayor.
Who knows?
Who knows?
There may be some quizzling there in the halls of justice.
I don't know.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the person who does...
First, first...
The person who, if they are ever identified, their career is done.
It's through.
It is as a violation of everything.
Oh, my God.
No, no, no, no.
Oh, my God.
If you've ever been through just any kind of a bar, even...
Even if it's reciprocal authority, oh my God, bar exam application, oh my God, everything you've ever got, parking ticket, did you do this, did you do that?
And if ever you're, you stole, you released, if it's true, we don't know.
Maybe it's a cleaning woman at night who said, hey, look at this, I just found this draft.
I don't know.
But suffice it to say, And I wouldn't be surprised if they ever talk about criminal...
Let's think about this.
Criminal DOJ.
Do you think Merrick Garland...
Assuming, let's just assume.
Again, we don't know, but let's assume it's a clerk from...
Whatever.
Do you think the FBI, I think Merrick Garland, the Attorney General himself, a judge, ex-judge, would have realized you can't do this?
Would Biden then...
Pardon this person?
I mean, what would happen?
How did they enlist this?
How do you get somebody to do this?
I can't even get my head around that.
Now, put that over there.
Because we can just speculate and just talk about this all day long.
Okay, that's number one.
Number two.
Why?
Why?
What's the reason for this?
Well, as I discuss, many people are suggesting that maybe, maybe, the reason for this is that in 1937, in the matter of Jones and Laughlin Steele,
two Supreme Court justices Apparently reversed or switched from years of their own accepted precedent and philosophy in order to thwart, to stop FDR's threatened packing the court.
He wanted to take it from 9 to 15. And it was unnecessary because the case was, for all practical purposes, kind of going nowhere.
It really was...
The plan was already dissolving this case, but they did it in order to placate, in order to stop what was this political move in 1937 to pack the court.
So maybe, maybe the idea is that this was put out.
To perhaps have a method of intimidating moderate to conservative justices to switch in order to prevent, you know, who knows.
This is, and they're saying, an effort to intimidate, let's say, a moderate conservative Justice to switch sides so that this opinion would be, in essence, a dissenting opinion.
And the liberals' opinion would be the majority.
Okay, so that's a theory.
Not subject to actual affirmative testing, so to speak, but that is a theory.
That's why.
But we're not getting to the good part yet.
I'm not there yet.
I'm just giving you some background, a little bit of that part, because that's not the most important part.
Okay?
That's not the part of this.
And I don't believe that what I'm about to tell you right now is understood by many people, especially when you see the absolutely stupid comments.
That are made by so many people.
Let us begin.
Okay?
First, there's a difference, and I did a very, very brief review of this, and it may sound kind of boring, but it's the most important, the most critical thing you can imagine.
There is a difference between a constitutional protection and that which is provided for by legislation.
Absolutely two completely different animals.
If Roe against Wade is immediately, is just reversed today, you merely go back to the states and let the states decide.
If the states want to have abortion, fine.
If not, fine.
There's just no federal guarantee where you can go to the Supreme Court to say, hey, Montana just reversed it.
Or Montana did something where they limited it to such an extent that for all practical purposes abortion has been overruled.
You understand this?
This does not mean that there can be no abortion.
Abortion can exist.
Abortion cannot exist.
You don't need the Constitution to have abortion or to prohibit it.
Look at capital punishment.
Capital punishment stands for a very simple proposition.
Some states have it, some states don't.
That's it.
That's it.
It doesn't mean anything.
If the Supreme Court...
Does not speak to it.
Does not address it.
It doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It just means there's no constitutionally protected federal guarantee.
If tomorrow, for some reason or another, a state wanted to lower the marriage age to infancy or eliminate minimum ages to be married, There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from doing that.
Nothing.
Nothing.
It only stands for certain propositions.
It doesn't protect everything.
You can kill people under the death penalty in certain states, and if you decide you don't want to, that's it.
Now, let's move to the next issue.
This is what's important.
I'm going to try this again.
I don't want to argue whether this is genocide, whether it's a human life.
Don't care about that.
It's not the issue.
It's not the issue.
Don't care about that.
But it's a human life.
Fine.
The death penalty.
It's a human life.
Ah, it's a human life.
I don't care whether.
So don't give you this human life.
It's a human life.
Great.
Terrific.
It's a human life.
That's not the issue.
Issue analysis is critical to that.
I can't say this enough.
Issue analysis.
And this is a completely American argument.
What I'm telling you right now has no bearing in Italy, or Italy, as we say here, or Canada, or anyplace else.
This is an American.
It's all about the Constitution.
That's it.
That's all it is.
That's it.
This is a constitutional issue.
So we're not going to talk about, is it human life?
Is it genocide?
Does life begin at conception?
No, no, no.
What about rape?
What if a woman was raped?
What if it's incest?
We're not talking about that.
We're not talking about that.
It's not the issue.
It's not the issue.
It's irrelevant.
That's not the issue.
Issue analysis, critical thinking.
That's not it.
That's not the issue.
That's an issue for the legislature.
That's an issue for the legislature.
The issue I've got is, does this guarantee the right to an abortion?
Is there a fundamental guaranteed right to an abortion?
That's all.
Stated differently?
Is there a fundamental right to life?
Is there a right to life?
Is there a right to life in the Constitution?
No!
What?
No!
No.
Certainly there's got to be something in here.
Yeah, they mention life.
But you're not going to like this.
In the 5th and 14th Amendment, life, liberty, and property can be denied, can be deprived, can be removed, as long as there's due process.
How do you like that?
Life!
Life is not guaranteed in the least.
We're killing people.
You can strap somebody in a chair.
You can fill them full of drugs.
Kill them.
There's no absolute right.
None.
The only thing it says is, if you kill them, make sure they have due process.
Make sure it's a procedural process.
It's all it is.
The only mention of liberty.
Do you have the right to be free?
Life.
Liberty.
In the pursuit of happiness.
There's no right to liberty.
What about people who are in prison for the rest of their lives?
Due process.
We deprived them of due process.
We told them, you cannot ever see the light of day.
Enjoy freedom.
Ever.
But we gave you a trial.
And we deprived you of it.
Fairly.
Property, eminent domain, search and seizure, civil forfeiture, whatever.
So let me just explain something to you.
Let me just start off with this, and if you understand that, we're off to the races.
Good.
This wonderful document, people think, oh, that's unconstitutional.
There should be a law against that.
That's un-American.
We say this all the time.
That's un-American.
It's unconstitutional?
You can't do that.
You'd be surprised.
Yeah.
Yep.
Yep.
They never, ever, ever guaranteed any kind of life.
The unborn, the innocent.
Is war unconstitutional?
Hell no.
Absolutely not.
So let me just start off with that fact.
Because a lot of these conservative types, oh, they're going crazy.
And they'll show you a picture of a baby, or a picture of a sonogram, or a picture of their family, or a picture of whatever it is, or you'll see somebody who says, this may be a child with Down syndrome, maybe a child with trisomy 21, somebody with some, whatever, whatever, whatever.
You mean to tell me this isn't, that's not the issue.
It's not the issue.
This isn't the issue of whether...
Life begins at conception.
That's for the legislature.
That's for you and your church and your God and whatever it is.
The only issue is, does this, does this wonderful, my moth-eared, my weathered constitution, does this, does this provide a fundamental, substantive, Due process.
Well, we'll get to that in a moment.
Okay?
Do I make myself clear?
That's it.
That's it.
So today, when you're talking to your friends about this, and you're watching TV, and you're watching this one, and that one, and you, you turn to your friends and say, is there a fundamental, guaranteed right to life under the Constitution?
Question number one.
If there isn't, back to the drawing board.
That simple.
Not a living constitution.
Not a constitution that grows.
You know, if I'm sitting, I give this example all the time.
If I'm a tennis referee, or whatever it is, I'm at the U.S. Open, and I'm watching this, and I see...
Federer against Nadal, or whoever the hell it is.
And I'm looking at this, and I'm saying, you know, every time he hits, it's in.
I've got to see whether it's in the court, in the alley, on the line.
I don't think these rules today really apply.
I think when these rules, tennis rules, and the lanes and the dimensions, this was during a time of Don Budge and Bill Tilden and, you know, Pancho Gonzalez.
Jack Kramer.
That was then.
They never anticipated a Nadal.
We need tennis with living tennis rules.
Living.
Something that reflects modern times.
So I'm going to call this out, even though it's in.
Because I don't think these tennis rules apply.
They would say, no, excuse me.
You've got to go to the U.S. LTA, the law and tennis or whatever.
And you've got to make your case to them.
Let them change it.
But you're merely a line judge.
A judge.
A line justice.
Kind of like the Supreme Court.
And all you do, balls and strikes.
Is it okay?
Is it in?
Is it not?
Not what should it be.
Should it be like that?
I don't know.
That's for the legislature.
Resign immediately.
Go back to your home state.
And then petition, for example, if you want your state of Tennessee to allow or not allow gambling, drinking, premarital sex, cannabis distribution, that's politics.
There's nothing in here.
Now what happened was, this is where it went south.
In 1965, There was a case called Griswold.
Oh my God.
This was the...
This was...
This is where it all started.
And what happened was, in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in the case about contraception used by married couples that laid the groundwork for the right to privacy.
It was a 7-2 majority opinion.
And William O. Douglas famously said, and this is where it started from, that there is a general right to privacy.
And it's found in the penumbras, or the zones, that are created by specific guarantees of the rights, including the First Amendment speech, the Third of quartering soldiers against your will, the Fourth and the Ninth Amendments.
And what it did was it said, That even though there is no such thing as privacy, there is a fundamental basis that people have for contraception and sex and reproduction, and it's fundamental to the American, it's fundamental.
That may be, but it's not in the Constitution.
No, yes there is.
What do you mean there is?
Well, we say there is.
What do you mean you say there is?
Yeah, we create this thing called privacy as of today, 1965.
What do you mean, privacy?
What does that mean?
The Constitution says life, liberty, or property cannot be deprived without due process.
Now you want to say life, liberty, property, and privacy?
Where did privacy come from?
Well, you can't just make this up.
What if I have something that's called consequential expressionism?
What the hell does that mean?
I don't know.
But I just made it up.
And I think that this particular law is unconstitutional because, I don't know, fundamental expressionism.
And I just made that up.
And if you're the recipient of it, you're going to say, that's terrific.
You're going to say, it's a living and breathing constitution.
What a great justice.
That's the worst.
I just made this up.
I just made it up.
But I like it.
And normally you say, well, okay.
What if I were to say to you that there is something that is fundamentally incorrect with the cessation, the termination, with state-sponsored murder?
State-sponsored murder, which is the death penalty.
Now let me explain something to you right off the bat so that you know, because this is where it comes in and people have a hard time kind of grasping all of this.
But I'm going to do my best to see if I can explain this to you.
I am pro-choice.
Now, what do I mean?
Not constitutionally, but politically.
I do not believe, it's very, very simple.
I do not believe that a woman should be put into prison or arrested for having an abortion.
Because if you outlaw abortion, anybody who has one is going to go to prison.
We don't even get to the issue of whether it's a right of life, it's a human being, or a clump of cells.
No, no, no, no.
No.
You cannot have.
This is me as a New York resident.
Not as a constitutionalist.
No, no, no.
I despise abortion.
I don't want it.
I wish nobody would have it, but you cannot put people in prison.
No, sorry.
Sometimes you make these things like self-defense.
Defense of others.
Sometimes we have these things called anticipatory self-defense where we get to go to war with other people even though they never really did anything and we bend the rules.
But that's policy.
That's politics.
That's politi.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution.
That's my own personal belief.
If I was a state senator or a member of the New York Assembly and somebody...
Assuming it was a matter of states' rights, if somebody dared or tried to abolish it, I would say, no, absolutely not.
But if I was a Supreme Court justice right now, and I had the chance to affirm this craziness, I would say, absolutely not.
It makes no sense.
There's no such thing as...
Right to privacy.
No!
Right to privacy doesn't make any sense.
You just made it up.
Yeah, but I like it.
Well, of course you like it.
You like it.
I think there should be a wonderful tax dispensation for anybody whose name begins with L. I'm a direct beneficiary of that.
That's unconstitutional.
That's ridiculous.
State level, maybe.
Not constitutional level.
Balls and strikes.
Here's another one for you.
I am against the death penalty.
Vehemently, for reasons I'll talk about some other time.
I don't want it.
It's fraught with mistakes and errors.
And yeah, you get the right people and all that.
But I don't want it.
Now, if I was a judge, if somebody gives me a chance to sign a death warrant, or if I'm a Supreme Court judge, if somebody says, we want to, once and for all, eliminate...
Eliminate completely, to overrule, to make unconstitutional the death penalty because we have a fundamental right to life and what this is is nothing more than some kind of state-sponsored murder.
I'd say, wrong!
Excuse me, I'm waiting on that.
But the Constitution clearly says life, liberty, and at the time of the Constitution...
We're killing people left and right.
Clearly constitutional.
Clearly there's no substantive due process right to life when it says no life.
That's life of an embryo, life of a fetus, life of a...
It doesn't...
No!
It doesn't exist in the Constitution.
If there was a law that said we're going to make child marriage legal, you can marry an infant at the state legislation level.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits you from passing this lunatic law.
This is limited stuff.
That's it.
But what they're doing right now, and the people...
And last night, did you see how Code Pink all of a sudden...
How did these people know this?
How did they know this was being leaked?
How did you have all of these signs made?
How was there this organized response to something which seemed to be rather, well, you know, happenstance and the like.
This is organized.
This is a woke left.
Anarchic, nihilistic, these people play for keeps.
Not Joe Biden, not AOC, not these people, but the shadow government, anarchic.
These are nihilists.
These are people who are, they're not leftists.
They're not progressives.
They're not liberals.
These are hardcore stormtroopers, shocktroopers.
This is like nothing we've ever seen before.
And the right does nothing.
They're going to sit back, like they always do, and complain, and tweet, and they're going to have breaking news all day, and you're going to have Jonathan Turley's going to talk about it, and Dershowitz is going to talk about it, and they're going to be talking about, again, abortion, not whether it's constitutional or not, but whether it's human life, which is a different argument altogether.
But what we are dealing with right now is just a level of organized kind of political terror, the likes of which we've never seen before.
Do you grasp this?
In the history, in the history of this country, of the Supreme Court, Right now as we speak, there should be lockdowns.
There should be every person investigated by the DOJ, by the FBI, by the own Supreme Court.
They have their own police and I don't know what kind of law enforcement to find out who was it.
They should take that person or persons, march them out, subject them to public ignominy, shame, the most incredible prosecution.
Ever to send a lesson.
You are not going to do this.
I don't care if they stole it from Sotomayor.
It doesn't matter.
This isn't a left-right thing.
But nothing's going to happen.
They're going to be applauded.
They're going to say, this is wonderful.
Now the right's going to have to sit back and Gorsuch and all these people are going to have to get royally pissed off.
And by the way, there's also subsidiary issues about whether this is authentic.
Maybe they do.
Let's just assume or argue about it.
But today, I promise you, the issue will be, is it a human life?
They will miss the rudiments of this altogether.
I cannot explain it enough.
This is some of the most frightening stuff ever.
These people are They're at another level.
It'd be like taking a high school or a Pop Warner football team against the Buccaneers or whoever.
You've never seen anything like this.
We don't know how to deal with this.
We don't know what to do.
This is they will stop at nothing.
Let me also tell you.
Let me also tell you what they're going to do.
Listen to me how good they are.
They know.
They know they're going to lose in the midterms and sure as hell in 2024.
And they will do they will stop at nothing nothing to ensure that they are unfettered and unimpeded in their march to more tyranny.
Up to and including War.
War with Russia.
War.
War.
They are...
Kinzinger talks about this.
He's new.
This, this.
Schmuck.
They're just signing this.
Okay, whatever you want.
That if there's any type of anything that Russia does, any kind of chemical, biological, whatever we can...
Oh my God.
They will stop at nothing.
Nothing.
Anticipated.
Expected.
Expected.
Nothing that you've ever seen before explains who these people are today.
Nothing.
Nothing.
And meanwhile, to keep you busy, we're talking about Elon Musk.
And whether Elon Musk...
He bought Twitter and will...
Can Mike Lindell come back?
That's interesting, I guess, to some.
Do you want to talk about the truth lady?
The Ministry of Truth lady?
This lunatic, this moonbat, this benighted...
I don't know what.
Want to talk about her for a while?
That's good.
That's low-hanging fruit.
That's fun.
Isn't she great?
She's there for a purpose.
Oh my God.
We'll talk about that one.
Want to talk about that?
Sure.
Maybe we can talk about the New York Times and their attempted, I guess, expose of Tucker Carlson.
I don't know why they don't realize that the best way, the best endorsement anybody can ever get is to be attacked by the New York Times.
I mean, they must know this.
You can talk about that.
You want to talk about that one?
Maybe the Met Gala.
Want to talk about that?
Want to do some Hillary Clinton jokes?
That's where we're going today.
Breaking news.
Breaking news.
This is at the very core of the Constitution.
This is it.
If ever you're in Philadelphia, the Constitutional Center is right across from Constitutional Hall.
It's...
Our Mecca.
It's our Medina.
It's our Vatican.
It's the tabernacle.
I know it sounds kind of highfalutin, but it's true.
And this is so beautiful.
And there have been people throughout the years who have argued about, well, what do we do?
And they're very smart.
And they're very smart.
Justice Breyer.
Very smart.
Douglas.
These aren't dumb people.
And then there were people like Scalia and Gorsuch and others and people from the Federalist Society.
And I'm telling you, my interpretation of the Constitution, or what I see, now remember, once I get the go-ahead, oh, then it's all bets are off.
For example, give you an example.
Let's say I'm a wild-eyed ACLU Really, I mean, I'm really, really pro-criminal.
Whatever.
Well, I could take the Fourth Amendment, clearly designated to deal with search and seizure, and I can expand it to levels that nobody has ever seen before.
That's okay.
That's okay.
Because there is a Fourth Amendment, and there it is.
So I can do that.
I can take the First Amendment.
And I can limit or expand using the First Amendment.
I can't violate the principles.
I can't do that.
You just can't make stuff up.
It's okay to change.
Brown against Board of Education overruled Plessy because separate but equal violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Boom!
That was it.
End of discussion.
Dred Scott was overruled.
Which, by the way, technically was correct under the Constitution at the time.
But anyway.
So I can take something that's there and work with it.
I would have had...
I'm really torn.
There was a case that came out.
The lemon test was pretty much tossed.
Did you read about the...
This was the...
Religious display.
You're going to be talking about this.
I think this teacher named Kennedy who did a prayer, the lemon test for establishment clause stuff, that fascinates me.
But at least I can kind of work within that.
I can expand it, contract it.
But I can't make up stuff.
I can't come up with a doctor called Leave Me the F Alone.
What?
A fundamental.
In the Constitution, based upon a number of other laws, is leave me the F alone.
Leave me alone.
There is no such guarantee called leave me alone.
Well, I think there is now.
I think it's based upon, I think the spirit of this, that's legislation.
I personally hate sleeve tattoos.
I think they're a disgusting violation of my visual spectrum.
They're constitutionally protected.
I think that drugs should be legal for various reasons.
But it's not unconstitutional to arrest somebody for drugs.
But from the legislature's point of view, when you have all these CBD, all these cannabis dispensaries, that's not the Constitution.
That's legislation.
That's up to you.
That's your thing.
Does the Constitution have the right to tell married people they can't use contraception?
Yeah.
Does the Constitution have the right to tell you you can't drink on Sundays in bars?
Does the legislature have?
In some cases, I mean, blue laws and there maybe have been some changes, but yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Do you have the right to say that you can close down a beauty salon because they didn't have licensing?
Yeah.
It's 55 miles an hour, 55 here, 65 here.
Is that constitutional?
Yeah.
It may be stupid.
Go to your legislatures and argue against it.
There are things that we do all the time.
I don't understand.
But that's not the Constitution.
But abortion is different.
And you take these people with pink hair and nose rings who are never going to have an abortion.
I am never going to have an abortion.
We are not...
It's a theoretical...
And by the way, you don't have to necessarily be in the crosshairs of pregnancy rights to have an opinion.
I think this...
How do we say this?
I think that people who...
I think that people can have a variety of opinions.
For example, war.
A woman's not going to be in combat, but she has a right to say that.
This has nothing to do with anything that we've ever dealt with.
And what we're going to see today are people talking about, again, this is the human life.
This is my baby.
It is a baby.
I think it's a human life.
Yes, I do.
Absolutely.
I think it's a human life.
Yep.
Let me tell you something right now.
Anybody who says, anybody who says, if you want to see reality, talk about it in terms of, guess what?
Now it's your daughter.
And now your daughter is pregnant.
Your daughter, not raped, not just boyfriend, whatever, changes everything.
She tells you, I want an abortion.
I'm not going to go through.
I'm not ready for this.
Well, too bad.
I don't want this child.
Too bad.
Now, as a parent, that's your right.
That's your right.
But it's going to change everything.
Everything.
And then we'll talk about whether it's a life of a parent.
That doesn't happen most of the time.
That has happened.
The life of the mother, whether a woman is raped.
That happens, but not as often as general, where people say, I don't want this.
And if you allow abortion, you can say, okay, I'll allow abortion, but you have to have a good reason.
According to whom?
Well, my tribunal.
You're what?
I have a group of people that I'm going to put aside, and they're going to decide whether the reason why you gave.
Are you doing this just for contraception?
Maybe.
Well, that's not going to work.
So you're going to pass a law that says, okay, if the state of Maine wants to do that, so be it.
That's all.
There's just no constitutional protection.
If the state of Maine says, not only is it legal, it's preferred, we'll pay for it.
That's legal.
There's nothing unconstitutional.
You should go to your local assembly person and say, if you pass this law, if you do this, we will run against you or whatever it is.
That's just the way it goes.
Death penalty, that simple.
The Constitution says nothing about that.
Even though you're pro-choice, even though you're against it, whatever it is, that's it.
It's about the sanctity of this doctrine.
That's all.
That's all.
And I don't expect for one minute, for this argument that I've been giving you, for the past 42 minutes, I don't expect anybody to understand it.
Or, people who sign up at Lionel Media, I don't expect it, because that's not what people want to talk about.
They want to talk about, is it a life?
Is it genocide?
Is it a woman's right?
Well, if you don't want to have a baby, just keep your legs closed.
Well, you did it.
Nobody forced you.
That's another argument.
There's nothing to do with the Constitution.
Well, I want to talk about that.
Well, I don't know why these people have all these kids and they just can't use contraception.
That's another issue.
Well, I don't know who should be paying for these abortions.
If you want to get an abortion, fine, but we're not going to pay for it.
That's another issue.
We're not talking about that.
It's issue analysis.
It's irrelevant, inapposent.
We're not talking about that.
Okay, but what happens if somebody has 4, 5, 6, 10 babies?
These are...
Well, shouldn't we at least be able to show a heartbeat or something?
That's...
whatever.
That's a state law.
If you want to do that, go ahead.
Well, okay.
We'll have the death penalty, but we have a new law that says you have to show baby pictures.
Remember when Trayvon Martin was...
It was shot by George Zimmerman.
Remember that?
And they showed a picture of Trayvon Martin.
He was like 8 years old.
He had a little mortarboard and a little diploma.
I said, he shot a kid?
That bastard shot a kid?
No, that was when he was 8 years old.
Why are they showing a picture?
Then you see Trayvon Martin.
He's like 6 '4", whatever.
Well, I'm going to pass a new law that says before you give somebody a death penalty, you've got to have baby pictures.
The jury has to see baby pictures of them.
Okay.
Go ahead.
That's your state.
There may be some other identifiable due process or right to counsel considerations, but the Constitution never talks about the Air Force.
The Constitution never talks about how many justices there are.
The Constitution never talks about marriage.
It doesn't talk about voting.
It doesn't talk about it.
One man, one vote.
Nothing!
It doesn't talk about...
Oh my God!
I mean, it's limited.
And sometimes it's 35 to be a president, 30 to be this, and it's vague.
I mean, natural born citizen, does that have to...
Here's one for you.
This is the best one.
First line.
The Constitution of the United States of America.
First line.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...
Wait a minute.
Stop.
More perfect?
More dead?
More pregnant?
More perfect?
What does that even mean?
I don't know.
The emolument clause.
They're still debating whether Obama could theoretically...
Could they knock Carmelita out, bring in Obama, then get rid of Biden because of the 25th Amendment, and he ascends for a third term?
Because the maximum amount of years that a president can serve is 10 years.
Do you know that?
Two terms plus half of the two years of the When a president is elevated by virtue of the death or assassination or whatever it is.
Some honest-to-God constitutional scholars are saying, no, we've got Article 2, but then there's a 22nd Amendment, and they don't really...
It's very imprecise.
Very.
Because these people wrote this section, then later on they added this amendment, and nobody sat in Philadelphia and said, let's work on this one because this is not as fluent as this.
They don't explain the First Amendment, the right to free speech.
What does it mean?
I don't even know.
Like it or not, That's it.
But what I can tell you is that I can argue something that's there but I cannot I cannot countenance or agree to something that's made up that doesn't exist in here because it happens to comport and comply with my particular political way of thinking.
That's what this is about.
We have to be Scalia's, originalists, textualists, people who look at what was written, but also at the time it was written.
If that makes any sense whatsoever.
Alright my friends, that's it.
This is exhausting.
I have been spending a lot of time today reviewing this.
Please, please, please.
I do my commentaries, I do my subscription service based not on the presumption that this is for my conservative audience.
I'm going to say something that the conservatives will love or that the liberals will hate.
It doesn't work like that.
It doesn't work like that.
There was a I did a piece.
There was one yesterday.
In Nashville, there was a cryptogender Latinx or Latinx trans-queer neurodivergent LGBTQ plus alphabet.
I don't know what this was.
I talked about it in terms of not against LGBTQ, but this almost artificial proliferation of unessential referencing and labeling.
I didn't want to call it wank pods.
Employee masturbation centers.
Did you hear this?
Did you hear this?
I did a look at, and this is important, this world, the way we're dealing with mental illness, a la Naomi Judd, people who are not able to fulfill themselves.
By the way, I have a prediction.
I have a prediction of sorts.
You are going to see this Nina Jankiewicz, whatever, the truth mistress.
You are going to see her shelved.
You are going to see her just, she's...
She's taking too much flack.
That was a great, even Mayorkas who came along and said, she is just, I mean, either they knew or didn't know or didn't care, but she is an absolute poster child for just insanity.
Watch what happens with that.
But here's the thing, and this is what We're different about it.
I want you to listen to me.
I don't know what you call this political ideology.
Conservative, liberal.
I know people think I'm conservative or whatever.
That's fine.
Maybe sometimes there are some things that just happen to comport or what have you.
Once you align yourself with it.
Once you become part of the flag lapel pin crew, then you have to comport and comply and your behavior has to be consistent with those people or else you'll lose your membership.
Then you start preaching to the choir.
Not independently thinking.
Not independently saying, well, you know, that makes sense.
No.
We're getting too personal.
I liked the fact that When Michelle Obama tried at least initially to bring up the notion of organic gardening and maybe other food alternatives, they didn't give her a chance and they just crushed her because they just hate her.
I was with her 100% on that one.
I was with Obama when he said the first thing, he says, we're not going to go to war with Syria.
I don't know what he's going to say now.
But he did some things that make absolute perfect sense.
But nobody gave him any credit because you have to hate him.
You have to hate him.
Somewhere along the line, somebody was talking about keeping our, you know, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, wait, wait, wait, before I forget.
Did you see Noam Chomsky?
Noam Chomsky?
This leftist archa...
Typical archetypal lefty loon, Noam Chomsky, who said the person who would probably be the best, you can see it, go online, Glenn Greenwald did it, the person who would probably be the most, the best equipped and attuned and situated to deal with the various iterations of this Russo-Ukrainian conflict is Donald J. Trump.
Noam Chomsky.
Now, does that mean, what, you like it?
It's not about liking.
It's not about, I don't know.
Somebody the other day told me, who, actually it should be whom, whom do you like?
What do you mean whom?
Well, I like Tucker.
I said, well, it's a very good show.
I think he's the, out of today's bevy and whatever contingent of conservative hosts, I think he's by far the most.
Lucid and intelligent and certainly I can agree with him the most.
No, but I like him.
Okay.
Well, I don't know.
I've never met...
I mean, we talked years ago when he was on the MSDNC and I used to talk to him.
But I don't know him.
But I'm sure he's a nice man.
But that's not about liking.
No, no, I like him.
Oh, I like.
Oh, I don't like.
I don't like Brian Stelter.
Why not?
I don't know.
He's just weird.
Okay, why is he weird?
I don't know.
He looks funny, and he sounds funny, and he looks like a thumb.
Wait a minute.
You don't like him because of the way he looks?
No, I hate him.
And I hate Chris Wallace.
Well, because he left Fox.
Well, yeah, but that's not the way to go.
No, no, no, no.
No.
No, no.
I want to read something to you and then have you say, what do you think about that?
That's pretty good.
Who said that?
Noam Chomsky.
What?
By the same token, you've got to be able to say sometimes when people get it wrong.
They get it absolutely wrong.
And sometimes the beloved, the great Donald Trump, this man right here, this man!
By the way, I have a Tabernacle.
A repository of Trump in Washington.
I think I bought every piece of Trump stuff.
You name it.
Not because of eBay.
But this man can be a genius or the most hard-headed I don't know what.
A poltroon.
What are you doing?
Now, you've got to be able to tell somebody, I like this, but I don't like this.
But liking somebody, whatever it is.
And whether you think, well, you know, I'm a Catholic.
Whether you're a Catholic has nothing to do with abortion.
Catholics, according to the last time I checked, should be against the death penalty.
Pope John Paul II was obviously...
Absolutely.
I think Jesus is against the death penalty too.
And he knows a little bit about it because he was sentenced to death and he was guilty.
Remember?
Son of God.
But I'm sorry.
Being Catholic is over here.
Being a constitutional purist is over here.
And there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the death penalty.
That's where we are.
Okay.
Do us a favor.
Follow me right here.
Oh!
And I want to announce something.
July 16th at the Cutting Room.
July 16th at the Cutting Room.
We just got the paperwork.
That's so good that you remember that.
What was it?
A year exactly?
It's been a year.
Can you believe that?
A year is going to be...
Yeah, it's going to be...
Maybe it was a year ago.
Two women.
It was a year ago.
Because it was right at the time...
We had all that mask business, and it was so confusing because people were saying, well, you have to wear a mask.
Well, you have to wear a mask.
It's preferred.
And then later on, anyway, we of course, as of today, it was right before the mandate.
So anyway, that's coming July 16th.
And what we're going to do differently is this.
Completely different.
Completely different.
It's the usual magic, of course.
What we're going to do for the first time is going to be interactive.
Up to and including Q&As.
And I think that's the most important thing.
Because I want to talk with people.
What I like to do, anybody who's ever had the event to see moi will know that the first thing I do, and I guarantee you, is every person who is there I say hello to.
Whether you like it or not, I will come to your house at 3 in the morning if I have to.
There it is right there.
Tickets, cutting room, July 16th.
But I make sure I talk to everybody.
I shake every hand, take every picture, everybody.
I don't care how long it takes.
Because a lot of times people, they do this thing and they want to get out.
I don't blame them, but this is different.
And what I've also done, the name of this, I love the name of this tour, is called Bandballs and Brains.
And I'll explain what that means.
But anyway, that's coming on July 16th.
But we're going to do some Q&A.
We're also going to be interactive.
Because it's not stand-up.
It's lecture.
It's evangelical truth.
Not religious, but in terms of pure American truth.
It's like our religion.
It's Americanism, the American model.
It's about...
Whatever.
Anyway, it goes without saying.
Also, please, Mrs. L, please, please, please, she's fighting indefatigably, always on the phone, always on Zoom calls, always doing everything to help to protect our children.
This is her Twitter.
Please, I ask you.
Please follow her.
Because for some reason, they do not want her to flourish.
They don't like it.
She poses an existential threat to the deep state ghouls.
Alright, that's it.
Have a great and glorious day.
See you tomorrow, same bad time, 9 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow for the latest daily briefing.
Alright, thanks for watching.
▲
Export Selection