All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:13
June 26, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, and that is because I am doing what I was born to do.
Host and most listened to radio talk show in a country.
And you are doing what you were born to do.
In addition to everything else you do, you listen.
And together it is a great, great combination.
Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies at 800-282-288 to the email address, Ilrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Supreme Court decision, slapping down Obama on recess appointments.
It's not all good.
Well, I look, it it there's some stuff in it that's problematic.
Here is the AP story.
Just going to read you some excerpts, because they they get amazingly close to getting it right.
The Supreme Court today limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments, ruling in favor of Senate Republicans and their partisan clash with President Obama.
The Supreme Court's first ever case involving the Constitution's recess appointments clause ended in a unanimous decision, holding that the regime's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal.
Obama invoked the Constitution's provision giving the President the power to make temporary appointments when the Senate is in recess.
The problem is, and the court said this, is the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted.
The justices said that the Senate says when it's in session, not Obama.
Okay, fine and dandy.
But there's another case that is close to this, that had a 5-4 ruling, and it it was a problematic victory.
And I will explain it here.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion in the 9-0 case that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.
Neither House of Congress can take more than a three-day break without the consent of the other.
The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democrat majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most of Obama's appointees.
But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in November.
Still the outcome, the nine-zip unanimous decision was the least trouble, the least significant loss possible for the regime.
The justices by a five to four vote rejected a sweeping lower court ruling against the administration that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments.
You have to reread it two and three times.
Almost have to diagram the sentence, put it on the chart to follow it.
This is one of those times.
The outcome was the least significant loss on the surface, that leaks that sounds like, well, not a big not a big defeat, not a big problem.
Not certainly not the biggest defeat they could have had, because the justices by a 5-4 vote rejected a lower court ruling against the regime that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments.
The lower court had held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year Break between sessions of Congress.
The lower court also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled.
So the Supreme Court has left open the possibility, and here is the key.
In this 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has left open the possibility that a president with a compliant Congress could make recess appointments in the future whenever he wants.
The key is with a repliant compliant Congress.
So what happened here?
Justice Scalia concurred, but his opinion in the concurrence reads more like a dissent, other than the fact he agrees with the result.
Scalia's concurrence, if you read these things, if you read Supreme Court decisions, read Scalia's here, because it is, as it often is, the model of clarity.
Stephen Breyer's opinion, which was joined by Anthony Kennedy, is basically a bunch of mush.
And this is what the AFE was referring to.
This ruling, the 5-4 ruling problematic, says that the president can effectively amend the Constitution by violating it a lot of times, if Congress doesn't object vigorously enough.
Which is the situation we have now.
This is problematic.
This is a problem, ladies and gentlemen.
Again, here's the AP version is I want to make sure that I'm I'm clearly understood.
This stuff gets so wrapped up in legalese, and you have journalists trying to translate it into layman's terms, and it they never they never do get it right, and it is not that hard to understand.
I just want to take the complex here and make it understandable.
The AP says the high court has left open the possibility that a president with a compliant Congress could make recess appointments in the future, and then in parentheses whenever he wants.
Compliant Congress being the key.
So the opinion written by Breyer that Anthony Kennedy agreed with basically said that the president can flood the zone with recess appointments in violation of the Constitution.
And if the Senate doesn't object strenuously enough, then that alone can constitute amending the Constitution.
So the Supreme Court left it open that if Obama wanted his recess appoint a bunch of people here, a bunch of people there any time you and if the Senate did not object strenuously vigorously enough, then the Senate, by virtue of not fighting it, would then tantamount allow the Constitution to be amended.
Now the reason that that's problematic is because that's exactly what's happening.
Obama is flooding the zone with all kinds of things that are outside the Constitution.
Waivers of exemptions, executive orders, executive actions.
And the Supreme Court said here in the case of recess appointments, that if nobody objects strongly enough, then everything the president does by automatic fiat will become constitutional.
It is incredible to me that the Supreme Court, one of the three branches, is willing to assign this kind of power to the executive.
So if you have a president who says, you know, I don't like the fact the Constitution says I can't do this, and starts doing that, whatever it is, and if nobody objects and nobody tries to stop him, and if he does it enough, it's just going to assume to be the new law of the land, new version of a constitutional amendment, and it will become permissible.
That is what is in the 5-4 decision today on the sweeping Lower court ruling which tried to say that the recess appointments can only occur once per year between the two between the break between the uh the Senate and the House and they break between sessions at the end of the year.
Lower court said that's what the founders intended.
Recess appointments when they're really out of town, when they're really not in session, not when they take a break for 24 hours of trouble, when they're really in session, that's when recess appointments that was thrown out.
And in its stead, essentially the Supreme Court said, hey, look, if if a president wants to just appoint here and appoint there, and if the Senate doesn't object, I don't know what vigorously enough means.
If they don't object vigorously, I mean if they don't sue, if they don't stand up and stop, if I don't, I don't know what it means in legal terms, but the upshot of this is if you have an activist president who doesn't like the Constitution and does things outside it and isn't stopped,
then after enough time goes by, the Supreme Court says, well, that's effectively an amendment of the Constitution, so we can just change it, and whatever the president's doing is now constitutional since nobody has a problem with it.
This is the problem with not pushing back, is exactly what this is.
When there's no pushback, political pushback, forget legal for a second.
When there is and you have here a Republican Party clearly paralyzed by racial fear, and probably paralyzed by fear of the media as well.
Afraid to push back, stand up and say no to Barack Obama.
The Supreme Court's basically said, within the context of recess appointments, who knows how far reaching it is into other areas.
Right now, this is just about recess appointments, I think it's early.
And there'll be a lot of further analysis of this as the day goes on.
But right now it looks like in the in the matter of recess appointments, if Obama just keeps doing it and doing it and doing it, and the Republicans said, don't say you can't, you can't, you can't.
Then after a while, he can, he can, he can, because they didn't say you can't.
In other words, you try to rob the bank enough, and if they stop trying to catch you, then pretty soon robbing banks will be legal.
This is maybe not the best analogy, but it works.
And now with that, ladies and gentlemen, brief time out, EIB network and El Rushbo back with more after this.
We're back, El Rushbo executing a sign to host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
And it is Larry in Summit, Mississippi.
Great to have you, sir, on the program.
I'm glad you waited.
It it's a great honor.
I I've been trying to call for years.
I've been listening for years, but uh I'm a two party voter.
And what that Cochran did to get his vote.
I'm not only not gonna vote for him, I'm gonna vote for his opponent.
You know, we had a call just like you yesterday.
We had a guy call here and say, Russia, I don't care.
I am not, you know, they the Republican Party tells us we gotta be loyal and we've gotta unify.
We gotta join together every time the Tea Party loses.
Screw it.
Not when they play like this.
We had a guy, Larry from Mississippi say that he was going to vote for the Democrat.
And let me tell you something, I I uh I totally understand it.
What good is Thad Cochrane gonna be?
At some point, these people have to be cleared out.
Now, it it in voting for the Democrat, you could be, you could be maintaining Harry Reid in office as the Senate majority leader.
It's possible.
And uh for a lot of years, people have been using analogies like that.
No, you've got to stay loyal to the party.
Otherwise, we're never gonna get rid of Harry Reed.
At some point, it's not just Harry Reed is the problem.
I mean, I I totally understand.
This guy, Chris McDaniel, has been a loyal Republican all of his life, and he's had this kind of of smear campaign run against him by the party to whom he has been loyal all of his life.
Republican establishment eager to have him defeated, might have played a role in ginning up all of these racial voters.
The basis that the tea parties, racist and so forth.
It's understandable to me, your attitude is...
You've got to clear the dead weight out of there.
And if it means that the Democrats hold power for a little longer, so be it.
But this has gotten serious to a lot of people.
This kind of thing has infuriated this.
I mean, if you if you take a look on the ground, what happened in Mississippi on Tuesday?
Conservatives won the primary.
More Republicans voted for McDaniel than Cochrane in the runoff.
If it hadn't been for the eight or nine percent of the vote that was African American voting for old Thad, Thad would not have won.
The Republican Tea Party candidate would have.
Yet the Rhinos are running around claiming they crushed the Tea Party.
When the truth is they lost the party.
They won the election and they lost the party.
In a Republican primary, the Republican victor needed Democrat votes to win.
And in order to pull that off, the Republican majority or the rhinos resorted to race baiting.
Now, who wants to be part of that future if that's what the future of the Republican Party is?
So Larry, I understand where you're coming from.
It uh provides me a transition opportunity.
Go back to these two remaining sound bites, the drive-by media fit to be tied, just outraged, just just offended that I would dare call African American voters showing up for Thad Cochran, Uncle Tom's.
How dare they?
He had a couple sound bites in the first hour from Don of Brazil.
Here is John King.
CNN's new day this morning.
The state with the highest percentage of African American voters in the country, so you would think here's an opportunity for Republicans maybe to learn the lesson.
Thad Cochran had to go to these voters in a moment of need, but maybe he could start to build a relationship, and maybe other Republicans could copy it, Julie, but then Rush Limbaugh weighs in.
Uh, this won't help.
I wonder what the campaign slogan was in Mississippi the past couple days.
Uncle Tom's for fad?
Anything I say will make it worse, but uh if you find irregularities, fine.
Investigate them.
You have that right after an election to look at things.
But to say things like that and disparage people, and forgive me if that's not a racist statement, it's dancing right up to the line of it.
How does that help anybody?
Come on, John, what in the name of Sam Hill are you talking about?
This is absurd, and you know it's absurd.
What was racist here is calling black Republicans Uncle Tom's?
Go talk to Clarence Thomas and ask him what it's like to be called one, John, or go talk to Alan West, or go talk to Dr. Thomas Soler, Condoleezza Rice, who's being called an Uncle Tom and Jemima for good measure.
You know and I know that Republican blacks are disparaged, they are impugned, they are ripped to shreds, they're called Uncle Tom's traitors, you name it.
The idea, this is a the idea that this is some kind of breakthrough for the Republicans on the African American vote in his primary in Mississippi, where were they the first election, John?
If Thad Cochrane's come up with a brilliant strategy here to get the black vote, and there's something to build on here, then what did it?
What policies, what did he do?
Was Donit Brazil says gratitude for Hurricane Katrina?
Well, if they got that much gratitude for Thad for Hurricane Katrina, why didn't they show up in the first election, John?
And John, are you aware of the racist flyer and the robocalls that generated this black turnout?
Yeah, robocalls and and black uh flyers telling black voters that the Tea Party candidate wanted to take us back to days of segregation and deny them the right to vote and all that.
If you're gonna talk about this stuff, you've got to put it in context, and you've got to start consulting my website or what I say before you start playing these sound bites and start talking about them out of context, not knowing what you're talking about.
And then somebody needs to explain to me why my referring to black voters who bloat for Republicans as Uncle Tom's is somehow right up to the edge of racism, but it isn't when everybody else does it.
Democrats, civil rights leadership, they all refer to traitorous blacks who vote Republicans as Uncle Tom's.
I think this is too close to home.
That's why.
Here's Julie Pace.
That's who he was talking to, Julie Pace at the AP.
She was the one laughing in the previous soundbite.
Here is what she said.
It doesn't, and a lot of national Republicans just cringe when they see statements like that, when they see things like what McDaniel is saying, because this is a party, remember, after the 2012 election that said we have to broaden the base.
And now you have a race where they've managed to broaden the base for whatever reason they've managed to do it, and they have this push and pull of maybe we actually don't want to broaden the base.
It just sends a really mixed message.
Come on, Julie.
If this really represented broadening the base, you people in the media would be in a state of panic today.
If you thought that Thad Cochran getting 8-9% of the black vote really meant a new day, and the Republicans had found a way to reach out and make this happen, you would be in a panic and you'd be warning black people to beware of you're not worried about this at all because you know that this was a one-off.
Anybody anybody remember Dr. Ben Carson being called an Uncle Tom just for criticizing Obamacare.
Ben Carson was also audited by the IRS for his troubles.
So Ben Carson's an Uncle Tom, and Tom uh Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom, and Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom, and you know the list goes on and on and on.
You see, folks, this is textbook drive-by media.
Just like my comments about phony soldiers in Iraq, and just like I hope he fails, the drive-bys know exactly what I am saying.
They know exactly, and in fact, a couple of them can't stop laughing about it because it's funny.
Julie Pace had to catch herself from laughing at it when John King played her the soundbite.
They know exactly what I'm saying.
But they think if they take my context out of my comments out of context, they do that enough that they can distort my brand, tar and feather me, and prevent others from actually catching, because they don't want other people to get my point.
They don't want the low information people to figure out my sarcasm, my parody, my my uh whatever this is.
It's uh this is another way of making a point.
You don't make fun of the left.
You just you don't tell jokes about the left.
Do you know any comedians that tell jokes about the left that are hired to host programs?
Of course not.
Do you know any comedians that tell jokes about the left that get guest shots on comedy shows?
You don't.
It's a no-no because see, they are good people and they're serious people, they have good intentions and they are not to be laughed at, and they are not to be joked at, and they are not to be made fun of, and they are not to be belittled, and they're not to have their hypocrisy pointed out.
No way whatsoever.
So they know what they're doing.
They know exactly what it's and they know I'm right.
They have probably joined all of this talk about Uncle Tom Republicans over the course of their own careers, and not doing this out of ignorance.
They know me well enough.
I've been around here 25 years.
They know it.
They sit around waiting for these moments, hoping against hope that I'll say something that gives them the nail in my coffin.
So my point is they know better.
This this is intentional.
This And it's what they always do.
And it never works.
And that's why we have fun here.
Each and every time I get close to something, we all laugh and say, that's it.
That's gonna be in the drive-by headlines tomorrow.
And this was one of those times.
I mean, there's further evidence here.
Let's listen to Chuck Wrangle.
You know, Chuck won his primary on uh on Tuesday.
He was on CNN's the lead last night, John Berman, who also expressed mock outrage over my Uncle Tom's for Thad line.
Interviewed Representative Wrangell, and they talked about good old Thad winning in Mississippi.
Berman said, Do you think there's anything wrong with African Americans getting out and voting like this in a Republican primary?
Of course not.
My God.
I think that's what it's all about.
Clearly they looked at the uh Tea Party Kings, they looked at Bad Cockrid.
They made a determination as to which would be uh better between the two for Mississippi and my God, uh.
It just seems to me it makes a lot of sense in view of the fact that the Tea Party is so unpredictable, and actually uh don't care too much about the Republican Party or the country, as we can see as to uh what happened with Eric Hanter.
Yeah, yeah, we really we see your tears.
Poor Eric Canyon, we see your tears, Charlie.
Poor Eric Cannon.
Is it Charlie?
Is there anything wrong with a bunch of black people voting for Thad?
No way, of course not.
My God, that's what it's all about.
That's all you need to know that this isn't serious.
That's all you need to know that this is not even real.
As I'm telling you, if Charlie Wrangell and all these media people really thought a new threshold had been crossed here, and that somehow the aging senile Thad Cochran had magically come up with the way.
You know, Republicans have been searching for a way to get the black vote for as long as I've been alive.
And out of the blue on one lazy Tuesday in Mississippi, good old Thad Cochrane found the pot of gold.
Anyone really want to believe that that's what happened here?
Because if it did, Charlie Wrangle be out there trashing Thad Cochran as a liar and as a racist and misleading these people.
And and there wouldn't be any Donna Brazil would not be out praising Thad for all of the gratitude people are showing him after his work on Mississippi Post Katrina.
The very fact that the Democrats are praising this is all the evidence we need to know that they don't think it's anything here, but a successful trick that has been pulled off.
Again, I mean the idea of all people, Thad Cochrane comes up with this way that everybody's been trying to find to finally get the message out to black voters.
Hey, we love you.
We want the best for you.
You've got to start voting.
Thad came up with it.
You would not be able to escape the panic in the media, and you would not be able to escape the tarring and feathered destruction of Thad Cochrane that would have started on Tuesday night.
The fact that Charlie Wrangle, I mean, this is just hilarious.
Of course not.
My God, that's that's what it's all about.
They looked at the buddy can it, didn't they?
Looked dead.
That's all we need to know.
And here's Chuck here Schumer.
Yesterday at the Wall Street Journal Breakfast, whatever that was.
Senator McCain, Senator Schumer spoke, and there was a QA.
Jerry Sib, Wall Street Journal uh Bureau Chief in Washington was the moderator, said Senator McCain, is the conventional wisdom in Washington right?
Is immigration reform dead?
Well, I hope it's wrong.
I don't think that it was helpful, uh Eric Canner's defeat.
We can't give up trying Because of the absolute importance it is in my case, not only the country but to the Republican Party.
All right.
Now we just played a sound by the Chuck Hugh Schumer moments ago.
In fact, go back and get it again.
Grab somebody number 22.
We're gonna do a side-by-side AB comparison.
This Chuck Schumer today in Washington.
This is about 20 minutes after Donna Brazil called me.
Hey, you know, Limboy just an entertainer.
And it's funny.
I mean, I'll laugh at it.
The Uncle Tom for Thad line, and it's pretty good.
But but he's just an entertainer.
And Chuck Schumer at a joint House Senate leadership press conference said.
The leaders of the House know that they're coming up to the edge of a demographic cliff.
And immigration reform is the only thing that can keep them from falling off of it.
They all know.
But it's a small sliver of a minority of America which has disproportionate weight, the Tea Party.
Right that prevents them from moving forward.
They're afraid of the Tea Party.
Well, you like maneuver.
They're afraid of the word amnesty, even though our bill is not amnesty at all, but Rush Limbaugh says it enough, and they're afraid that their primary voters who skew far right believe it.
Right.
Right.
Now here's a guy normally he loves every minority he encounters.
He just I mean, minorities, they're the biggest victims.
They're put upon they need the defense and the protection of the Democrat Party.
Here's a small sliver of a small minority, and we've got to take them out together.
Limbaugh is lying.
It isn't amnesty.
So here's Schumer.
After that, actually, this was yesterday at the Wall Street Journal breakfast, after McCain said that immigration reform is important to the Republican Party and hopes that Cantor's defeat doesn't mean it's dead.
Schumer weighs in.
You have the Republican leadership.
They know that they should do immigration reform.
They know they have to do it now.
I think if they don't do it, we will win the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
We received some degree of help with the Cochrane election and with the general trend that the Tea Party doesn't always win.
Because that's what's holding this back.
Holy cow, folks.
What you you don't need any more evidence than what I've supplied you today to know that the Tea Party is winning and driving these people crazy.
You are seen as the primary obstacles to them getting what they do you believe him when he says, you know, they should do immigration reform.
They know they have to do it now.
I think if they don't do it, we'll win the presidents of the House and the Senate, as though he doesn't want to.
Well, what does this mean?
I think if the Republicans don't do it, we're gonna win the presidency of the House and the Senate.
Chuck, that's exactly what you want to happen.
You want to win the House, the Senate, and the and and the White House.
Forever the Republicans are doing exactly what you want them to do.
Apparently.
So why do you want the Republicans to change what they're doing and do what you want them to do if it's gonna help them win?
It doesn't make any sense, Chuck.
They got some degree of help with the Cochrane election, the general trend the Tea Party didn't know.
The Tea Party did win.
The Tea Party got more votes than the Republican Party got in the primary on the runoff.
Anyway, uh I I just I think it's stunning to listen to Chuck Schumer sit here and talk about how much he cares about us winning the White House.
And the only way we can do it is to start sounding exactly like he does.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Here is Jeremy and Gulfport, Mississippi.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Good to be on the show, Rush.
Um I was just calling uh I don't think that this was an effort to increase the uh the base for the Republican Party, because these are voters that aren't gonna vote for Cochrane in the general election.
Uh this was more of a a means to an end by the established Republicans.
Well, now wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just that that's what you might think, but the Republican establishment and the media, uh, Jeremy, are telling us that a threshold has been crossed and that these voters may indeed now vote for Thad uh that me because this was real.
This wasn't the result of trickery.
I mean, that there was real Thad found a way to reach out and grab these people and convince them that he was a good guy.
The Republican Party's great and they really liked him and hated the Tea Party.
I know you I mean it's you it rush you'd be uh im impressed by the number of uh uh lifelong Democratic supporters that had fad signs in their yards, and I can guarantee you it wasn't because they're gonna start supporting you know the Republican Party.
Uh to me, I see this was a means to an end by this Towers Republicans to uh ensure that that Cochran got elected uh because I I I don't see Cochran finishing out a uh a full term and and this will allow them that to hand pick the the the person to succeed Cochrane and I think that McDaniel posed a threat because he's not somebody that's gonna go along with the the the Republican guard uh there's no c absolutely.
I mean you're there's no question you're right.
All these Democrats with fad signs in their yards.
I mean, what here's the thing.
The Republican Party, you answer me this for me, Jeremy.
What do you think about this?
The Republican Party is is hell bent on broadening its base and reaching out and getting new voters.
Why doesn't it want to reach out to its conservative base?
Why doesn't the Republican Party want to reach out and expand its reach by getting its own voters?
Half the country says they are conservative.
Why doesn't the GOP try going after them?
That's what Reagan did.
Right.
And and I don't I don't know the answer to that, Rush.
You know, I think that you know this election is uh I think at the end of the day is going to to uh uh disenfranchise those conservative Republicans from this election.
Uh, you know, uh it's it's got me questioning, you know, my vote and and from the previous caller from Mississippi.
I mean, I'm I'm not quite decided yet what I'm gonna do in the general, uh, you know, because I I do see the the consequences of of losing the seat, but you know, at the end of the day, I it it it makes you question where you stand in as a conservative in in you know the the current Republican Party.
I totally understand when you say you feel like you are being disenfranchised.
I totally understand what you mean.
And uh you're the third person.
You are the third caller in uh the last two days, yesterday and today.
Well, the the first two vowed to vote for the Democrat in the general.
You're on the fence, but you're all saying the same thing.
You're you're advancing the same reasons for it, and basically is that your own party is telling you they don't want your vote.
Your own party is telling you they don't want you even in the party.
And so why should you uh uh be loyal to that?
I I totally understand how people in Mississippi would be feeling about this, especially when you know, as you pointed out, that all of this is a trumped-up, phony turnout.
I mean, it was real, but it was it was it was driven by lies and deceit and the usual tactics that the left employs on Republicans.
What what sets this one apart is that Republicans adopted those same tactics that the left uses.
But again, I can't stress this enough.
If you look at just the votes within the Republican Party, conservatives won.
More Republicans voted for Chris McDaniel than voted for old Thad.
And if you just look at the Republican voter universe, the Tea Party crushed the Rhinos.
And yet the rhinos are running around all happy beating their chests.
Look what we did, we vanquished the Tea Party again.
We creamed them, we crushed them.
They lost the party.
The Republican Party, if you listen to these three callers and say they represent millions or tens of thousands at least in Mississippi, the Republican Party may have lost the party in Mississippi.
That's the fire they're playing with here.
Jeremy, I um I appreciate it.
Guy in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
We own Allentown.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Uh glad to be on.
First time caller.
In fact, I'm just surprised that I got through on my uh first time calling you.
So uh I went from a foul mood to a happy noob because I got on.
Well, congratulations.
Uh thank you.
I was in a foul mood over the comments with the uh Supreme Court ruling.
And the way I understand it, it's the judicial branch ruling that because the legislative branch didn't vigorously oppose the executive branch, the constitution is changed.
No, it could be.
Not not yet is, but could be.
There were there were there were two cases.
There was a 9-0 univer unanimous slapdown of um specific NLRB recess appointments.
There was another case that was brought by a lower court.
That's the 5-4 ruling.
That's where the problematic uh opinion is.
What you just said, in the concurring opinions, uh it it was it was said that if the Senate doesn't vigorously oppose Obama or any president with these appointments, then effectively they're allowing the Constitution to change.
▲
Export Selection