Transcript

>> Jeff Chamblee: This June marks three years since the overturn of Roe. But did you know that since then, the number of abortions has surged to a 10 year high? PreBorn Network clinics continue to support women facing unplanned pregnancies, showering them with God's love and providing free ultrasounds. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, she's twice as likely to choose life.

>> Rick Green: It was like the beginning of my healing journey. They do an ultrasound. That's when everything changed. When I saw my baby and when I heard her, heartbeat, that was it.

>> Jeff Chamblee: $28 sponsors one ultrasound and $140 helps to rescue five babies. Your generous tax deductible donation also helps to provide women who choose life with assistance for up to two years. To donate, dial £250 and say the keyword baby. That's £250, baby. Or visit preborn.com afr m We inform.

>> Rick Green: Religious freedom is about people of faith being able to live out their faith, live out their convictions, no matter where they are. We equip sacred honor is the courage to speak truth, to live out your free speech. We also rejoice in our sufferings because. We know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and terror.

>> Jeff Chamblee: This is At the Core on American Family Radio.

>> Rick Green: Welcome At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Appreciate you joining me today. A lot to catch up on from last week, even let alone the vote on the one big beautiful bill. I will say I agree with Elon Musk. It can't be big and beautiful. It's either big or it's beautiful. So, yes, a lot of this thing I don't like, of course, but I also understand, the president's desire and need to get the ball moving down the field. So you got to take a step, somewhere and, I don't think this is in the wrong direction. Even though I'm absolutely against increasing the debt ceiling, absolutely against going further into debt. So I agree with Musk and the senators and the congressmen that are saying we should be cutting more of the spending. there are a lot of cuts in a lot of areas. So there are some positive things here and of course tax cuts and other things as well. But, the whole Senate, you know, mess with the parliamentarian essentially, essentially being the decision maker. Like, why are you letting them. The parliamentarians role is to advise, not to make the decision. The parliamentarian should be advising the Senate majority leader or Whoever serving as. On the House side, what we would call the speaker of the House, but whoever's serving as the Senate president At that time should, it should not. You should never empower the bureaucrats. You should never let these hired employees of the. Of a legislative body be the decision makers. It should always be the elected representatives of the people making the final decision. So it's absolutely absurd that we would let the parliamentarian make this decision. It should be the. If the majority of the. Of the Senate, and The majority is 50 plus 1, not 60. This whole filibuster thing has been a thorn in the side of an actual constitutional republic since it's been used. And the idea that, you're gonna use these procedural filibusters, it's not even Mr. Smith goes to Washington. It's not even the, you know, standing on the floor. And as long as you can hold things up while you're standing and no breaks for the bathroom or going to eat, it's not that. That I'm okay with. I am fine with, out of 100 senators, allowing each one of them, to delay through speaking if they so choose to make a point. And that's a rich tradition, and it's a beautiful display of oratory, usually, and a proper part of the process. But this whole. You got to have 60 to break, the. The. You know, to actually get a bill to the floor to have a final vote, or they use it. You know, sometimes it's 51, sometimes it's 60. It should always be 51. And I said that when the Democrats had the majority. David Barton and I have been consistent on this for 30 years. The idea that you're gonna let 41 members of the Senate call the shots is not a proper function of a constitutional republic. It should always be that the majority rules. That is how the system is supposed to work. And if the Democrats have the majority, they rule and absolutely use the rules, use process, use points of order. We teach all that At Patriot Academy so that you can sometimes defeat, the train as it's, you know, leaving the station, that you might have a way of stopping something bad from happening by knowing the rules really, really well. But At the end of the day, the idea that you're gonna let 41 members instead of 51 members call the shots, that's what you're doing when you require 60 votes in the Senate to get something done. So we said all of this back when the Democrats had the majority. Obviously, we're gonna say the same thing. And be consistent with the Republicans having the majority. The idea that you're gonna fund illegal aliens living off of our tax dollars, whether we're talking Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or putting them up At the Ritz, which is what these moronic Democrats did, putting them in five star hotels in New York and all over the place. Joe Biden and his whole crew, any of it. You shouldn't spend a penny on illegal aliens if you're here illegally. The only thing we should spend any money on is the Border patrol escorting them out of the country. That's it. And what. Wait, let me back up. Let me fix it. Let me change that. Maybe spend enough for an administrative hearing very quickly, like, you know, 15 minutes. so you got to fund a judge, lots of judges down At the border to do these quick administrative hearings and then immediately march them across the border and send them back home, wherever home might be. I mean, we're going above and beyond that. We're flying them back to other countries and all that. I think you ought to just take them back across wherever they came across and let Mexico deal with it from there. All right, anyway, I'm digressing. The whole point is that the parliamentarian should not call the shots. It ought to be the people that have been elected to make those decisions. So this is. This is one that I don't think is going away. I'm hoping this brought enough attention to it that maybe we can finally get some bigger changes in the Senate on this. It's, you know, it. It's been one of those things that's usually not even talked about or brought any attention to it, unless it's a major judicial appointee, usually a Supreme Court justice. kind of became an issue with some of the lower court judges in the courts of appeal and other areas. But At this point, it's on the entire Trump agenda, or most of the Trump agenda all piled into one bill, which I'm also not for. but it is what it is. And so anyway, I hope everybody's paying attention and realizes that Senator Thune and the Republican senators should be seizing control of the Senate. They've been given control of the Senate by the American people. They should be calling the shots. And we would have bigger, better changes than these incremental changes if they would do that. So somebody infused some backbone into these Republican senators, and let's get that done. I have got to talk about the Supreme Court decisions of last week, because I haven't been with you since m. Several of these got Handed down on late Thursday and on Friday. And, of course, I have a plate of crow here to eat in front of the entire audience. No, I don't really. I have my Patriot brew coffee in front of me so I could chew on some coffee beans as punishment. I don't have any crow to eat, but I should be eating crow, because my prediction last week or week before last camera when I talked about it, was that the Supreme Court would not strike down the national injunctions that are being done by the local, runaway, unconstitutional federal judges. I really thought. I thought, there's no way you're going to cobble together five votes At the Supreme Court to strike a blow At the courts. I mean, this is literally a taking an ax to the root of judicial supremacy. So it's not saying that the Supreme Court cannot do an injunction, but it is saying that a local federal judge cannot do a national injunction. Let me back up just a second. Let's talk about the role of the judiciary, and then we'll get to this Supreme Court decision and why this is such a big deal. I think it's one of the most important decisions, of my lifetime, and the fact that Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. And then we got six votes. we, got to break this down, folks, because I wasn't just wrong. I was way wrong. I didn't think we could get five votes, and we got six votes saying that these local federal judges should not be able to do national injunctions. Overruling the president of the United States, who was elected by the entire nation. That's a big, big deal. So here's what's been happening. Okay? Think about what happens when you go to court. if you. If you go to court, you got a plaintiff and a defendant, and someone is suing someone else to right a wrong or to enforce a right. And what's been happening is, when you go to court, normally, the proper function of the court is to make a decision for the plaintiff and defendant, not for the whole country. Not make a decision for the plaintiff and defendant, and then apply that to the whole country. The court is not the lawmaker. The court is not the. You go to the constitution and Article 1 clearly says the lawmaking body is the legislature. They make laws for the whole country, and then you enforce those laws in the courts if you have to. If someone's not following that law, then you go to court. But that judge's decision is not to be applied to the whole country. That judge is not supposed to interpret the law made by the Congress in such a way that it changes the implementation of that law for the whole country, which is what these injunctions typically do. The court's job is to say, okay, Mr. M, plaintiff, madam defendant, here's what the Congress passed, and you're disagreeing on how it should be applied to you and to your fact circumstances. So my job as the judge is to apply it and tell you how it's going to be applied to you two people, you, two parties, you two companies, whatever the plaintiff and defendant are, could be organizations. So it could impact more than one person. If it's an organization that's suing and they represent, you know, hundreds of people or thousands of people, could affect lots of people, but should not affect the whole country. So that little federal district judge makes that decision in that case, and it applies to those two people or those two parties. What they've been doing in the last 15, 20 years is a federal judge At the local level, not the supreme Court, not even a court of appeals has been making a decision. And those two, they do it on purpose. Like someone, one of the two parties will forum, shop, they'll go find a local federal judge and say, if we can get our case in front of that judge, he or she is crazy enough to not only side with us, but then apply it to the whole nation. And so then everybody in the country has to follow what that one unaccountable, unelected federal judge has given an opinion on or decided. Okay, that is a crazy process, but that's what's been happening. And then it got ramped up on steroids as soon as President Trump got in office. And so we have a local federal judge saying, president Trump cannot take these rapists and murderers and drug dealers and gang members and deport them and send them back to their prisons in their countries where they came from. for whatever reason, whatever interpretation of the law that federal judge has there's now stopping the President of the United States from implementing the number one policy for which he was elected to deport illegal aliens to get the criminals off the streets to they came here illegally. And so the president tries to do that, they stop him. The president tries to do all these other things, and these federal judges are doing these injunctions. So this thing finally gets to the US Supreme Court. The particular facts and circumstances was a case dealing with birthright citizenship. Can the President of the United States issue an executive order clarifying the definition of what a citizen is in America under the 14th Amendment? Who does that apply? To does that apply to somebody that breaks into the country illegally and has a baby, and then now that baby is supposedly a citizen of the country, even though you broke into the country? That would be like somebody breaking into your house, having a baby in your living room, and then saying, oh, you gotta raise the kid, or, you gotta let us all live here and pay for the college education of the kid and feed the kid for the next 18 years and buy them a bicycle and Christmas presents. I mean, that's essentially what you're doing with this definition of birthright citizenship. The left has been pushing for decades and decades, and President Trump is saying, there's no law that's been passed that defines citizenship that way. There's no. Certainly nothing in the Constitution that defines citizenship that way. And so I'm making sure that the law is implemented the way that the law is written. And that means, you people that came here illegally and had a baby, that baby is not a citizen of this country. Okay? So that's just perfectly exactly what the President should do. So can a federal judge At the local level stop the President from executing the law as the law is written? That's what's At stake before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court. Six of them, not five, six. I didn't think we'd get Amy Coney Barrett. Didn't think we'd get Kavanaugh. Didn't think we'd get Gorsuch. I thought it'd be Alito and Thomas standing out there by themselves because of what it means. It means that the Supreme Court is saying and acknowledging the limitation on the power of the court. That doesn't happen very often. Alito did that in Dobbs. That was a big part of what he was saying in Dobbs is that the Court should not be making the policy on abortion. That's not the job of these unelected, unaccountable lawyers in Washington, D.C. and that's what this decision says. These unelected, unaccountable lawyers At the local level, all across the country, do not have the power to make public policy for the whole nation. But by doing so, these six justices acknowledged a limitation on the Court, which is rare. You got to remember, these people are educated in these law schools where they're taught that the judges are the high priests of the law, that the judges are the only unbiased ones, that the politicians are sold out, that the people are stupid, that nobody else can make decisions except these judges. And so for the Supreme Court to say, no, you know what we're not perfect for Amy Coney Barrett to have that fantastic line where she says Katanji Brown Jackson rejects an imperial, presidency in favor of an imperial judiciary. That sums it up right there. These people think that like Katanji Brown Jackson thinks that the court should be the high priest of the law and that they should have unlimited power even At the local federal judge level, to tell the president what to do. And the U.S. supreme Court, six of them said no. We'll talk more about it when we come back. Welcome your calls. 888-589-8840. That's 888-589-8840. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. You're listening.

>> Jeff Chamblee: This is At the Core on American Family Radio with your host Rick Green.

>> Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, Armour Green, America's Constitution coach. Phone number to join the program today is 888-589-8840. That's 888-589-8840. Talking about the big beautiful bill being passed in the Senate. Going back to the House had some changes in the Senate, of course you got to pass the exact same bill in both bodies, same as At the state legislature. And so if there's changes, goes back over, they eventually may end up in a conference committee or whatever. But right now, it has passed the Senate with the tie breaking vote of J.D. vance. And so Trump is saying, okay, if we don't make it by July 4th, he can live with that. Cause it'll take him some time to work out these differences. but back to the court thing that we were finishing up with At the close of the last segment. so I've talked about this for two decades. The Constitution is, essentially has been set aside for the courtstitution over the last 60, 70 years in America, we've been ruled by an unelected, unaccountable cadre of black robes standing around the kettle, throwing a phrase in here and a phrase in there. And their witches brew has become the law of the land. And it changes with whoever's on the court or however they feel that day. It's not. People don't know what the law is going to be. It's confusing, it's messy. It becomes social justice. Instead of everybody being treated the same under the law. It's a mess. It's an absolute mess. And it all comes back to empowering the judges to make policy decisions instead of applying the law from the policy decisions made by the elected Representatives of the people. That's what it all boils down to. And the idea that we have three equal branches of government or that the role of the court is to decide what the law of the land is going to be. And, all of that nonsense is not in the Constitution. It is not the design of the Constitution. It was never intended to be that way. It's not the actual language of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution is easily found by looking At the debates when the Constitution was ratified, when it was created, looking At the Federalist Papers that were. The, authors of the Federalist Papers described the intent of the Constitution as people were about to vote on the Constitution in New York. So all of this points to a judiciary that has a very simple role. Very simple. Your job is to apply the law as written by the Congress and signed by the President. That's your job. They make the law. Your job is to apply it to whoever has filed suit and is in court in front of you. And then on rare occasions, to give your opinion on the constitutionality of a law. And it should be when that law boldly on its face violates the Constitution, then you should weigh in on that. And that doesn't mean, by the way, let's be very clear here, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality of that law. It means they have an opinion on the constitutionality of that law. And then the other two branches At the federal level have the ability to weigh back in and say, no, we disagree with you on your interpretation. Repass the law again. Congress and President, Congressman passed the law again. President can sign the law again. And it's basically two out of three At that point, whoever wins. And then, most importantly, do not forget the final, final, final say on whether or not something is constitutional in America rests not with the Supreme Court, not with the President, and not even with the Congress. The final, final say on whether or not a law is constitutional or not is left to the states. The states have the final say because they have the final say on the amendment process. So if a law gets passed by Congress, the President signs it and the US Supreme Court says that's unconstitutional. And then the President and the Congress come back and say, you know what? You're wrong, Court, we disagree with you. And so the Congress passes the law again, and then the President signs it again. Or the President might say, you know what? I read the opinion of the court and I think they're right. So I'm going to veto this based on the opinion of the court. So the Congress. You're outvoted by the president and the courts. or let's say that the Congress passes that law again, President signs it again, and then the states say, no, we disagree with you. We agree with the court. We think the opinion of the court was right. What you've done is unconstitutional. So we're going to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the action of the court or action of the Congress and the president. Or I'll give you another scenario. The court hands down a decision, an opinion, and says that something is constitutional or unconstitutional. And the states say, well, we just disagree with the court. So we're going to overrule the court. We're going to do an amendment to overrule the court. We did that with the 11th Amendment. That's what it was. Overruling Chisholm v. Georgia Supreme Court decision that the states didn't like all of that to say. The court is not the final say. The court has an opinion. The court has a role. Absolutely. There's some give and take here. There's some back and forth here. I'm, totally fine with that. But we have not got. We've got to get away from this idea that these high priests of the law and their black robes when they enter the courtroom, that now they are to be so revered that we've got a bow when they come in. And when they get done speaking, that's it. We're done. The Supreme Court has ruled. This is now the law. No, no, it's a part of the process, an important part of the process, but not the final say. And this decision by the Supreme Court, this opinion by the Supreme Court last week, to actually say that these federal judges are not gods, they are not high priests of the law, they are not, empowered with the ability to overrule the president of the United States who was elected by the people. And they do not have the right or the power or the constitutional authority to make law, to make a policy decision that is huge. I mean, like a shot across the bow, an ax to the root of this judicial supremacy that we bought into and the fact that Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion. I just have to eat crow, folks. I did not. I. Not only did I not predict this, I said the opposite would happen. I said, there's no way. These people that went to Notre Dame Law and Yale Law and Harvard Law and all these, you know, schools where they teach the supremacy of the court. There's no way that they are going to side with the president, who they have a disdain for and that they look down on because it's a politician elected by the people. There's no way that they're going to say that the people are smart enough to elect someone, to implement this policy. I just. I was wrong. I was wrong 6 votes in the right direction on this thing. So it's a big, big, big deal. It's hopefully a step in the right direction. The seeds for this were planted, really, by Thomas for the last 20, 30 years. he has constantly talked about the need to go this direction. And then with Alito, as I said earlier on the Dobbs decision, saying, hey, this is not our job. We're not policymakers. We're.

>> Rick Green: We're not supposed to make. The court should not be deciding on an issue like abortion or school choice or any of these other tough issues that are so divided in the country. That's not the job of the court At all. And so the seeds for this have been planted by Thomas and Alito. There's been some decisions hinting this direction, but this one's, just a giant leap forward in saving the Constitution. And getting back to the proper role of the Court doesn't solve it completely. But, man, I'm telling you, I, talk about it in rebuilding liberty. I, talk about it in constitutional live and in biblical citizenship and all these courses that we do. The need to put the court back in its proper place, to put it back in its box and have the elected representatives make the decisions. And if the elected representatives make, you know, pass a law that is blatantly on its face, unconstitutional, violates some principle of the Constitution that's very clear and has rich tradition, as Alito talked about in the Dobbs decision and a great history and all those things, then there's a proper role, on rare occasions, for the Supreme Court to say, no, you can't do that. That's unconstitutional. And then see how the president and the Congress, respond to that and how the states respond to that. And the states can absolutely overrule that Supreme Court decision. The, states can overrule or appeal a presidential decision or a congressional decision, and they can do that either by suing in federal court and trying to get it up to the Supreme Court and getting an opinion that sides with them, or by pushing for a constitutional amendment that would overrule that decision. Even the effort to get a convention of states fits into this. The states need to come together, and there's quite a few, actually. Supreme Court decisions and actions of the federal, government that need to be overruled by the states. So the idea that the states should come together, as Article 5 encourages them to do, and, and, and have a convention where they come together and have a meeting and say, you know what, as, as the state legislators or the representatives of the states, we think the federal government shouldn't be doing this particular thing. Let's propose an amendment to the Constitution to overrule that, and then have the states propose that amendment, send it back to all 50 states, and if 38 of those states say we agree through their state legislatures, they literally rubber stamp 38 of them, rubber stamp what was proposed by that get together, that meeting, that convention of the states under Article 5, then we can overrule the federal government in that case and actually get it into the Constitution so that it's not just some executive order by the president that's not going to be there three years from now, three and a half years from now. I mean, folks, that's the right way to do things. So all of this from this Supreme Court decision last week is a reminder of how the Constitution works. And man, I'm telling you, for the next 368 days, it's our chance to educate people on these things so we can highlight these Supreme Court decisions, we can talk about the proper separation of powers, not just At the federal level, but between the feds and the states and the local government. I mean, this is a great window of opportunity, and I think we'll see more victories like this. I think this is, this is going to encourage not only the other members of the court to continue to go down this road, but it's going to encourage Congress, it's going to encourage the president, it's going to encourage the state legislatures to get back into the Constitution, start following the Constitution, start recognizing the proper jurisdictions, the proper, realms of authority. And I talk about this in rebuilding liberty, but it's gonna encourage us to challenge the status quo of the last few years, because the status quo of the last few years is not the constitutional foundation of this country that we had for the first 200 years. The status quo of the last 50 years or so has actually undermined the basic principles of liberty that made the country successful in the first place. And so challenging the status quo that we've accepted. And I mean by that, a lot of the things that have, they're relatively new in the history of the country 50 years, but they've become just like, accepted. and I'm talking about things like the federal government doing education or agriculture or healthcare or any of those things. All of that is new in the history of the country and absolutely should not be done. There's nothing constitutional about the feds being involved in those things. Think about it like this. If your state government has a department of whatever, then that department of whatever should not exist At the federal level. If the state is doing it, the Feds should not be doing it. So if you have a state department of, education, health care, you, know, whatever they want, they call you know that in your particular state. If you have a state department of agriculture and all the states have those things, it should not exist At the federal level, but it does right now At the federal level. They are wasting money and creating regulation that cost money, slows things down and prevents freedom from happening. There are levels of federal bureaucracy that will just blow your mind and it is mind numbing how many bureaucrats work At these agencies and how they sit around all day long looking for ways to harass the American people. It's actually a violation. You know, this is the 250th we're gonna be talking about the Declaration all year. It's a violation exactly as Jefferson described it. It's the 10th reason that the Declaration of Independence even happened. There are 27 reasons, 27 grievances in the Declaration. And Jefferson lists them one by one. And the tenth one is he has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. That is the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the, Health and Human Services, Obamacare, all of these things unconstitutional and absolutely harassing the American people and eating out their substance. So challenge the status quo, folks. Don't accept the fact that because it's been done for 50 years, or in the case of Obama, for 10 years, don't accept the fact that it has to always be that way. No, we can change it. We can actually do exactly what Jefferson says in the Declaration, that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. That's what I'm talking about here. Altering or abolishing these pieces of government that never should have existed in the first place have become an albatross around the, neck of the American people. And right now there's an appetite for challenging that and getting rid of it. Obviously the problem, the biggest problem, the glaring problem that has Elon Musk so mad right now is that the big beautiful bill doesn't do that. It doesn't tackle these big questions. It doesn't take on these agencies that should not have existed in the first place. And what we can do is At the local level, begin to challenge the status quo question these things get people elected to Congress and to the state legislature and to the county commissioner's court that will challenge these things, that will do the altering and abolishing of these areas of government that should not exist in the first place. to Elon and to the people that are also upset with him, I just got to say, man, it takes time to do that. I wish we could do this overnight. I absolutely do. But the system is designed to be difficult and to take time. It's designed to where to have big changes. They just don't happen quickly. It requires a movement. And Elon, thank you. You started the mood m the Doge movement, and I don't think it's gonna die because you and President Trump can't get along. I think President Trump was absolutely wrong last night to threaten Elon Musk with this whole, maybe we need to invest it. Elon Musk is the first one to say, get rid of all of the electric car credits. Get rid of all of this green New Deal junk. And I think President Trump is wrong to act like Elon is benefiting from that and refusing to have it taken out of the big beautiful bill. He's. He's the one saying to do that. So, anyway, President Trump, please stop. Stop doing that. Elon is your friend. He's actually wanting to do the same things that you want to do. anyway. But these big things are not going to change overnight, and they're not going to change At the federal level. They got to be changed At the local level. We have to challenge the status quo, and these six justices just gave us some momentum to do that. If we can change the status quo in the way the court views themselves, we can change the status quo in the way the local commissioner's court views themselves and their role in land and property rights and parental rights. The local school board can change the way they view themselves in the role of parental rights that we can get back to parental parents making these decisions, the landowner making these decisions. We can actually embrace freedom. Imagine that. Oh, and now if we only had a big, beautiful date to celebrate freedom and bring back the principles of declaration. What do we got coming up this Friday, Independence Day, July 4th. An opportunity to read the Declaration of Independence. Oh, I'm getting excited, folks. Let's take a break. We'll be right back. Phone numbers 885-89-8840. You're listening to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

>> Jeff Chamblee: This is At the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

>> Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Phone number is 888-589-8840-888858-98840. Love to hear from you. Whether, it's about the big beautiful bill or these, Supreme Court decisions of the last week, there's been several, empowering parental, rights, you know, putting the parent back in charge, whether it's this crazy transgender stuff, upholding state laws, outlawing the mutilation of children. I mean, there's just, there's just a lot of good decisions that happened in the last week or two that I haven't had a chance to chat about. But this one on birthright citizenship, even though they kind of punted on the issue of birthright citizenship, the injunction issue is the power of the courts, the organizing of those powers, which is essentially what Jefferson talks about when I mentioned that alter and abolishing thing. So what Jefferson said in the declaration, he said that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, so what he's essentially saying is when your government gets out of control, when your government gets beyond what you intended for it to do and it starts becoming destructive of these ends. Meaning what did he just say in the previous paragraph? We hold these truths to be self evident. So when government becomes destructive of truth, has our government become destructive of truth? You bet it has. When a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, when government is preventing you from pursuing happiness with your property, with your business, with your family, when it's preventing you from living out your liberty, when it's preventing you from even being able to add a room onto your home on your property, or put a driveway in on your property or add a parking spot to your property, then government has become destructive of these ends. When you can no longer give or refuse consent of the governed, meaning that line where it says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The whole reason that to secure these rights, the whole reason government exists is to secure these rights. And the only power to do that is given by the consent of the government. So if you can't give or refuse consent because they manipulate the elections. You've become destructive of these ends. Okay, so what do you do? He said that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. So that's our job. To alter or abolish is the whole process of a republic, a, constitutional republic. It's giving and taking. It's modifying how government works, altering how it's working, and abolishing pieces of it that aren't working. There's huge chunks of our government right now that are not working and that are. Are. Have become destructive of these ends, and so those chunks need to be abolished anyway. He then talks about, you know, remaking or reforming that government. And then the way he says you do it. This is where I was going with all of that. He says, you lay its foundation on such principles and organize its powers in such forms as shall seem to them the most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Organize its powers in such forms. That's what we're talking about here in terms of who gets to decide what if. Government. Which government. And organize its powers in such forms would also include the power of the Senate to be ruled by a majority, not a minority, which goes back to that whole filibuster thing, or listening to a parliamentarian and letting them decide instead of the people that were elected by the people, the senators elected by the people being the ones to make the decision. Organizing its powers in such forms means what do you let the feds do versus the states or the local government or the individual or the family or the church or whoever else has that authority in that sphere. Organizing its powers in such forms is why you have constitutional amendments. It's why you have the people involved in reining in the government. So if anything should. Should be learned by us with regard to this Supreme Court decision, that strikes At the heart of judicial supremacy and limits the power of these local federal judges to do these injunctions. If anything should be learned by us with these battles we're having right now over what the president can do as the elected President of the United States, and what the Congress can do, and all of it, what it should tell us is that the ability to alter or abolish is still there, that we have the freedom and the ability to alter or abolish pieces of our government without having to go to war. We don't have to take up arms and have some revolution with bullets. We don't have to do that. Thank you, Lord, for a system of government where we don't have to have a revolution that's bloody and, and, and. And brother against brother. And all of the things that typically happen in the history of mankind and in every other nation on the planet and frankly happened here in the Civil War. We don't have to do that. We get to alter or abolish our government by simply showing up At the school board meeting, At the city council meeting, At the water district meeting, At the county commissioners meeting, At the state legislative committee hearings. we just do what we've been given the freedom to do. We just be good stewards of what we've been given. We live out our freedom, and we can alter or abolish our government. And the victories can, in fact, happen. You can, in fact, rein in your local commissioner's court if they're telling you what to do with your land. You can, in fact, reign in the federal government if the state legislatures will simply use the power they've been given under the Constitution to use constitutional amendments to overrule the federal government. Absolutely can and should be done. There's some momentum building to do all of those things. All right, I've ranted long enough today. Let's see what, what y' all on your mind and what y' all are thinking about. 888-589-8840 Is the phone number 888-589-8840? Okay. Lots of calls about. About the big, beautiful bill. Let's, go to dawn in Texas for the first question about the big, beautiful bill that is way too big and not exactly beautiful, but, you know, gets the ball moving down the field. Okay, Don, go ahead. Well, thank you for taking my call. I have to say that now that it's got this big, beautiful bill going back to the House, I think the House should modify it back. In the meantime, I think soon to get rid of that politic parliamentarian, and, bring somebody else in like he should have done in the first place. Yeah, you know, we. We're.

>> Caroline: We're actively working to get rid of the deep state and hear those rhinos let the deep state make the indications. I think that needs to change. I'm totally on board with everything you're saying. Appreciate your ministry. And, you know, we, as a church, we need to pray and we need to ask God to bring revival and, you know, tell everyone about Jesus.

>> Rick Green: Amen to all of the above, Don. Absolutely 100% right. And you, know, the difficult thing on the House side, to your point of. Hey, y' all Go ahead and chop out some more of this bad stuff when it comes back over there. the difficult thing is just getting the votes, getting, getting the votes on final passage. I mean, that's the reason it's such a big bill and, and m. And it's unfortunate. This is the whole reason Elon's upset. Right. Because a lot of this, the Doge cuts did not happen and a lot of the changes that should have taken place did not happen. Why did they not happen? It's not that there weren't a lot of members of Congress totally on board that wanted to see it happen. It's that there weren't enough. you got, At the end of the day, you gotta get the majority. At the end of the day, you gotta have the votes. And so At the end of the day, I don't think they'll have the votes this time around either. In the House, the vote number has not changed. And so you've still got this really, really slim, you know, three vote majority, which means you lose two people and you lose the bill. And so Speaker Johnson's got this impossible task of holding everybody together. And that's the reason that the bill is unfortunately, not everything that we want. and in, you know, a Christmas tree lit up with a ton of the stuff that we don't want. And it's because you gotta get the votes. Now, I will say part of the problem here is we're not following the Constitution and how we do the enumeration, what most people call the census, but I call it the enumeration because that's the word used in the Constitution. And it reminds us all we're supposed to be doing is enumerating, counting legal citizens. That's it. We shouldn't be finding out how many bathrooms you got in your House. And all these, you know, 20 questions about how much money you make and all that stuff is nonsense, should not be done by, you know, the federal government. But At any rate, if the enumeration were being done constitutionally, then you would have a 43 vote majority in the House and we would have gotten Doge done. We would have gotten a lot more done. Maybe not everything, but we would have gotten a lot more done. But the problem is they counted illegal aliens in the, in the enumeration. So you got about 20 seats right now being held by Democrats in these blue sanctuary cities that they wouldn't have. You wouldn't have those seats there. You would have them spread, spread out into the red parts of the country. And therefore that 20 votes would swing the other way. And that's a 40 vote swing. If you take 20 votes away from the Democrats and give 20 and add those to the Republicans, you have a massive swing. and it's a 43 vote majority At that point. But that's not what's happening. And it could happen. I mean, there's momentum. I've been talking about this for a long time, for years actually, but very specifically in the last few months. And, managed to get the debate to take place inside the White House to discuss whether or not to do this. And I've been pushing for the president to demand that the census, the enumeration be recalculated right now. And I think the president has the power to do that without Congress telling him to. That's part of the job of the executive branch, to execute the law. And, you know, anyway, it would take a lot of political capital. It'd be difficult to do, but he could do it. And I wish he would just demand that it be done. Marjorie Taylor Greene has filed a bill to do this. And so if Congress passes this bill that she's proposing, then it definitely gives the president momentum. So that's why he's gonna support this effort. But, you know, I even write about this in Rebuilding Liberty. It's One of the 12 steps, actually, that I put in here. So I had to pick 12 things. 12 step recovery program to save the country that we can do over the course of the next year during the 250th. And that's one of the 12 I actually put. Make that one of the major steps. Only count legal citizens in the enumeration. Make it very clear what a citizen is in the United States. No birthright citizenship unless one of your parents is a citizen. you know, getting, you know, not counting illegal, aliens in the enumeration. You do all that and you'll see a massive shift. That's proper. That's actually constitutional. That actually makes sense. This is not just to grab political powers, not just so there's more Republicans than Democrats. It's to have an accurate representation in Congress. Hey, if we don't win the day, if we don't win the hearts and minds of Americans and they decide to vote for another party, whether that's Republican, Democrat, or Elon Musk, if he starts this third party, which I pray he doesn't, or we're gonna have a repeat in 1992. but At the end of the day, you still gotta win people's hearts and minds. You still gotta have a party that pushes the right policies and all of those things. So I'm not trying to manipulate the data like Joe Biden did, which he literally changed the formula to manipulate the data to get more Democrats in Congress. I'm just saying get an accurate representation. Just have fair representation of the 435 seats in Congress. Make sure that it's divided amongst the country and amongst the states based on actual population of citizens of the United States of America. That's all I'm asking for. And the President just might do it. If this bill passes Congress and they do that, it will change dramatically the makeup of Congress, which then. Bringing us back to the last caller would make it possible to amend these bills in a good way and due to the Doge cuts and get a lot more done. Okay, I went way off track there. Let's go back to the phones. Frank in Kentucky is, up next. Frank, go ahead, man. You got the floor. Okay. I've been thinking, about, quite a bit, and even Tony Perkins have been thinking about this. What I'm trying to say is when the President comes in and has executive orders, he does. He's doing real well. And then the next president, when he leaves office, then some Democrat comes in and changes it all around. We're back where we started. I hate that.

>> Rick Green: Yeah, yeah. No, that's why, that's why, Frank. That's why I was talking about the constitutional amendments. Because, you know, a president's executive order, even an act of Congress, is going to be temporary because the next Congress can come in and change that. A constitutional amendment is the only thing that's going to be solid and last for generations. Doesn't mean you can't have another. You know, we did the 18th amendment and banned alcohol and came back with the 21st and reversed it. So you can reverse an amendment, but it's hard. It's hard to get a constitutional amendment done. And so what you're talking about is the reason why we need to use this momentum in the country to get these Doge cuts done, to rein in the federal government, to restore the proper constitutional balance of powers. All of that could be done in this moment if the state legislators across this country would do their job, if they would do a constitutional amendment process under Article 5 by having an Article 5 convention and essentially enshrined these changes. And honestly, they're not even. Frank, they're not even changes. They're actually going back to the original intent of the Constitution. It's reversing the changes that were done by a Supreme Court outside of its power. That's really what I'm talking about doing, with this Article 5 Convention of States. Okay. Lots of phone calls and I'm not going to get to all of them. I'm running out of time. let's see, let's go to, Shirley in Tennessee. And I missed you, Shirley, earlier. I apologize for that, Shirley, go ahead. Thank God for the Supreme Court just trying to stop all these rulings from the bench across the country. I just want to praise the Lord for that. Now I want them to stop forever property tax when we buy some, maybe have some sort of way we can give donations for some to help with government costs, but not forever tax.

>> Rick Green: Amen, Sister. I want to pray for foster parents rights because if we don't do something to help foster parents get more rights and treat, be treated more fairly, we're going to return back to orphanages because most people will not be a foster parent. They don't want it. So, you know, there are some things that we could do to still improve. But I'm kind of excited for our future now.

>> Rick Green: Amen, Sister. You just listed like four or five issues that I totally agree on. All of them. Number one, you know, thank you Lord for the Supreme Court overruling these immoral judges At the local level, trying to, you know, put their opinion on the whole country. number two, yes, we need to get rid of property taxes. You shouldn't have to rent your government from the. Rid your property from the government, your serfs on feudal land when you have to pay property taxes. and definitely cleaning up the foster system and it is so difficult. I got a sister in law and brother in law that they got. You know, they do an amazing job with foster kids and they've adopted several of them. But that whole system is so messed up. Lots of changes that need to happen there. And definitely praying for these changes and for our country absolutely needs to be done. So thank you for that call. I apologize to everybody else that called in. I'll do better on Thursday, Lord willing, next time we have a chance to take calls and get to more of them. But thank you to everybody that called in and want to participate in the, in the program today. I really appreciate you listening. Walker will be back with you tomorrow. I got you on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Walker Wildmon back with you tomorrow. Thank you so much for listening to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

>> Jeff Chamblee: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.