All Episodes
March 4, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:35:42
SCOTUS Issues UNANIMOUS Ruling - Democrats Cry Like Insurrectionist Babies! Viva Frei Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Finally notching her first 2024 win with a victory in Washington, D.C. Nikki Haley continues crisscrossing the country, hoping to spark a bit of momentum in a Republican primary race that looks all but over.
We had 14 people in the race.
I defeated a dozen of the fellas.
I just had...
I didn't know how bad this was going to be.
I just had one more fella I got to catch up to.
Almost 10 contests in, former President Donald Trump is dominating, leaving Haley, his one-time UN ambassador, and last remaining rival struggling to keep up.
Nikki Haley's campaign has become a living, breathing Babylon Bee article.
Let's just let this play for two more seconds.
I have to see a little bit more of this.
Still, she declares she's in it to win it, at least through Super Tuesday, when 16 states cast ballots March 5th.
That's tomorrow, people.
Super Tuesday.
Trump was supposed to be standing trial today.
Not only is he not standing trial, oh my goodness, Nikki Haley has notched out her first W. In Washington, D.C., the only place where Nikki Haley can...
Get the votes is in a Democrat corrupt cesspool of a district, that being the District of Columbia.
And she touts it as a success, not realizing that it is basically the exemplification of what her campaign is.
She's a Democrat in disguise.
See, the only place where she can get the votes is in D.C. Oh, my goodness.
But the people out there.
Are still saying the quiet part out loud.
You had Mark Elias, who comes out and literally says, in a city of 700,000 people, Donald Trump got 676 votes in the GOP primary.
A tough jury pool.
Mark, do you appreciate what you just said there?
I'm not sure that you do.
What you basically said is that Trump stands no chance of getting a fair trial in D.C. Amazing.
Oh, let's see here.
She got her first victory.
They're saying the quiet parts out loud in more ways than one.
Hold on a second.
Let me bring this down for one second.
Bring this back up over here.
Oh, no, I should have had this back in a little bit better order.
Hold on one second.
Oh, my goodness.
Nikki Haley gets the victory in D.C. Where's the thing that I had up in the background?
Oh, here we go.
No lie with Brian Taylor Cohen.
Holy cows, people.
Brian Taylor Cohen.
No lie with BTC, so you know it's going to be truthful.
Wow, Nikki Haley just won her first primary, defeating Trump by a massive 30-point margin, 63-33% in D.C. This is going to send Trump into a meltdown.
Everybody in the chat, I don't need to do a poll on this one.
Is this going to send Trump into a meltdown?
That the only place Haley can get a victory is in the corrupt Democrat cesspool of D.C. That says something, and it's not that Nikki Haley is going to win the GOP primary.
That she has a chance of doing it.
Would it actually lend a little bit of credibility to people if it turns out to be the case and it actually happens?
I'll be the smartest man on earth.
It's not a real sincere prediction.
So when it doesn't happen, don't say Viva made a prediction that didn't come true.
They're going to 25th Biden.
And it's going to go back to that whole argument.
Well, who would be more popular among Democrats than Biden?
The idea being you can't throw in Gavin Newsom because he's less popular.
You can't throw in Michelle Obama because she's just not going to do it.
Who's the other one that is less popular?
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Kamala Harris.
Who would be more popular among the Democrats that could possibly fill Joe Biden's seat?
Nikki Haley.
I know it can't happen.
It can't happen.
But it might.
One can hope.
Oh my goodness.
But it's the Mark Elias coming out and saying, that's going to be a tough jury pool.
Do you realize what you're saying, Mark?
I mean, you must.
Because we're saying the quiet part out loud.
A tough jury pool.
They like it.
They like the fact that the system is actually just bent against Donald Trump.
He doesn't care about Nikki Haley.
He knows that Nikki Haley's got no snowball's chance in hell of getting the primary nominee.
But look at this.
This is how bad it's going to go for Trump in D.C. It's got a couple of cases there, but they might be heard later than sooner.
Oh, I wanted to start with another video, but we'll get into that when we get into the subject matter of the day.
I think I had a response to this.
Let me see what my response was to that before we get in.
To the stories of the day, which are wild.
Yes, I said in response to that, you approve of political bias that he can't get a fair trial in D.C. Congratulations.
They love the injustice.
They don't lament the injustice.
They tout it out in the open so that you know you're not getting a fair trial in D.C., Trump.
Mark Elias, who's been litigating these cases since 2016, actually.
Oh my goodness.
All right.
I was on Charlie Kirk earlier today.
I was told that I might have been a little more hyper than normal.
It's distinctly possible.
I've been feeling a little bit more hyper than normal today.
Not because of the news.
This is not like a victory lap.
I think this is just one small victory in a long road to...
Opposing a communist coup.
Yes, that's what we're going to get to.
Oh, boy.
Oh, boy.
Good afternoon, everybody.
We celebrated our 200th episode last night.
Viva Barnes Law.
We were, from what I understand, the fifth biggest stream in all of America last night.
Pretty wild.
Seemed okay to me.
See, the thing is this.
It seemed okay to me on Charlie Kirk.
I get nervous when I know that I only have like 11 minutes of a spot because it's shorter segments.
You know, they can't just rant on forever.
They've actually got commercials, ads.
But I had to cram it all in to the six minute and then the six subsequent minutes.
There was 10 minutes, six minutes.
I had to cram it in talking about Canada.
Charlie Kirk asked me, like, why is it that Canadians put up with what's going on in Canada?
And the short answer is, I don't know.
The longer answer is not everybody is putting up with it.
But not everybody's fighting against it, politically, peacefully, and the way it's supposed to be done.
How many were watching last night?
We were over 30,000 live viewers at one point in time.
In fact, pretty much the entire time.
Pretty wild.
Alright, so then I wasn't necessarily going to go live today.
But then the news happened, then I started reading the news, and then I realized on our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community, we're doing the...
Supporter chat, where we're going to have an interview with one of our supporter members from vivabarneslaw.locals.com at about...
Ooh, I've got to send out the link to another member of our community who's running for office in Nevada, and I don't want to get what she's running for wrong, but I've got to send her the notification.
I'll do that in a bit.
Hold on.
Let me do that right now.
Let's go here.
We've got a member of our community running for some form of government, some part of government in Nevada, and I said she can come on and announce it here.
So let me just send that to myself, and then we're going to get started with the show for today, because you have a unanimous SCOTUS ruling.
There's a little bit of a nuance to the unanimity of the ruling, but the meltdown is hilarious in a cynical sort of way, and the response is predicted.
Predictable.
They won't stop.
It's like, can't stop, won't stop.
They won't until they successfully destroy what it means to be a constitutional republic.
Copy link.
Bring it over to Mrs. Fix-It.
Here we go.
Bada bing, bada boom, sent.
All right, yeah, so the big news of the day is the Supreme Court ruling coming out of SCOTUS, it had a, not a dissenting opinion, but rather a, I don't know what they call it.
Judges wanted to explain why they agreed with the decision as a whole, but disagreed with a portion of it.
We're going to get there.
Before we get there, let me just make sure that we are streaming across all aspects of the interwebs.
We're live on YouTube where we will not be for the entire time.
We're live on Rumble.
On Rumble, Jason of TGA says 9-0 with nuance.
I'm intrigued.
Dude, we'll get there in a second.
And now I'm hearing an ad.
So we're live on Rumble.
Put on pause.
And are we live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
We are.
And then the question is this.
My audio is good.
I'm listening to my audio and it sounds good on Rumble and on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
So we're good to go.
Everybody, yes, unanimous, 9-0 with nuance, will get there.
But before we get there, people, you might have noticed, let me just go back here and make sure because I'm totally neurotic, that it says contains a paid promotion.
Because it does.
You might have noticed this stream contains a paid promotion.
Because it does.
Field of Greens, people.
Brickhouse Nutrition.
Share the screen.
It's a little-known fact.
Share the screen.
It's a little-known fact that everyone is supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
It's also a known fact that most people don't do that daily.
This morning, I had cooked cabbage in eggs with some cheese.
It was not the best thing I've ever made, and my wife is too polite to complain, but it's protein, it's vegetables, and it's breakfast.
But most people do not have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
They're not getting the nutrients, the antioxidants they need.
What do you have to do?
If you can't get your fruits and vegetables, and even if you can get your raw fruits and vegetables, get into a healthy daily habit of Field of Greens.
It's a desiccated...
Food.
It's not a supplement.
It's not an extract.
Some people don't want to be told that they're going to have powdered greens.
Have your regular greens as well.
This is a healthy habit to get into.
One spoonful twice a day.
One spoonful is one serving of raw fruits and vegetables.
One serving of fruits and vegetables, I should say.
The best alternative to.
Full serving of fruits and vegetables.
Full serving of fruit.
Antioxidant power.
Boosted immunity.
Stir it up.
One spoonful in a glass of water twice a day.
Healthy habits, healthy alternatives, and it cuts out the crap.
The toxic, chemical crap that are diet drinks, which are not healthy at all.
Power drinks, which are not healthy at all.
You go to fieldofgreens.com.
It brings you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
Put in promo code VIVA.
You'll get 15% off your first order and free rush shipping.
All right, and the link is in the description.
And thank you, Field of Greens.
It's...
It's wonderful to actually have sponsors of stuff that I use and love myself.
Bada bing, bada boom.
For those of you who are new to the channel as well, just to explain the order of things, we start on YouTube, Rumble, and VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
We then vote with our feet, vote with our dollars, and vote with our eyes, and come on over to Rumble, and we end it mildly prematurely on YouTube.
These wonderful things here called...
Superchats.
YouTube takes 30% of those.
So if you want to support the channel, the best way to do it is go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
You can choose to be a supporter.
It's $10 a month, $100 a year.
You can be a member that doesn't have to support.
You get tons of stuff there.
Part of an above-average community.
And you can also give Rumble rants on Rumble.
But this says, Sashmiel, I can't get my raw fruits and veggies because of the pen dep of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
Oh, we're not far from...
Full governmental control, people.
All right, so we're going to start on YouTube and Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and sooner than later, maybe within 10 to 15 minutes, we're going to end on YouTube.
So the news of the day is that SCOTUS decision.
Do I tease it all the way until we bring it over to...
Let me see that.
Yes, comma, come in in about...
45 minutes to an hour, smiley face.
Or I'll text you.
Okay.
Let's see.
Do I tease out the entire thing and we start with...
Does everybody know what's going on in Canada?
I'll talk about what I talked about with Charlie Kirk earlier today.
It's the Bill C-63, which I think we...
I'll highlight it here just to get a few of the highlights of Bill C-63, which I already talked about, made a separate standalone video, but it's worth reminding everyone in the States...
What happens when freedom of speech is eroded to the point of being criminalized, effectively?
Bill C-63 is a law that is tabled in Canada.
It's not a law yet, sorry.
It's a proposed bill that has been tabled in Canada, which seeks to protect people from the harms of the internet.
They call it the Online Harms Act because everybody has to think about the children.
And what better way to protect the children than to add the term hatred to the criminal code?
To try to define hatred and to criminalize speech, tweets, and even retroactively.
So Bill C-63, Online Harms Act, is supposed to enable platforms to remove, regulate, sanction, objectionable content, that being like, you know, CP and child exploitation stuff.
It also ventures into the bullying and harassing, but I've got a theory about that.
If you're that sensitive to bullying and harassing, you probably want to stay off the internet altogether.
So they table this bill, Bill C-63, which empowers online platforms to more easily regulate, remove that type of content.
At the same time, it amends the Human Rights Act in Canada to add hatred as aggravating factors.
It offers a definition of hatred, which makes no sense at all.
And it seems, you know, it seems upon a reading...
That it might retroactively criminalize objectionable tweets and social media content if the individual who has the power to remove that content from the internet doesn't.
Someone else retweets it or re-quotes it and then it causes online harm.
Let me get to Ezra Levant.
This is section one of the proposed amendments of the act.
It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
For the purposes of section 1, subsection 1, a person communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech so long as the hate speech remains public.
And the person can remove it or block access to it.
To which Ezra Levant astutely observes, the bill would create a new section of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It says you're liable for anything you've ever posted if you have the power to remove it.
It's not wrong.
There was an even better one coming out of this act.
Just to raise a bit of awareness so that maybe Canadians can say, I don't trust the government with this much power.
What are you going to do with all that power?
And then an exchange that Ezra was having with...
There was an exchange with Jordan Peterson, who was well ahead of the game in terms of raising the awareness and sounding the alarm on Bill C-16 back in 2016, where they added to the criminal code gender expression and gender identity as aggravating factors for hate crimes, among other things.
Jordan Peterson said this is going to result in compelled speech.
We are now entering the realm of Not necessarily compelled speech, although if they say it's hate speech to not gender someone properly according to their preferred pronouns, that might be hate speech.
So it's going to be compelled speech too, but there's going to be criminalized of any form of ordinary, what some might consider to be hate speech based on their, not proclivities, but sensitivities.
And this is what Ezra says to Jordan Peterson.
For years, the Canadian Human Rights Act has banned discrimination against people of, quote, gender identity or expression.
I covered a couple of these cases where there was a restaurant in British Columbia that was fined for misgendering an employee, a former employee.
But this bill adds a new Section 13 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which now says the mere speech is considered discrimination if it is, quote, likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.
So for now, if someone watches you on YouTube video, reads one of your tweets.
Say, transgender athletes changing in the girls' room.
And as a result is, quote, likely to have hard feelings towards trans people.
That's age speech.
And then what are they going to do?
Exactly what they tried to do to Mike Ward.
Weaponize the human rights tribunals as basically political lotteries, political piggy banks.
They can get you up to $20,000 per complaint, and they don't have to be a victim.
This is government, like, basically.
Saying everyone, go snitch on your neighbors.
They only have to show that your tweet or video is likely to cause one person to have hard feelings about another person.
$20,000 that you'd pay to the complainant, plus $50,000 in government fines per complaint.
This is in the law, by the way.
It's not in the law.
It's not hyperbole.
It's not exaggeration.
This is what Canada's turning into under the Trudeau regime.
It's an amazing thing.
There's never been more regulation of speech, of online content.
There's never been more government control.
And is anyone in Canada better off for it?
There's never been more stricter gun laws in Canada.
And yet somehow, miraculously, inexplicably, as the gun laws in Canada get tougher and tougher and tougher as they have basically throughout the Trudeau regime.
Gun violence in Canada seems to go up and up and up under the Trudeau regime.
Who could have thunk?
Who could have found an explanation for any of this?
Who the hell knows?
Who the hell knows?
Am I dual citizen?
No, not yet.
Is this a private member's bill?
I would have to Google that before I answer the question.
So I was on Charlie Kirk.
He's taken an interest in this because freedom-loving.
Americans should take an interest in what's going on in Canada.
To some extent, Canada is a bit ahead of the game, so to speak, although commie California and commie New York are not far behind or maybe even on par with Canada.
But you should pay attention to what's going on in Canada.
When they talk about enacting hate speech laws in America, look at how they are being weaponized up in Canada or the prospect.
It hasn't passed yet.
It hasn't gone through second, third, fourth reading, Senate vote.
Speech and debate or public debate, public commentary.
But they tabled this.
And this is what the law actually says.
The definition of hatred under this law, it's not LOL.
It's actually wild.
So that's what's going on in Canada.
That's what I was talking about with Charlie Kirk.
I hope I wasn't talking faster than I normally did, but I think I might have been.
All right.
With that...
Sub-issue out of the way, we can start to think about potentially getting into the subject of the day, that being the SCOTUS decision.
But before we do that, this is going to be like Jablinski Games.
Before we do that, we're going to get to the gaming channel sooner than later.
I saw this over the weekend, and I was surprised at some of the takes on this particular video.
This is the video.
Filed by admittedly annoying climate activist young people.
It kind of looks like a young James O 'Keefe for a second there.
But this is the video that Climate Defense posted.
Climate Defense's brand new youth-led group using direct action to resist fossil fuels.
So, regardless of how I feel about the organization, their tactics, whatever, this was the video that they put up and...
I had issues with this.
So, I don't know how anybody watches that and does not conclude that that's just outright Joe Manchin has sold our futures and he's gotten rich doing it.
You sick fuck.
How dare?
Oh, what am I gonna do?
Someone stop me!
Oh yes, this guy.
Sir, I'll handle this.
And look at the way he looks at him.
Oh my goodness.
Nobody calls my daddy.
It's not his son.
It's a member that works on it.
Nobody calls my big boss a sick.
How dare you?
And right now he knows.
Look at this.
Oh, look at this.
That's not what you do, people.
That guy is one head injury away from, you know.
Pressed charges against him.
I was a little surprised if there were people out there because the guy was like taking credit for it.
He's like, what do you say?
Breaking.
We just called Joe Manchin a sick F-U-C-K.
We humiliated him in front of a herd of Harvard elites.
He squared up.
We held firm.
Barbaric murderer.
Hideous fiend.
He tortures humanity and laughs.
I mean, everything about that's laughable.
But that doesn't mean that you throw a guy who's 150, 150, 120 pounds wet.
To the ground like that because that dude hits his head and then you are in a heap of trouble.
Big bad bodyguard man who throws him to the ground.
But maybe I'm just getting sensitive in my old age.
It's assault.
Okay.
And it's a weird thing because you got a bunch of, let's say, conservative peeps on Twitter.
Whose side do you take on that?
Do you attack the kid and protect Manchin?
Do you attack Manchin and protect a Democrat activist?
How dare you, Greta Thunberg?
Kid, how dare you?
Imagine shoving...
I mean, I'm not the meme master, so I wasn't going to do it.
Plus, it could be deemed to be hate speech in Canada.
Meme-ify Greta Thunberg's face on that kid.
How dare you?
And then shove him to the ground.
But, no, I think that anyone who says it, being called a sick F-U-C-K, is fighting words that is like...
Tantamount to antagonizing a fight.
Disagree with, you're a politician, you have to deal with that.
There was nothing that possibly warranted being violently thrown to the ground.
That we could see from that video.
Maybe, I don't know, maybe they were doing something worse before.
And what I found particularly irritating from some of the rationales was people saying, F around, find out.
That guy F around, he found out.
Well, that's unfortunately what a lot of people say about what happened to Ashley Babbitt in the Capitol building.
That's what people say about a lot of what happened to the January 6th was in the Capitol building.
So got to be...
I mean, they're good.
So you're then one step away from beating January 6th protesters because they were messing around.
I'll respectfully and humbly disagree with you, but I don't think throwing a 21-year-old pipsqueak to the ground who's not...
Showing any signs of violence to be a man, actually.
I think that's not being a man.
But maybe I'm too sensitive of a man.
Maybe I'm not a man at all.
Who the hell knows?
Okay, that's it.
Enough with the teasing of whether or not we're going to get to the SCOTUS decision.
We're going to get to it right after that.
No, I'm joking.
We're going to start it off with a video, and then we're going to go over to Rumble exclusively.
The video, however, deals with this issue.
Let me give everybody the link to Rumble.
It's in the pinned comment.
For those who don't know, SCOTUS came out today with a ruling that many people were predicting was going to be 9-0 in the Colorado removal from the ballot case.
They came out with their ruling.
People were predicting it was going to be 9-0, and it was 9-0 to the effect that, no, you scoundrelist, corrupt Supreme Court of Colorado.
That's not the Supreme Court of the...
The highest court of Colorado, from what I understand, in a split decision among seven Democrat judges.
You knew.
I mean, it was a split decision 4-3 to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado because allegedly subsection 3 of Article 14, exclusion for insurrection, is a self-executing provision of law that needs no further act of Congress.
Set aside the...
Set aside the acquittal on the impeachment of insurrection.
We'll set that aside for now.
There were legal scholars putting forward this theory, defending it tooth and nail, promoting it with the full force of their status as constitutional scholars.
Basically, now we sort of understand they were the ones organizing this in a sense, orchestrating this in a sense.
Putting forward the legal theory that they would then expect activist judges, activist secretaries of state, activist municipal clerk judges, if we're going back to Illinois, to come and say, oh, well, these legal scholars said it's a legitimate legal theory, so we have our backing in terms of carrying out our partisan hackery as we did.
Those legal activists, I'm sorry, those legal scholars, mentally challenged activists, Lawrence Tribe, Harvard professor, and former conservative judge, Lutig?
Lutig.
I went back to watch one of their interviews, and I put together the highlights so that you don't have to go watch this.
But now you can understand it in retrospect, what they were doing.
They were putting forward a legal theory, legal scholars, activist legal scholars, you know, either Dem activists or Never Trumper activists, putting together a legal theory, then going out, packaging it, Selling it to their mockingbird media.
So the media would then legitimize their legal theory and create this vortex of judicial activism that is now going to work its way up, work its way down, work its way in to institutions and to court systems.
And they're going to say, oh, well, you know, we've got four judges on the Colorado court who now believe our legal theory, our novel legal theory.
We've got Secretary of State of Maine.
She'll buy it.
She can now sufficiently cloak, cover her activism in constitutional scholar legal theories.
Listen to this and I'll pause it as we go along.
This was an interview they gave with, was it not Erin Burnett?
Is that too loud?
Welcome back to State of the Union.
I'm Casey Hunt.
Casey Hunt.
It's an unfortunate name because, okay.
GOP frontrunner Donald Trump prepares to surrender to Fulton County Jail this Thursday or Friday.
Legal scholars are raising a provocative new question.
Is he even eligible to be elected president again?
While we persecute him in Georgia, and we've seen how that debacle has unfolded, this is, but you know, it's like, it makes so much more sense going forward.
No, going backwards, but we had to live it forwards.
Oh yeah.
They had a novel Rico case out of Georgia.
They had a novel 14th Amendment case that they sold to the media.
Georgia is going down in flames.
The only RICO corruption we are witnessing now is from the prosecutors in Georgia.
And now, package that with this, and let's see what they have to say about it.
Joining me now is retired conservative federal judge Michael Luttig and constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe.
We should be clear here, Donald Trump hasn't been charged directly with insurrection, rebellion, sedition, or treason.
So can you explain why- Let me stop there.
Let me stop there.
Did you notice there was a very interesting word?
There was a very interesting word in there.
...Lawrence Tribe.
We should be clear here.
Donald Trump hasn't been charged directly with...
Charged directly?
I'm sorry, Casey.
That's a really unfortunate pause face there.
I'm sorry.
Is there a way to indirectly be charged with something?
Oh, no, no.
But by throwing the word directly, and it implies that indirectly he must be guilty of or charged on something.
Two frauds.
Yes, that's the unfortunate thing about...
The last name Hunt.
It goes back to that joke.
There was a UFC fighter, Aussie, amazing fighter.
Last name was Hunt.
I forget what his first name was.
He hasn't been directly charged with insurrection, so he might be indirectly guilty of it somehow.
Insurrection, rebellion, sedition, or treason.
So can you explain why you believe he's disqualified from office?
THEY PUT THIS PROVISION IN FOR THE VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF MAKING SURE THAT IF ANY SECRETARY OF STATE OR ANY OTHER OFFICIAL WERE TO TRY TO PUT SOMEONE ON THE BALLOT, THEN THAT OFFICIAL WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE BY WHATEVER PROCESS WAS APPROPRIATE That official would have to decide willy-nilly by whatever process is appropriate.
What is that process?
Well, I don't know.
Let me just go dig around my butthole to see if I can pull something out of there to answer that question, Viva.
Whether the candidate is eligible to be president or is disqualified.
As we have long believed, this language means exactly what it says, and it should be enforced in every state.
Mr. Constitutional scholar just got his constitutional butt spanked.
9-0.
But don't worry, because it's a bit of a caveat in there.
It says exactly what it says, and yet somehow this constitutional scholar was told that he's wrong by nine Supreme Court justices.
This is a Harvard law.
Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Law professor.
Everyone there should...
They're not going to ask for their money back because what they're paying for is networking and connections.
But let's hear what conservative Judge Lutig has to say.
Politic, I want to send this one to you.
You're saying that Trump is quote-unquote automatically disqualified from holding office, as you just explained.
So what does that mean in practice?
Automatically disqualified.
Done.
Screw your democracy.
You're the insurrectionist, and yet I'm acting like the insurrectionist.
You don't get to run.
Right to jail.
You mean that local elections officials can and should leave Donald Trump off the ballot in the primary or in the general election if he's the Republican nominee?
Leave him off the ballot.
Did you just say the language here?
Just leave him off the ballot.
They're not doing anything proactive like removing him from the ballot.
They're just leaving him off the ballot because they've unilaterally, through whatever process they've dreamed up in their fantastically demented heads, decided he's ineligible.
Self-executing.
Professor Tribe, as you know, is the preeminent constitutional scholar of our time.
Bullshit.
He has been studying not just the Constitution, but...
But this 14th Amendment disqualification clause.
Is Ludig using a fake backdrop?
His entire professional career.
I only began to think seriously about the 14th Amendment in Section 3 two years ago.
Do you also see what's going on here now?
This is the laundering of disinformation.
At one point, I clipped it out, but at one point, Tribe says, well, Ludig is a very, very well-respected conservative judge, and he says this.
Ludig now says, well...
Lawrence Tribe is the constitutional scholar.
He's been studying it forever.
And so I originally didn't think much of this, but now I do because I'm relying on this constitutional scholar.
And we're coming on with you, Casey Hunt, where you can put it on CNN and make it look like it's reality so that we can steer public opinion, change the laws if we have to, get the courts involved if we have to.
My goodness, doesn't this sound exactly like that Time article describing how they fortified the 2020 elections?
Kind of does.
But let's hear what Lutig has to say.
Maybe it gets more coherent.
It doesn't.
A little over two years ago on January 6th, 2021, that fateful day.
In the past two and a half years, Professor Tribe and I have privately discussed this matter, which brings us to today and to the article that we wrote in The Atlantic.
I want to bring that back.
It's just a bizarre thing to have said.
6th, 2021.
That fateful day.
In the past two and a half years, Professor Tribe and I have privately discussed this matter.
In the past two and a half years, Professor Tribe and I have discussed this matter privately, privately.
This sounds like a secret cabal.
Of well-funded, politically connected people who are working together to steer media coverage, control public perception, change the rules and regulations.
Well, that's exactly what it sounds like.
They say the quiet part out loud over and over.
It's so wild.
Yes, we've been meeting privately for two and a half years to strategize.
How do we do this?
Well, here's how we do it.
We try to make a bullshit legal theory.
Look like a legitimate one.
Then we take it to CNN and propagandist outlets like MSNBC, sell it as an undeniable legal fact.
And then when the Supreme Court comes down 9-0 and spanks our old shriveled bottoms, we then cry, corrupt court, we need to expand it.
It's an amazing tactic.
And which brings us to today and to the article that we wrote in The Atlantic.
Section 3 is about as clear, pristine, clear as any provision in our Constitution.
And if nine Supreme Court justices say otherwise, they're corrupt.
We need to pack the court.
We need to add 10 corrupt judges who then outnumber the nine that are corrupt.
There are people arguing this now already, but you know that that's where they're going.
It's clear, it's pristine, and any judge who says otherwise is a moron.
And now we've just got nine Supreme Court justices who said, no, this is not right.
And they're going to cry corruption of the courts.
As Professor Tribe and I have written, this is, section three is self-executing.
They...
Say the line, Bart.
Self-executing.
And they got enough judges.
I don't care if they're municipal judges.
They got enough secretaries of state.
They got enough members of the Colorado court to say, "Yeah, self-executing, self-executing, yeah.
Oh yeah, now we get to say it, but we're relying on scholars, so don't blame us for being corrupt hacks.
We're not the insurrectionists.
We have a legitimate legal theory that I heard these two Himself or herself are obligated under the Constitution to determine whether Donald Trump qualifies I saw someone say,
how do they say this and keep a straight face?
It's a good...
It's all for the greater good.
Link to that tweet.
Yeah, holy blood pressure, says Cab.
No, but it's wild.
Because they're just...
Liars.
In as much as it's possibly somehow tenable, they'll make the argument and they'll frame the argument so that it's an undeniable fact.
Then they take that bullshit framing to crap propaganda outlets who pass it off as fact.
And so I'm not saying low level voters.
I'm not saying low level viewers.
It's complicated stuff to begin with.
You can make it more complicated and thus...
You know, confuse an otherwise undisputable fact, much like the way they're doing it.
And you get these outlets to then spread it.
Just visualize the way this looks, if you're going to mentally graph this.
You get two little players here, and they make a little book together.
And then they pass it off to CNN.
And then CNN just goes, and casts the net of an undisputed fact, allegedly, over millions and millions of people.
Who have no understanding of the Constitution, no understanding of the law, but they have been told that this is an incontrovertible fact.
It's self-executing.
And then they wake up this morning and find out that the Supreme Court, even with Ketanji Jackson Brown, even with Sotomayor, even with, who's the other one?
I'm going to forget his name.
Keegan?
I want to say Kagan.
9-0.
But that is just classic.
Link one more time.
It's classic.
They're eating crow, and I'll make sure that they get a second helping of it today because it's astonishing.
And I'm glad it ended up this way because I made some predictions, a lot of them, throughout this process.
And a lot of my taunting and mockery of these...
Constitutional scholars would have aged very badly if the Supreme Court had come back and said, no, no, they can keep Trump off the ballot.
Of course, had that happened, I would have much bigger concerns for American society as a whole than just having been wrong in my prediction.
The Dems are the fascists.
We're going to get there.
We're going to get there, Nick Levy.
So before we head on over to Rumble, we're going to do it now.
This is the link to Rumble.
I'll give everyone the link to locals.
Oh.
Devil Dog Mom, I just saw it now, says, Viva, there is a hearing on March 6th regarding merchant text messages with Bradley.
Can you stream it?
Please, long-time supporter Devil Dog Mom.
Not only do you have to not ask me, when I got that tweet from Phil Holloway, who was on on Friday, I was like, I don't know what I had scheduled for Wednesday, but cancel it.
It's Wednesday.
Yes, Devil Dog Mom.
I will be streaming it, and I will be streaming it.
Voraciously?
What's the word for that?
I'll be streaming it.
Guaranteed.
Promise.
Here's a link to Locals.
We're going to get into the decision, or at least the highlights of the decision, and the caveat over on Rumble.
Then we're going to have Mrs. Fixit, who, that's her Twitter name, coming on to talk about her Nevada run.
Then we're going to go to Locals, and we're going to have our exclusive supporter interview chat discussion with one of our supporters, Scuba Jim.
So stay tuned for that.
But before I do that, I've noticed I missed something right here.
Here we go.
Indirectly ate poutine with Viva.
We indirect friends.
No seize the day.
We're direct friends.
But indirectly, we've met in real life.
But yes, there are a great many people who vicariously ate poutine with me through the Viva on the streets in Ottawa.
All right, so it says 3,530 people on YouTube.
Let's say, leave YouTube.
You don't have to come...
Come on over to Rumble, but then you're going to be adding a step.
Leave YouTube.
That's vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
But come on over to Rumble.
I'm going to get the Rumble rants before I leave.
This is link to Rumble.
Okay, I might have had too much caffeine today.
It's possible.
Link to Rumble.
Good, the number...
No, good.
The number's at 3,457.
It could have been 3,456.
That would have satisfied my neuroses.
While that number continues to drop and people make the migration over to the land of the free speech being rumble, let me read all of the rumble rants that we've got over here.
The engaged few, good to see you again, sir.
Or ma 'am, whomever you are, the engaged, I don't know.
Geez, that's hate speech.
That might be hate speech if I've just misgendered you in Canada.
Oh, gosh.
Engaged few, good to see you again.
Hold on, get this out of here.
As a West Virginian, that punk is lucky he didn't lose his teeth in these hills.
Them's fighting words.
True, but not if you're a politician, the engaged few.
Not if you're a politician.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to tell the president to go F himself.
You don't get to say them.
Well, them's fighting words as well, but respectfully submitted.
I appreciate what you're saying.
We laxed in 3721 says, what the hell is their definition of, quote, conservative judges?
These two idiots don't belong to us.
No, no, I don't think Lawrence Tribe does not describe themselves as conservative.
Chief Lutig does.
Not chief, I'm sorry, Judge Lutig.
The engaged Jew, these two celebrated legal minds are great examples of why I refer to Moe's as, quote, gin sphincters.
Arkansas crime attorney, sir, how are you doing?
Man, Viva, you are doing great.
You have 8,000 on Rumble watching.
Also, I just got a notification from Rumble.
This show is happening.
The notification is not good considering this started 40 minutes ago.
Make sure that your notifications are turned on.
Oh, no, it's amazing.
It's 8,400 people and it was 40 minute notice because I wasn't sure that I was going to go live today because Monday Mondays is the day I cut.
Clips from Sunday stream.
Turned it into audio.
Which, by the way, everybody, if you don't know, you can go get all of the Viva Barnes Law for the People Sunday streams on podcast, on Podbean, Stitch, or whatever the hell else.
So I cut that.
Had breakfast with the missus.
Walked the dogs.
But we did it.
Okay, so now we're going to do, because we've gone down substantially on YouTube, and this is it.
We're ending on YouTube.
Or as I like to call it, Commitube.
And we're going to get into my highlights of the decision.
It's an easy read.
But it's also easy to read when you understood exactly where they were going to go with it.
But I want to read, not the dissent, but the, what's it called?
There's a word for it.
We'll get there.
So we are ending on YouTube, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We just got one more super chat in it.
Right in time, Fried Pie says, when they say, threat to our democracy, they mean threat to the control we have over institutions of power.
I'll say this unironically.
Exactly what they accuse others of being.
They are the threat to democracy.
And by they, I do mean the institutional power, not even necessarily only Democrats.
But it's...
They're destroying democracy and trying to justify it as preserving democracy.
They know damn well what they're doing.
They're trying to lock up their adversaries.
And then they argue that their adversaries can never get into power again because if they do, they're going to lock them up.
They are guilty of what they are accusing their adversaries of doing.
It's what Joseph Goebbels described as a propaganda tool, and they are it.
I live in commie, Colorado.
The politics here suck, but the state is beautiful.
No crap.
Mile High City?
Mountains?
Rocky Mountains?
Fishing?
Brook trout?
Oh my goodness, Colorado's beautiful.
Politics ruins everything.
Get one at vivafry.com.
Okay, now we're ending on YouTube.
See you on Rumble or Locals.
Peace out.
Oh, not...
I just opened another window instead of closing the window.
Ending on YouTube now.
Booyah.
Ah, deep breath.
Let's see what the symptoms of caffeine overdose is.
I know I have not had more than 400 milligrams of caffeine today, but there is caffeine in here.
I've moved into...
They have these things called caffeinated, carbonated water.
35 milligrams of caffeine.
And you feel productive drinking water.
It's delicious.
Okay, we're good.
And then there's people saying, don't get ahead of ourselves.
The battle is not over because the scoundrels will find yet another way of trying to do what they're trying to do.
And we're seeing it.
And they're taking a play out of the dissenting opinion, which is not a dissenting opinion.
We'll get there in a second.
Okay.
Highlight of the decision, people.
No.
Section 3 is not self-executing.
No, you dumbasses.
The states do not have more powers than Congress.
No, you dumbasses.
The states don't get to claim more freedoms than was bestowed on Congress itself to remove someone based on an Article 14 subsection 3 amendment.
So no, no, no, you're all dumb.
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Here, let's just, I'll bring the Sherrod up.
And let's see here.
So it was per curiam, which, again, I mean, I know what they say it means.
It means like, you know, no judge has signed their name to it.
It's per court, which is weird because if it was per curiam, and then you did have not a dissenting opinion, but a distinguishing opinion on certain issues.
What's her face?
Amy Coney Barrett had one as well.
I'll pull up the decision afterwards.
The decision goes through the history of Article 14, Subsection 3. And the bottom line, this was one of my first highlights.
The respondents nonetheless may, well, let's go up to the top here.
As an initial matter, not even the respondents contend that the Constitution authorizes states to somehow remove sitting federal office holders who may be violating Section 3. Why?
Because it's got to go through Congress.
That's what it says.
In the absence of Congress acting, the states don't have the power to remove a sitting, what do they call them?
Office holder.
Why would they then have the right to unilaterally decide that a non-sitting office holder can't run to hold office?
Such a power would flout the principle that, quote, the Constitution guarantees the entire independence of the general government from any control by the respective states.
Indeed, consistent with this principle, states lack even the lesser powers to issue writs of mandamus against federal officials or to grant habeas corpus relief to a person in federal custody.
Barnes and I have talked about this.
I mean, it's so nice to know that I'm relying on, you know, I'm not relying on, but I am trusting the person who has proven himself to be legally accurate more than anyone else by far.
See, remember, we talked about it.
You can't issue an injunction against the president, period.
You can't issue an injunction against the president, but now we're going to say that the states have the right to determine who gets to appear on the ballot.
Sorry, the states get to self-execute, automatically execute an exclusionary provision of the Constitution.
It's wild.
The respondents nonetheless maintain that states may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office.
But the text of the 14th Amendment, on its face!
Remember these two idiot, Ludwig and Tribe.
It's so clear it authorizes them to do it.
Self-executing.
It's clear as day.
On its face does not affirmatively delegate such power to the states.
The terms of the amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5. Jeez, who's been saying that from the beginning?
This can hardly come as a surprise given the substantive provisions of the amendment, quote, embody significant limitations on state authority.
I don't think I found this particularly relevant.
Under the amendment, states cannot abridge privileges or immunities deprived persons of life, liberty, or property without due process, deny equal protection, or deny male inhabitants the right to vote, yada, yada, yada.
And then on the other hand, the 14th grants power to Congress.
This is actually also, the three dissenting judges in the Colorado Supreme Court decision are going to feel very vindicated because this is what they said, pretty much.
Listen to this.
I'll start at the top just to lead us into it.
Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and Section 2883, reflect, quote, congruence and proportionality between yada yada.
Okay, fine.
Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3. This is going to play into the...
Distinguishing opinions.
Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office holders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on, quote, the Congress, end quote.
As a result, such state enforcement might be argued to sweep more broadly than congressional enforcement could under our precedents.
But the notion that the Constitution grants the states freer reign than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible.
Not clear as day, like Tribe and Lutig said, implausible, that they would give more rights to the states to execute Article, what do I say, subparagraph 3?
Section three, then Congress itself.
Finally, and then they're just stating the obvious.
Finally, state enforcement of section three with respect to the presidency would raise heightened concerns.
Quote, in the context of a presidential election, state imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.
Who talked about this before?
We did.
I'm going to say me did.
Me did.
Hey, one state gets to disenfranchise 80 million other voters.
Because they decide, one that carries enough weight with the Electoral College, they get to say, no, we've self-executed an insurrection, although he was acquitted by the Senate.
But we unilaterally disqualify and thus do not offer our Electoral College votes to the tally and thus disenfranchise everybody throughout every other state who may have voted for the candidate of their choice that we decided to exclude unilaterally self-executing.
We said this.
But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for president from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that, quote, the president represents all the voters in the nation.
Now, why I say this is per curiam, but what you're going to see is that the three judges who wrote their own opinion basically say, you should not, other than saying...
I don't want to misphrase it.
They should not have ruled on that which was not needed to be ruled upon in order to say that the state did not have the right to self-execute, remove a candidate from the ballot.
They didn't need to say more than that, but they did.
to say that there's only one way in which it can be done through an act of Congress.
Why that's relevant?
Because Jamie Raskin is now coming out and saying, "Well, okay, now the dissenting judges We'll get there in a second.
with the results.
Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it.
The other opinion.
Okay, fine.
So far as we can tell, they object only to our taking into account the distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it.
This is what they disagree with.
They're saying, you didn't have to say anything about Section 5. You could have just said the state does not have the power to disqualify under Section 3. These are not the only reasons the states lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices, but they are important ones and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion.
Not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale that resolves this case.
In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for judgment the court unanimously reaches.
The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed, biatches.
Take it and shove it.
That's the link.
Let me go here into the chat.
Sorry, I just saw Steph793's comment.
I won't read it, but I LOL.
Link to highlights.
Now, let's get to Amy Coney Barrett and then let's get to the other one afterwards.
Let me see here.
All three of Trump's SCOTA's appointments are traded.
Okay, so I'm going to stop reading it.
Let's get to the Trump V here.
Boom shakalaka.
We're looking at the same thing?
Yes, we are.
Okay, so open this up.
Scroll down.
Okay, per curium.
That's not what we want to get to.
No.
No, keep going, Viva.
Okay, there we go.
Let's start with Justice Barrett.
I can't hear Barrett and not think of a lawyer that I used to work with because it's a French last name.
Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
But I got something to say, says Amy Coney Barrett.
I joined parts one and two B of the court's opinions.
I agree that the states lack the power to enforce section three against presidential candidates.
That principle is sufficient to resolve this case.
I can understand that.
I can understand that.
It's like we talk about obiters and we say, if you don't need something to resolve the issue, don't put it in.
This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court.
It does not require us to address the complicated question.
Whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
You'll notice something, by the way.
Whether or not it's the exclusive, it's certainly now been described as the mechanism, a mechanism.
Let's not say the mechanism, a mechanism through which the president can be exqualified from office, disqualified from office.
They said that now.
So what's that going to do for the scoundrels?
Go try to get Congress to act to disqualify the president, as though they didn't already try to do that with the two impeachments, although the first one had nothing to do with the second one, as though they didn't try to do that already with the impeachment where Congress voted to impeach and the Senate acquitted.
But, you know, to a good commie, to a good Democrat commie, there's no such thing as double jeopardy.
It's...
Try and try again.
The majority's choice of a different path leaves remaining justices with the choice of how to respond.
In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.
Look up stridency.
Stridency is not coming up in the dictionary.
That doesn't make sense.
Stridency.
Noun.
Loud, harsh grating.
Presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way.
Amy.
Grow up.
I've never, I knew, I've heard, wow, that's okay, I like that word.
Stridency.
Yeah, that majority, that opinion per curing was really strident.
The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election.
Can't we all just get along?
Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.
What the hell in that opinion turned the national temperature up?
I might be turning some of the national temperature up.
It might need to be turned up.
Because you got Democrats destroying democracy.
How ironic is that?
Strided.
Yeah, no, the states can't do it.
Only Congress can do it, and Article 5 is the mechanism.
That is damn strident.
It's damn strident.
It's Barbara Strident.
For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity.
All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case.
This is the message Americans should take home.
My goodness, the funny thing is, the other dissenting opinion that we're going to get into says, you know, the problem is, they said more than they had to to resolve the issue, so let's all say more than we have to.
In resolving the issue.
None of what Amy Coney Barrett said is value added here, in my humble opinion.
Ah, delicious.
But wait till we get to the other dissenting one.
And it's quasi-dissenting.
Okay, Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
Good, I got it.
A principle of law.
If it's not necessary to decide more to dispose of, then it is necessary not to decide more.
I like it.
I like it.
I would just like to go back to all of their dissenting opinions and see how much utter rubbish they added simply so they could add it to their decisions where they dissented or that they added to their majority opinions when they got them.
How many times these justices are guilty of deciding more than they need to to dispose of the case, but now they don't like it so much?
All right.
Today, the court departs from the vital principle of deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.
Well, first of all, I don't know.
I guess they did do that by saying the only way to do it is through Article 5. In this case, the court must decide whether Colorado may keep a presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
This is freaking wild!
In this case, the court must decide whether Colorado may keep a presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is allegedly...
An oath-breaking insurrectionist.
And by the way, he's not because he was acquitted, you dumb bums.
They can't even phrase it properly.
They've got to get their jabs in.
And the ground that he is an oath-breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office.
Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork at odds with our nation's federalism principles.
Very nice.
That should be enough.
What are you going to...
Oh, you're going to go add some stuff while criticizing the others for adding stuff not necessary.
Let's go ahead and you do it.
That is enough to resolve the case, yet the majority goes further.
Even though all nine members agree that the independent...
Five justices go on.
They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and petitioner from future controversy.
First of all, even if that's what they did, that's kind of what the Supreme Court is for.
Like, I'm just thinking as a dumb Canadian here.
Although only an individual state's action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3 and how they must do so.
Geez, I thought, you know, the Supreme Court was there to resolve problems.
To avoid, to set precedent so that there is no future disagreement so that, you know, like when you issue the Bruin decision, you don't get states trying to figure out ways to circumvent the Bruin decision.
I thought that's what the Supreme Court might be there to do.
I'll talk about it with Robert because I do respect his opinion as to whether or not they did go.
Not too far, but opine on that which they did not need to opine on.
The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can only occur, can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursued to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
In doing so, it shuts the door to other potential means of federal enforcement.
And we gotta leave that window open to try to get Trump off the ballot.
I mean, we don't like that it seems that you've limited the ways we could otherwise later down the line ratify disqualification of Trump.
We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.
Don't you keep using that word?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think it is quite necessary to avoid massive unrest in perhaps the biggest election year in the history of America.
Jews say unnecessarily?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
And therefore we concur only in the judgment.
Our constitution leaves some questions to the states while committing others to the federal government.
Federalism principles embedded in that constitution structure decide this case.
States cannot use their control over the ballot to, quote, undermine the national government.
That's a spanking Colorado.
That's a spanking Maine Secretary of State.
And that's a spanking whatever your judge's name was out of Illinois.
The majority rests on such principles when it explains why Colorado cannot take the petition off the ballot.
Okay.
Then where's their problem here?
Okay, that is especially so the majority adds because different states can reach conflicting outcomes.
Fine.
The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a few states could decide the nation's next president would be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. Agreed.
The Reconstruction Amendments, quote, were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.
Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a state's authority to choose its own officials.
Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give states new powers to determine who may hold the presidency.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Fine.
Yet the court continues on to resolve questions not before us.
In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed.
No, they don't, actually.
If I'm just thinking out loud and thinking in real time.
No, they don't.
What they're saying is that the rationale for which the states can't do it is because only Congress can do it through Section 5. So I'm not even sure that I agree that they're opining on something that's not part of the decision.
I say that Knowing the limitations of my own knowledge and whatever expertise I might have, but hey, I know more than constitutional scholars, Lawrence Tribe and Judge Lutig, I don't think that they unnecessarily opined on it.
It's part of the rationale for why that power could not have been given to the states.
It seems to me, maybe, that these three judges just want to leave the door open.
They just want another quiver in their thing that holds the quivers.
No, it's another arrow in the quiver.
Whatever the expression is, they want another means.
Just leave the door open to give us as many means as possible to ratify the disqualification of Trump.
And what they've done now is, in explaining why the states don't have that power, because it's only given to Congress under Section 5, they've limited it.
We don't like that.
Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5. Fine.
To start, nothing in Section 3's text supports the majority's view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.
Now they're offering a little bit more, allegedly, than what was required.
Section 3 simply states that no person shall hold office.
Fine.
Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is critical.
In fact, the text cuts the opposite way.
Section 3 provides that when an oath-breaking insurrectionist is disqualified, Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds, remove such disability.
It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3's operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation.
Let's think about this a little bit more.
Even petitioners lawyers acknowledge the, quote, tension in Section 3 that the majority's views create.
Similar, nothing else in the rest of the 14th Amendment supports the majority's view.
Section 5 gives Congress the, quote, power to enforce.
the amendment by appropriate legislation and quote remedial legislation of any kind however is not required all the reconstruction amendments including due process equal protection the idea of our self executing meaning they do not depend on legislation similarly other constitutional rules of disqualification let me go on here the majority is left with no The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that Section 3 disqualification can only occur pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose.
Well, I think, I wonder what the impeachment, what that qualifies as.
So that's where they get angry.
Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more complete explanation for the judgment, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score.
The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures tailored to Section 3. Okay, I think we can stop here.
Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed role in our democracy.
The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing.
The men who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment, however, had witnessed an insurrection and rebellion to defend slavery.
They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection and in possible future insurrections could not return to prominent roles.
Today the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president.
Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limit of federal enforcement of that provision.
Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.
We've set our bit.
We've now showed you what you have to do or at least left open a door.
Link to judgment.
Link to judgment.
So you can go read it.
They've left the door open.
It's also, by the way, that dissenting opinion.
It's not really dissenting, but the clarification opinion is itself a signal to the activist politicians, hacks, Of what they need to do now.
And if anybody didn't think that Jamie Raskin would hear it loud and clear, whether or not he even knew of it beforehand, he did.
Now, I was trying to find the full context of the excerpt.
I hear my kids fighting.
Where is it?
Where's the Jamie Raskin?
It was Poso who put it up.
Here we go.
I do not know of the broader context of this statement.
I could not find the interview fast enough.
Before today's stream.
But Jamie Raskin heard the dog whistle from that decision.
There might be other ways for the government to get Trump off and it require an act of Congress.
So what's Jamie going to do?
I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process.
By which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it.
So the House has already pronounced upon that.
I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Stop.
You all remember who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is?
A cheater and a liar.
That's who he's working with.
A confirmed cheater and a confirmed liar.
Who else is he working with?
Eric Swalwell.
Oh, Eric Swalwell, the man who did Bang Bang with Fang Fang, a Chinese spy.
So he's working with someone who banged a spy or had a relationship, alleged suspected relationship with a Chinese spy, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is a confirmed liar of the highest order.
And what are they working to do?
To revive legislation that we had.
So they're reviving legislation and what's that legislation gonna do?
To determine that someone is guilty.
By which we cannot determine if someone had.
We've set up legislation that could determine that someone had.
We're setting up legislation to determine that a crime was committed.
There's no due process here.
There's no innocence to be proven guilty.
Of course, you know, Nancy Pelosi, the other hack in the government, he'll be able to prove his innocence at trial.
They're setting up legislation to show that he's a criminal.
To set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection.
Thank you.
Thank you for saying that out loud because that will come back to bite you in your dumb ass.
The House.
Sorry, let me let me let me just play one more time.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection.
You're right.
They did.
They already impeached him for participating in insurrection.
And he was acquitted by the Senate.
Do you know what double jeopardy is?
Jamie Raskin.
Is it Jamie Raskin?
Yeah, I think it's Jamie Raskin.
Do you know what double jeopardy is?
Thank you.
You confirmed that you already took congressional action and he was acquitted.
Shut up and go home already.
Nope.
They would rather burn down the House and piss on the ashes than let anybody else live in it.
By inciting it.
So the House is already pronounced upon that.
The House is already pronounced upon it.
And so has the Senate, you corrupt commie.
Sorry, I should not have said that.
That was wrong of me.
Link.
Jamie Rascal.
Link.
So that's it.
I want to go see the whole interview with Dana Bash, but I couldn't find it in time for the stream.
Lordy, lordy, lordy.
I think that covers it for the latest of the SCOTUS decision.
It's not over.
And it's a big problem.
It's not only not over.
They're now just going to, you know, tack with the way the wind is going right now.
Oh, we can't do it at the state level.
It needs to be federal congressional action, legislation, whatever the hell it is.
Let's do it.
We don't give it.
It was never about democracy.
It was about full control.
Oh yeah, no, no, that's right.
So I highlighted...
I highlighted a couple of the wonderful meltdown moronic tweets.
Lawrence Tribe!
Is that from today?
Yeah, it is.
Justice Barrett told us what, quote, message Americans should take home, end quote, from today's ruling.
Even if Trump's role in the insurrection, we just barely survived.
This guy, I mean, I told him this.
You can't use certain words anymore because you get cancelled, apparently, but...
His role in the insurrection, we just barely survived.
You're not a constitutional scholar, Lawrence.
You're mentally challenged.
I mean, this is fantastical.
It's delusional.
Disqualifies him, yada, yada, yada.
Only congressional legislation under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment can implement the plan, the absolutely vital ban.
The absolutely vital ban.
I have to read this again.
It's actually just wild.
She gave us the message we should take home, even if his role in the insurrection we just barely survived disqualifies him.
Only congressional legislation under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment can implement the absolutely vital ban.
The message Barrett tells us to take home from that fiat is that we should just chill because all nine justices agreed that Colorado overstepped what any one state should have been able to do.
I'll discuss that point later.
But for now, I'd stress what Justices Sotomayor Kagan Jackson rightly reminded Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts about.
As Roberts rightly wrote in Dobbs, the court should avoid deciding any more than it needs to decide when ruling on this case.
I don't think they overstepped that bounds in this one, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.
To reach out and resolve in advance all sorts of issues that might arise in the future is to take on the role of super legislator, not a court of law.
Yep.
And to decide who can and cannot run on a ballot makes you a flipping dictator and not a democracy.
Lawrence Tribe.
So, yeah, by the way, you've been so accurate and so insightful in your past analyses.
Everybody should listen to what you have to say, you...
Schlock of a hack.
But wait, there's more.
Jenna Griswold.
Jenna Griswold, for those of you who don't know, is the Colorado Secretary of State.
Hi, I'm crying today.
My goodness, people.
It's always in the eyes.
Can I get any closer?
Can't get any closer.
Enhance.
Sorry.
Okay, it's always in the eyes.
Jenna Griswold, Colorado Secretary of State, says today, I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates.
Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballot.
They didn't strip you of a right you didn't have, you idiot.
Sorry to call you a name.
People say don't do ad hominem.
You can do ad hominem if you back it up with facts.
They didn't strip you of any authority because you didn't have the authority in the first place.
You are the insurrectionist.
They never had the authority.
They tried to wrongly screw democracy.
Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballot.
Not unless they've been convicted.
Not unless Congress has declared them to be oath-breaking insurrectionists.
Oh, and by the way, you dumb ass of monumental proportions.
Remember when they said Trump wasn't directly charged with sedition, insurrection, whatever?
He wasn't indirectly charged either.
No one was.
These idiots are running around calling him an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
No one.
Involved in the events of January 6th was ever charged with insurrection.
Chicanery.
Link.
I want to pull up my tweet before we head on over to Rumble.
Not Rumble.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Did I not...
Yeah, here it is, here it is, here it is.
This was my insight of the day, people.
Every now and again, you know, I put out a spicy...
A spicy...
It makes you think twice.
Am I saying something crazy?
Or am I making a damn good point?
Understand this.
The Colorado Supreme Court, the Maine Secretary of State, Illinois Judge Tracy Porter, Lawrence Tribe, Michael Lutig, all just attempted to engage in insurrection.
Why?
Let's just go ahead and read the law.
Just one more time.
Insurrection.
Rebellion or insurrection.
Whoever incites.
Any rebellion against the United States or laws thereof.
That's what insurrection is.
Geez, did someone incite people to rebel against the laws of America?
Well, now that we know that what they did was unlawful, it seems that anybody who incited them to do that, Ludwig, tribe, or anyone who did, in fact, sets a foot.
Sets on foot.
Engages in any rebellion against the laws of the United States of America.
Engages in insurrection.
Well, it seems every player involved, those four, the four majority judges of the Colorado Court, that traffic judge out of Illinois, the Secretary of State out of Maine, and the people who incited them to do it, Ludig and Tribe, they incited a rebellion against the laws of the United States of America.
Insurrectionists.
All of them.
Tongue in cheek.
About a damn good tweet.
Here, I'll get the salty over here.
Ah, here, link.
All right, now what we're going to do, I'll leave some stuff for our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
An hour and 17 minutes.
My goodness, time flies when you're having fun.
The link to our locals community is right here.
We will take the party there.
Oh, there's some, let me read the tips in the locals community to everybody.
We've got John, Joan Sings Music puts a link.
And it says this.
Hold on.
Oh, hold on.
Hold on.
Let me see what this is.
This looks fun.
Sorry, I'm watching something that nobody's seeing right now.
I'll watch that over on Locals.
Okay, here we go.
Here we go.
Link.
To locals.
Come on over, people.
We're going to have a good party there afterwards.
Okay.
And then there was...
Hold on.
So let's get this here.
We got that.
That's from Joan Sings Music.
Devil Dogwon says, Viva, there is a hearing.
I'm going to be there for sure.
Bill Brown says, So a white supremacist will be defended because libtards hate them and are very verbal about it all the time, right?
Hold on.
So a white supremacist will be defended because libtards hate them.
Bill, I'm going to have to try to understand what you're saying there.
Food for Thoughts says Andrea6270.
The winners are the ones that write the history.
Those who are saying they want to be on the right side of history are actually saying, help us stay in power so we are the ones who write history.
And then we got Cork33 says, Viva, thanks for taking my Twitter message and being willing to talk to the future conflict guys for sure.
Oh, and by the way, before I forget, for those who are not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
You know who I got tomorrow?
Let me just make sure about the time.
Oh!
Yes, Mrs. Fixit, come.
Come on now.
Mrs. Fixit is watching.
We're going to do it.
I'm an idiot.
We'll do her interview on Rumble.
I didn't mean to go over to Viva Runs.
Yes, yes, yes.
Hold on one second.
Yes.
Come in.
Tomorrow, you're going to want to be here.
In fact, you will all be here regardless because we've got Village Crazy Lady.
What time do we say?
I think we said noon, so stay tuned.
Village Crazy Lady is the one who did the detailed breakdown thread detailing Leticia James' financial corruption.
So she's going to be on, I believe it's at noon.
Stick around, by the way.
We're not ending on Rumble.
I made a total idiotic, stupid mistake.
Our members of our Locals community, who is actually implementing action in real life, is going to come on and talk about what she's doing.
Okay.
What was I just about to say, though?
Oh, yeah, so tomorrow, noon, let me just make sure I got the timer.
We were texting or emailing.
I forget which now.
Hold on.
I believe we were texting.
We're going to go through Leticia James' finances, or the financial details.
And...
Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy.
It doesn't end.
It doesn't end.
That's going to happen tomorrow.
And let me just make sure.
No, that's not it.
I said...
That was not the right thread either.
Geez, Louise, too many threads.
Sounds good.
It was...
Two.
No, that...
People, I don't remember if I said...
It's going to be noon or two o 'clock tomorrow, so just stay tuned because we're going to blow open the lid.
I'm not going to blow open anything.
We're going to dissect and go through...
The breakdown of Leticia James' questionable financial expenditures of campaign monies, you know, yearly stuff.
How could I forget what time I said we were going to go live?
It's going to be tomorrow at noon or two with Village Crazy Lady.
Her Twitter account, I shared it the other day, but for those who don't know, it is V-I-L-L-G-E.
Village without the A, Crazy Lady.
All right, so that's it.
Tomorrow.
Stay tuned.
And Wednesday, if there's a hearing, if Ashley Merchant is testifying, I'll be streaming it.
Okay, now we've got Mrs. Fix It, who's running for office.
I didn't want to blow it.
You ready to come in?
Talk to the world.
We got how many people?
10,400 people.
I don't know how many from Nevada.
Mrs. Fix It, bring it in.
Okay, everybody, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
Okay, so now I didn't want to get it wrong because I don't want to get your name wrong and I don't want to get what you're running for wrong.
Tell everybody who you are.
I know we've met in person.
You're a member of our wonderful VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
Who are you?
What the hell are you doing?
And how is it going?
I am running for Nevada State Assembly District 42. That is the last district.
We only have 42. They saved the best for last.
And the reason I'm running, I want to say that I truly believe your politics runs everything.
I despise politics, but I hate communism.
And I come from a communist country.
And what I see here, I don't like.
A lot of Americans are now waking up because all they read in the books is that millions and millions of people were killed by communism, socialism.
And actually they're the same thing, to be honest, for all intents and purposes.
You have a small group of people that demand the majority to do what they say under the stress that they're going to not be having enough food, they're not going to be having enough medical, anything.
You say anything wrong, you are, even in a lot of cases, killed without any due process.
People just disappear.
What country are you from?
I'm from Bulgaria.
And I was lucky enough to escape and come to America.
But America is the last place where we have the only place that we have the Constitution to protect us.
And I am worried about my kids.
To be honest, if I didn't have kids, I don't know I would have gone through this because it's very, very ugly.
Politics, everybody knows it's ugly.
But I ran two years ago.
And I actually realize it's way uglier than people actually say.
And the main reason I'm running is because I want to make sure that we protect the American dream for our kids.
I was able to live the American dream, even though they're ruining it for me right now.
But our kids, right now, they can't even afford to buy houses.
It's so bad.
And our money goes to...
Bail out people.
That is not capitalism.
You don't bail out companies.
I don't care how big it is to fail.
So the main reason I'm running is to protect the future of our kids.
Do I like it?
No.
But I believe I have no choice.
Yes, sorry.
What's your name and where can people find you?
My name is Katrine Ivanov.
And I'm also known in the political circles as Mrs. Fix It.
My website is mrsfixit.us.
I'm going to spell it.
M-R-S-F-I-X-I-T dot U-S.
And my cell number, I give it everywhere.
It's on my website.
702-722.
7225.
The beauty is you don't have to be from Nevada.
You don't have to be from District 42. If everybody that's watching right now donate just $1 to my campaign, it's going to propel me big time, especially that I don't have big donors because I tell them, if you think you're going to donate to me and I'm going to vote the way you want me to vote, it's not going to happen.
Because there is no amount of money anybody can give me to ruin my kids' future.
When did you leave Bulgaria?
I left in 97. 97?
About 20 years.
I've been here over 20 years.
When you escaped from Bulgaria, what are you able to...
97. Yeah, I believe it was 97. Give or take.
But when you flee a country like that, what are you able to leave with?
What do you come to America with?
I came with $20 and three suitcases because I was having clothes for any occasion and shoes.
And it turned out that the occasion I came in here to work on a cruise ship as a waitress, and the only shoes I didn't have was for work.
So five of my $20 went to buy the appropriate shoes.
Five went to buy a car to call my mom to tell her that I arrived.
And then I kept the other $10 until I went on the ship because I didn't know what I'm going to need it for.
So you get to America.
Were you married at the time?
No, I was 23. That's why I was confused between 97 and 93. It was 97, but I was 23. You get here alone, 20 bucks, three briefcases.
Practically, what's the first thing that happens when you get off on a plane?
How'd you get here?
I did came in here with already room and board.
And work already ready for me.
But the interesting part was I came into Miami and I live in the hotel, our hotel, it was behind the house of Versace and he was killed the day when I leave Miami.
He was killed that same day.
And I didn't know anything about Versace, about the politics and things like that.
So I was thinking, oh, I was exactly next to this street.
I live next to his street.
I could have been killed.
And later I found out there was no chance they would have killed me.
But that's later.
I'm reading the chat here.
Joe Maskey says, I donated and you should too.
Mrs. Fix It needs you.
What's the maximum that you can raise?
Is there a count?
The maximum a person can donate is $5,000.
Okay, I'll have to check as to whether or not non-residents...
Over the United States.
No, no United States residents cannot donate.
Do not ruin my campaign.
No, no, no.
I'm a resident.
I'm not a citizen.
Okay, I'm going to check that for sure.
For now, let's stick it to citizens.
We'll just ask the audience.
So you're running in District 14, you say?
No, 42. 42. District 42 in Nevada.
How many votes were cast the last election?
The last election, but keep in mind it was not a presidential.
It was two years ago.
It was about 4,000 votes.
I lost on primary for less than 800 votes.
So 4,000.
And what's the voting capacity?
In my area, it don't look good for me.
But that won't scare me because I am for protecting parental rights.
To me that involves school choice.
Right now we don't have that in Nevada and that's why we are dead last on schools.
I also come with medical freedom.
I want to make Nevada the first constitutional sanctuary state.
If that makes any sense to people.
I mean, our states are sanctuary for this, sanctuary for that.
I want to make Nevada constitution sanctuary state.
We should not have to do that because the constitution is the supreme law of the land.
However, a lot of people forget about that.
And I'm hoping that if I'm able to do that in Nevada, then other states would join me as well.
Amazing.
And when you came to Canada, Canada, when you came to the U.S., you spoke English?
I spoke English, but in my country, it was American English.
So when I was taking orders, and people say, I want a couple of cokes.
To me, couple meant few, and few meant two.
That's how I learned it.
So they would tell me, I would like a couple of cokes.
And I would say, I need an exact number.
I can't give you just a random number of cokes.
And they say, I told you a couple.
I say, yeah, that means...
To me, that meant fuel.
So I'm like, I understand that, but I need exact number.
And they will be so mad at me, tell me, two, two.
And then it took me a while to figure out, okay, everybody's mad at me.
What's going on?
So, yes, although I thought my English was perfect because I used to work for the American Embassy, and I didn't know that all the people in the American Embassy spoke Bulgarian or understood enough Bulgarian that when I was speaking my...
Super broken English.
They would understand everything I say, and they would keep saying, "Oh, your English is really good." So when I came here, the first person in the airport that checked my passport, she didn't open it yet.
She said, "Oh, very good accent.
Where are you from?" And I said, "I do not have an accent." Yeah, 20-some years, almost 30 years later, yeah, pretty big accent.
I apologize.
It is what it is.
Oh, it's not how things are said.
It is what is said.
I'm going to give everybody the link to your website.
Link to website.
And also, please come follow me on Twitter.
I am not big on social media.
That's the only media that I'm trying to get right now big.
I have less than 200 people.
200 followers?
Okay, we'll fix that if we can.
And on Twitter, also, you will see the endorsement that I got from Dr. Peter McCullough because I am fighting for medical freedoms.
For any freedoms, we should have all the freedoms that are allowed through a constitution.
And, of course, I'm going to also take food freedom once I get there because that's kind of new as a big follower on new guys.
The attack on food freedoms.
I don't know if it's new, but it's certainly...
It's ramping up.
It's ramping up.
Yeah.
But when I was officially running, it wasn't that known to me.
And now it is, so I'm putting it to my to-do list.
Well, Catherine, thank you.
Okay, and everybody knows now, so...
You and I will always be in touch.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Anybody that has any questions for me, I'm an open book.
I didn't get ready for that interview.
I thought I'm going to get ready for many of them.
Get used to it.
Don't worry about it, but get used to it.
We'll see if we can have an impact on local issues.
This is fantastic.
Godspeed.
Thank you.
I really appreciate the opportunity and keep up the good work, you and Barnes.
You guys are my go-to for information because I don't have the time to research, especially on national level.
So you are my go-to place to find out what's relevant within the country.
Thank you very, very much.
And we'll be following it.
You'll come back and give us periodic updates.
Absolutely.
Have a lovely day.
Go.
Have a good one.
Bye-bye, everyone.
Bye-bye.
All right, people.
That's cool.
Mrs. Fixit, you have the website.
You have the Twitter account.
Keep an eye on Nevada42.
Joe Maskew just followed her.
It says Diplora Laura.
I like that.
Oh, and look, dude, if you can't donate, just share the link.
It's amazing.
It starts at the grassroots level.
So we've done it.
Now what we're going to do, we're going to have our locals interview, chat with a supporter, Scuba Jim.
But this is only going to be on Locals.
So I'm giving everyone the link here.
We're going to end this on Rumble after I share the link.
Link to Locals with a typo in it.
No, that's not going to work.
Bada bing, bada boom.
We're going to end on Rumble.
Everybody, I'll see you tomorrow.
It's either 12 or noon.
I'm an idiot.
I don't even know where to find the time that we scheduled to do it.
And I hear my dog barking and whining in the background here.
Okay.
Okay.
Noon-ish.
Noon-ish Eastern.
Okay.
God, I'm an idiot.
Noon-ish tomorrow, we're going to blow the lid, or at least amplify the research that has already been done by Village Crazy Lady in exposing the, not the fanny, the tish.
Big tish look McJames.
Okay.
Done.
Everybody who's not coming over to Locals, thank you for being here.
Viva needs a producer, says Jacob Castro.
I just need a calendar.
I don't think I can...
Okay.
Anyhow, we are ending on Rumble.
Going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Thank you all for being here.
If you're not coming over to Locals, I'll see you tomorrow.
Noon-ish.
And let's make some noise.
Everybody, peace out.
See you tomorrow.
Locals, here he comes with Scuba Gin.
Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom.
Okay, we're done there.
Oh, no Rumble Rants.
Damn it, I forgot to read the Rumble Rants.
Finboy Slick says, Griswold has what you call the SSRIs.
SSR medicated people.
Indoctrination says, every time the Democrats...
Export Selection