All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2023 - Lionel Nation
12:48
Three Areas of Complete and Total Juridical Lunacy
| 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.
When it comes to abortion, first of all, the subject matter.
God, it's the kiss of death.
Who wants to talk about abortion?
But I've got to talk about it, especially when it comes to the Constitution and how nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.
Now, just so that you understand this, not that it matters, but I happen to be pro-choice.
I'm of the opinion that women and their doctors and their nurses shouldn't be doing long stretches in the federal pen or the penitentiary or prison.
For having an abortion or providing an abortion.
So anybody who says their right to life, if you're right to life, you've got to say that you want women to go to prison if they have it.
Well, I'm not that way.
But I hate abortion.
I can't stand it.
But here's the thing.
If you want abortion, pass a law in your state and have it.
There's nothing in the Constitution.
Let me tell you how this started.
You're not going to believe this.
In 1965, there was a case called Griswold against Connecticut.
And William O. Douglas dealt with the idea of whether there was an issue that dealt with whether contraceptives should be legally or could be legally prohibited.
So what he did was he struck down this law and he came up with this idea of the right of privacy.
I don't know where he got that from.
He just made it up.
Listen to this.
I'm giving you kind of a review of this.
He believed that there were some rights And there were some specific guarantees from the Bill of Rights that have penumbras, and they formed emanations from those guarantees, and nobody knows to this day what the hell that even means, so he came up with the notion of privacy.
Just made it up.
Privacy.
But people said, well, I think contraceptives should be legal, so go ahead.
Then they took privacy in 1973, and they extended it to Roe v.
Wade.
And they came up with this idea of privacy.
And because people liked that result, they said, well, that makes sense.
So they created this privacy extension and something called substantive due process.
Now, under the 5th and 14th Amendment, you cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The only provisions, the only guarantees are to process how we take your life, liberty, and property, how we kill you, throw you in prison for the rest of your life, and take your stuff.
That's all it provided for.
Not that we couldn't take your life, put you in jail forever, but that we had to do it in a particular way.
It was due process.
What Roe did was they came up with this thing called substantive due process, which is a right that is so great, we just sort of came, I guess, created it out of nowhere.
And then actually, Casey later on, Overruled Roe.
And now we've got the Dobbs case.
So here's the bottom line.
Nino Scalia always talked about this old Prego tomato sauce commercial that said, you know, there should be oregano in there.
It's in it!
There should be basil.
It's in it!
It's in it!
It's in Prego.
Well, people think everything's in the Constitution.
There's no mention of the Air Force.
They don't even mention how many justices there are.
There's nothing in the Constitution about this.
There's nothing in the Constitution about the right to privacy or the right to whatever it is.
If you want to have a law which guarantees and mandates abortion just...
Pass it.
This isn't conservative.
This isn't liberal.
This is just common sense.
It's the law.
I'm a heretical constitutionalist.
I believe that this is what it says.
And if you don't like it, pass a law.
Am I making any sense?
Am I making any sense?
One of my favorite expressions is that The Constitution is a living document.
It's a living treatise, a living body, a living codification.
It's not living.
It's dead.
This is it.
This is it.
If you want to change it, change it.
Amend it.
It's very difficult by design.
But no, no, no.
This...
You can't apply some of these things in 1789, some of these provisions to apply to this world of artificial intelligence.
Yeah, you can.
Yeah, you can.
But don't you have to change and amend it?
You mean through the court?
Yeah.
You mean legislate from the bench, just create stuff?
No.
Let me give you an example of something.
Let's say I'm a line judge at the U.S. Open.
And I'm sitting here, and I'm just saying if the ball is in or out, in, out, in, and I'm tired of this.
And I'm looking at Federer and Nadal and all these people.
And I keep thinking to myself, this tennis rule book that I'm using was written during the days of Don Budge, you know, Bill Tilden, Jack Kramer.
What is this?
This guy is hitting a ball that's in, but he's so good, you could maybe reduce that particular alley, that square, that good service area.
You could reduce it by half, and he'd still be able to do it.
Based upon the evolutionary talents of our people today, these rules that I'm using today are outdated.
This might have been great in 1893, but they don't apply today.
So you know what I'm going to do?
Because I want the rules of tennis to be evolving and I want them to be always changing and I want them to reflect the current situation of the talent.
I'm going to call this ball out.
That technically is in.
Even though it's in the rules, even though it says this is the square, this is the area, I'm going to apply a new standard.
A new standard.
One of these days a police officer may say, you know what, I don't think 55 makes any sense today.
55 on the highway was during the time of, you know, during the Carter administration.
But, you know, the Autobahn goes 65, 75. It's actually safer.
You know what I'm going to do?
I'm just not going to pull anybody over anymore.
I'm going to make the new speed limit 80 in order to indicate and to reflect the ever-evolving standards of driving.
That's nuts.
If you want to change the law, Change the law the right way.
You just don't on your own decide, you know what?
I think times have changed.
Well, guess what?
They haven't.
They haven't.
I hate, hate crimes.
Do you ever hear of a love crime?
What does that mean?
A hate crime?
This is my favorite.
A hate crime is a situation, a...
A motivation, an animus, something that you've felt or directed towards someone that can elevate, that can aggravate the severity of an offense because you decided you were going to accompany this particular behavior with this hatred on your part.
Now, think about this.
I take something which is already cognizable at law, meaning it exists.
Let's say battery or assault.
And because I hit somebody or slap somebody because they're gay or Alsatian or handicapped, whatever it is, I'm going to take something which is already a law, already on the books, and I'm going to aggravate it up a notch or two because I dare to accompany it with something that is acceptable.
That's right, hate.
I can hate Anybody I want.
For any reason I want, so long as I don't manifest that hate in terms of something physical.
You got it?
I can hate anybody.
I can also love people.
And you're not going to mitigate the offense.
You're not going to lessen the offense because I accompany the battery with love.
It doesn't make any sense.
So a couple of things happened here.
There were two cases.
One in particular, there was a court of appeals case in New York where there was a fellow.
He was charged with robbing a bunch of gay people.
Every week, these gay folks would convene and he would somehow swoop in and rob them.
And when asked about this, they said, did you target these people because they were gay?
He says, yes.
Yes, I did.
Aha!
I hate crime.
He goes, whoa, not really.
I targeted them because I thought they would be weak.
I thought, in my mind, if they're being gay, they wouldn't defend themselves.
Would be pushovers.
It's kind of the way a person targets sometimes the elderly.
So the motivation for targeting gay people wasn't out of animus, it wasn't out of hatred, it was out of victim selectivity.
Does that count?
I don't know.
There was an individual one time in a fight in New York, and this guy referred to a group of gay people using an F. A word, a majority for gay people.
It was a slur.
But used within certain enclaves of the community.
In any event, he said, did you refer to this person as an F?
I said, yes, I did.
Aha!
A hate crime.
He goes, well, no.
I'm gay, too.
That's what I call people.
Oh.
So is that a hate crime?
I don't know.
What if I'm a bad hate criminal?
Let's say, for example, I say, I'm going to go burn a cross on the front lawn of a black family's home in order to instill terror.
Okay.
But I'm not good at that.
I don't have any wood.
I don't have anything.
So what I do, I take a Christmas tree, an old Christmas tree, and I put that on the front lawn and I light it.
And the family comes out and they say, what the hell is this?
I don't know.
That's my hate crime.
Must it be readily identifiable as that which is indicative of Of eliciting this notion of hate?
Or producing it?
Must it be in the almanac of accepted hate crimes?
This is stupid!
Here's what you do.
Charge them with a crime.
Then when it comes time for sentencing, you take the particular terror that was enacted by these people, and you add that into the factor of sentencing, and that's what you do.
You make them pay for their acts, but not by virtue of changing the element of a law by penalizing somebody for daring to enunciate something which is already prohibited, excuse me, excuse me, something which is already permitted called hate.
▲
Export Selection