The rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator, not our government
: Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect. The rights that our founders recognize come from God our Creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
: This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
President Trump seems to be leaning in on idea of retiring Justices
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Friday, April 17, and the Supreme Court has made a lot of headlines, this year, as they do every year, because of some major cases that are coming before them and some opinions that they will need to render. And given the composition on the bench with a, generally speaking, Justices Alito and Thomas, being the most, solid, predictably solid conservatives on the bench. Then you have, you know, a couple of, of good justices that are overall, generally in in the right category, which I would include a Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in there. Then you have the really kind of wildly unpredictable of Roberts and and Amy Coney Barrett. And then you have the left wing of course, of the remainder of Kagan Sotomayor and then the just extremely outlandish, always terribly predictable actually of I think the worst justice on the bench, which is Justice Jackson. you have, you know, this really interesting spread. And so because Alito and Thomas are the most reliably consistent, stalwart conservatives, that are originalists, they interpret the US Constitution, they don't put their political bias on there, they actually are reliably, good justices. The question has become they are getting a more senior in years and so should Trump, replace them and you know, call for their resignation? people from, you know, all sides of the political spectrum, including even Matt Walsh and Daily Wire posted a couple of weeks ago that he thinks that Alito and Thomas should retire. But it's basically been just sort of a hypothetical that conservatives have been pondering, before the 2028 presidential election so that we don't have basically what we had in 2016, which was a major, major election issue because of the death of Justice Scalia. And really who was going to replace him was a major voting issue. And of course if Democrats, gained control of the White House in 2028 and then after that Alito and Thomas, either retire or pass away as it's possible, then a Democrat would be able to appoint and that would change, the the composition of the bench. And so President Trump though, actually leaned into this issue just yesterday morning on possibly replacing Justices Alito and Thomas. And there have been more and more speculation and rumblings that Justice Alito may be looking at retirement, after this session in 2026 ends. So it's become a little bit more than just academic. So, this coming from cnn. President Trump, seems to be leaning in on the idea that elderly conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarice Thomas might think about a conveniently timed retirement this year. Trump couched his comments to Fox businesses Maria Bartiromo in respect for the jurisprudence and decision making of both Justices. But he also repeatedly gestured at the political utility of retiring them soon, which obviously can't be ignored. I mean that's, that's just the reality of this. And so Trump said of Alito, I think he's one of the great justices of all time. It'd be nice to say now I have somebody for 40 years. So Trump said he already has a short list of possible replacements and alluded to how Justices can preserve their ideology on the court for decades to come by allowing for like minded replacements. So where do we go from here? Well, let's welcome in Mike Donnelly who is a constitutional law professor. he has been, he's an attorney as well. He's been a, law professor at Patrick, Henry College. And he's done a lot for Regent as well. And you know, is a great advocate for conservative justices as well on the Supreme Court. So Mike, thanks so much for joining. And you know, my first question on this though, just the practical reality of the Senate which would have to provide their consent, not just their advice. they would have to affirm, a nominee of President Trump. Are we at a point right now in 2026 that we could even get a confirmation from the US Senate of a like minded Alito or Thomas, like justice, even if all things happened and President Trump was able to nominate someone.
Mike Donnelly: Well, Jenna, as always, great to be with you. And just to clarify, I'm not currently teaching Constitutional law, but I did for a long, long time and I pay attention. but I, appreciate that.
You said something about how SCOTUS picks are a major election issue
you know, I have to start with first things first. we'll come back to your question, but I just have to remind everybody that, you know, you said something in your monologue opening there about SCOTUS making headlines as it always does, and how SCOTUS picks are a major election issue. And I just want go, want to go on the record and Say, I hate that the constitutional founders never intended to, for the court to make headlines and to be a major election issue. I don't think. you know, and what you're saying is that the federal government has become so important, so powerful, that this is what we hang on every day, what the Supreme Court's going to say about this or about that. You know, Article 3 of the Constitution says the Court is there to decide cases and controversies, not to strike down state laws, not to strike down the laws that Congress passes, not to be a fixture in our lives telling us what we think about this or whether, you know, men can marry men or boys can be in girls sports. Right. We're supposed to be governing ourselves. That's how a republic works. We're not supposed to be governed by nine people sitting in Washington D.C. so I just got to get, get that out there for the record.
Jenna Ellis: Okay, yes, and yes. And I know that getting that off your chest, we have, I fully agree with that. And I so wish that we did not have to focus on the Supreme Court and their opinions and basically the, the oligarchy that they have become and the nine robed, tyrants that the founders never intended. so here we are. We can talk about solutions to that, of course, and we have extensively, on this program.
Are the Republicans going to even keep the Senate after the midterm elections
But while we're in the current system that we are, unfortunately, the U.S. senate, I mean, can they confirm?
Mike Donnelly: Well, I think so. it is a political question. Right. So one key question is, is, are the Republicans going to even keep the Senate? That's something that some people are talking about. I personally think it's very likely, but it's not one, ah, hundred percent. It's possible that they could lose it. If they do, you can kiss, you know, you know, confirming any conservative goodbye until the Senate goes back to the Republicans hand, or do they leave us lose a seat or two. And does that now mean that it's even harder to confirm some, somebody who's a true conservative? you know, Chuck Grassley, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, floated very recently Mike Lee and Ted Cruz as names, who we would like to suggest as being put on the court. You know, the Senate hasn't, The Senate has not lost a senator to the Supreme Court in a really long time. The last time was back in the 40s. Three senators were appointed, by FDR during the 30s and 40s, I think hasn't happened in a really long time. I think Mike Lee would be a fantastic Supreme Court Justice. I have a Hard time imagining Ted Cruz sitting and listening as much as, justices have to do, but he would be brilliant as well. Ah, so could they get confirmed? Well, the Senate, you know, would the Senate deny one of their own? I don't know. We live in a new era. But I would think that if Mike Lee were appointed, he would get a very favorable hearing, and he could, get confirmed. You know, Trump's short list. I'm not sure what his shortlist is. He, you know, there are a number of names that have been talked about. You've got Andrew, oldham, who's the 5th Circuit judge. He's 47 years old. Naomi Rao, who's on the D.C. circuit. She's 52. She's an Indian American. You got James Poe, Southeast Asian. He's, on the 5th Circuit. He's 52. Amal to par has been talked about. he's kind of institutionalist, so I don't know what other names he's got on his list. these are people that have been talked about. but, you know, should Justice Alito and Justice Thomas retire? I don't think so. They're excellent. you know, if they want to retire, I would say okay. I mean, they should be able to decide what they want to do with their lives. But these are two of the best justices on the court. I would hate to see them go.
Jenna Ellis: I would, too. And I think that the only reason to have them go is to get someone in that same model for the next, you know, hopefully about 40 years. Because, I mean, the unfortunate reality is that Justice Thomas will not live forever. I mean, I wish that he would just to be able to be on the bench for so long. But, you know, they are getting, advanced. And we saw what happened with the Democrats where Ginsburg, waited and didn't retire, and then was sort of probably trying to wait out Trump and then ultimately passed away in office, and Trump got to replace that seat. And so that's, I think, the vein of where conservatives are questioning the. The wisdom of retiring. But, but not just the. The. The composition of the Senate after the midterm elections. The. The question about, you know, whether a Justice, would get confirmed. Now, the talk is that if Alito retires this June, then Trump would want to, replace that seat before the November election. And so that's kind of the timeline that, at least it appears a lot of people are floating. And so with the current composition of the Senate, where, yes, Republicans have a very, very, very slight majority, but. But you know, we do have the nuclear option at least as it relates to the justices. And so Vice, President J.D. vance could cast a tie breaking vote. and you know, so we only need the, the 51. Is that possible for such a conservative like Alito or Thomas? And I think you're right that it depends on who that conservative is. I mean if it's someone like a Mike Lee, who I think would be in that same vein, I think he'd be fantastic. That would probably be an easier sell to the Senate who it's, it's, you know, a colleague of theirs versus, you know, someone else who's been floated like perhaps a Kristin Wagoner who you know, has been the CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom for the last few years just because, she and her organization, you know, have presided over the, the filings of lawsuits like 303 Creative Masterpiece, the, you know, a lot of these cases that have dealt with religious freedom. And so to the Senate, she may appear to be more of a Christian conservative ideologue than someone like a Mike Lee that they may find more palpable. So it probably does depend on, you know, the identity of the nominee, it always does. But just even it's somebody who we would consider. Okay, these are all in the same vein. They're equally, you know, green listed as far as we're concerned. The Senate might look at them a little differently. So how do you think, if Alito, for example, retires in June, Trump nominates someone right away and the goal is to get them seated before the November election. who do you see as, besides, you know, Mike Lee or Ted Cruz? Who would else would you see as maybe being able to get past the Senate in that type of scenario?
Mike Donnelly: Well, it would have to be somebody who's currently a sitting judge. I would think you're not going to get someone like Kristin Wagner who clerked at the Supreme Court and has done really great work. But I think, you know, some of the moderate Republicans would have a lot of ammunition to be like, what? This person's never been a judge and they don't have a track record. And it would take a lot longer to meet a timeline that you've just laid out. which, you know, Justice Alito, you know, I mean he's 76, going on 77. I think, he's younger than Justice Thomas, who is 70. So Max Alito is 75, he'll be 76. Thomas is 77. By the way, Justice Thomas has said he's going to serve until 2034. So I don't see him retiring, unless something serious happens. And Justice Alito is in pretty good health, although he recently was hospitalized. So, you know, they're talking about it. He's got a book coming out in, October. you know, so there is this talk about him retiring. I think that in terms of people, you know, you need a judge from an appeals court, some of the names that I mentioned before, maybe a Supreme Court judge from a state potentially. I haven't really thought about any of those. But there are a number of states where he could pull from people like Clint Bullock down in Arizona or, you know, maybe somebody from Alabama. But again, you know, you need somebody who's got some track record to get quickly through the Senate. I don't think anybody could get more quickly through the Senate than Mike Lee. And I think Mike Lee would be.
You'd replace Alito with someone we know very well
I think he'd be just phenomenal. He would carry on. He clerked for. I think he clerked for Alito twice. so, you know, you'd be replacing Alito with an Alito clerk and somebody we know very well. so that. To me, that seems like a great idea.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Yeah. And, And there's. There are a few others that have, been at least on the AFA action, Greene List. And, I'm hopeful to have Phil, Jaragi, who is our, center for Judicial Renewal senior Counsel on next week to talk about this more. But, the Greene List, currently that has been provided with all the research supporting that. And by the way, you can find that at afaaction.net forward/cjr for center for Judicial Renewal. And then there's, a link there for Supreme Court prospects. And, you know, one of the, interesting ones that's also on the Greene List there. there are a couple of judges, including Kyle Duncan, James Ho, John Sauer is actually on the list who, you know, currently, serves. Ah, in the doj. And also Andrew Bailey, who I think would be a phenomenal choice, even though he hasn't been a judge, of course, was the, attorney General for Missouri and now is, the deputy director over at the FBI. and I think just his view of jurisprudence was. Would be amazing. But to your point, do you think that even though, you know, the left has confirmed people, like Justice Kagan, who, you know, was never a judge before she went onto the Supreme Court, but, you know, but was confirmed anyway. I mean, we're in a little Bit different of a posture here. But do you think that somebody as phenomenal as an Andrew Bailey would have a difficult time with confirmation?
Mike Donnelly: I feel like I'm looking at the list here. These are great names you've got on this AFA action, Supreme Court prospects. And I also see that you've read, you've put some reds on some of the judges, and I think those are appropriate. You know, Naomi Rao, Boomite, Tapar Walker. I do. I think, you know, this is a question of what's John Thune going to do? Is John going to buck the president? I don't think he's going to on this. I think, you know, there is a role for the Senate. It's called advice and consent. That's what the Constitution gives it. It's not a veto, although, you know, it's kind of wielded that way a little bit. But, you know, if John Thune says, look, we're going to get behind the President on this, I think he can get the senators behind him. It may take a little while, but I think it can be done. And these are all fantastic things. I mean, Andrew Bailey, Kyle Duncan, James Foe. John Sauer is fantastic as a Solicitor General. of course, you know, I listened to the birthright citizenship case that we talked about recently, and I thought he did an exceptional job there. I think John knows the Constitution in and out. He's litigated it. he would be a great justice. You've got Lawrence Vanliere Dyke on here. I think Kristin Wegg is on here, too. Although Kristin, I think, would be a really hard to get through. Even John Sauer, too, would be hard, I think. You know, if you want something quick, you've got to get somebody who's been a judge, who's got a track record that the Senate can. Can look at and get behind.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. Well. And, you know, the, And this is pure speculation because, I mean, I don't know the answer to this, but. But, you know, in terms of what you've heard in D.C. or kind of, you know, what, others in, in our network of, of lawyers and so forth maybe have been speculating. Trump clearly, is a little disenchanted with Leonard Leo, who. Of the Federalist Society, who. He really took, all of that suggestion. I mean, Leonard Leo was basically the point person, for those who don't know, in Trump's first term, for the nominees that ultimately were selected, and, there could have been better ones. I was not a fan of Ah Kavanaugh I do think, and I wrote at the time, and appeared prolifically on that topic on media, before I worked for President Trump. About Kavanaugh, I'm glad to see that once Trump nominated him, he didn't withdraw that support based on just accusations that literally had no proof. it was just a way to try to get to Kavanaugh and, you know, me, to him. So I'm glad that he maintained that support. Support. But overall, he wasn't my first pick. Right.
Mike: Donald Trump says he has a list of potential Supreme Court nominees
So. So Leonard Leo had a lot of say, and Trump went in, in 2016, saying, I have a list. I'm going to stick to that list. And these are people that you guys, meaning the conservative movement as a whole, are behind, and I'm going to give you what you want. And he. He really did deliver on that, whether or not they were our top choices, I think a lot of people, even including Phil Duragi, would say, that as much as he initially loved any Amy Coney Barrett, she's been kind of a dis. but overall, who, who, Mike, do you think that President Trump is listening to now that we don't have as much of a Federalist Society influence? so he says that he has a list, but, I mean, is this, you know, my best guess is, okay, probably, you know, Steven Miller, America, First Legal. He's probably, you know, talking to everybody that, you know, he calls, but actually putting the names on the list. You know, are you aware of, you know, anyone else besides those who are already in the White House, like, you know, Steven Miller, Ed Martin, who's, the Pardons attorney. I know he still talks to Cleta Mitchell frequently. You know, there are a few people I know he would consult. But are you aware of kind of a point person for how he created this list?
Mike Donnelly: I'm not, Jenna. I don't have any of that kind of inside information. And, so I'm sure he has people like you're talking about now who he's listening to. Donald Trump learned a lot between term one and term two, and then we see that by what he's doing and how he's doing it. And, I think he's holding some of these cards closer right now. And, you know, look, the man is a consummate negotiator, and he knows it's going to be a negotiation when we go back to. Excuse me. Looking at how things have happened, I mean, he could float a name for one reason and then pull that back that's what happened with George Bush, remember Harriet Myers? And then we ended up getting, Alito.
Marlin Stutzman: Right.
Mike Donnelly: And that was great. Turning out to be one of the best justices we've had on the Supreme Court, who we got, who wrote the Dobbs, decision. So, you know, Donald Trump knows what he's doing. I believe he's listening to a, ah, variety of voices, and getting input. And I hope he's listening to AFA action. And I worked with Phil for a number of years, on some of his work when he was vetting Supreme Court justices. And I'm so glad that AFA is doing this work. I hope that the people who Donald Trump is listening to are listening to you guys. you know, the Federalist Society is a great organization, has done really important work, you know, in the conservative movement, helping advance originalism. And, so I think we have to recognize that that's a voice that, maybe Donald Trump isn't listening to as much. Maybe. But there are a lot of voices out there, and I hope he's listening to a variety of people, including the ones that you've talked about.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I agree. And I think, you know, and that's really the, the main thrust of AFA action is to greenlight, studies, have extensive research, and also red list as well, you know, the ones that shouldn't be selected, that. I really don't think that Trump has any intention of selecting anyone who is, you know, remotely, leftist, has, like, for example, we know that Judge Boseberg isn't going to be on his list. Right. I mean, there's a few people I think we can rule out, but, but who exactly he's listening to. And also I think when he decides to release the list is going to be very interesting. And my suspicion is, and I could be wrong, because Trump does, you know, all kinds of unpredictable things, but my suspicion is, he's not going to release that until it, until there's a retirement announcement. And then he'll go ahead and say, okay, here's the few people I'm considering, and then maybe float a few names or even have, you know, some of his allies and, influencers and associates kind of float some names to see the public perception, to kind of see where the Senate is. And, you know, as you said, overall, at the end of the day, it is a negotiation. And that's how he approached the Supreme Court in the first term. I mean, he wanted the evangelical base to support him when initially they didn't and he basically guaranteed that, you know, here's the list and I will select from this list. And he delivered. And, and he delivered for the base, I think, honestly. Unfortunately, he delivered more on his promises than the evangelical base delivered on theirs, which is part of the reason that he didn't, see the evangelical base as much, ah, necessary in 2024, unfortunately, in terms of standing up for certain things like, traditional marriage, biblical marriage, you know, some of those things. But, but to him, you know, all of this is a negotiation. How exactly, this works itself out, you know, we'll see. But it's very possible that, we could see, see another Supreme Court justice, for Donald Trump, and then it will be four out of the nine, which is amazing. But we've got to go to break here. Mike Donnelly is sticking with us for some more headlines when we come right back here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.
Jenna Ellis talks with Mike Donnelly about emergency powers ahead of November elections
Marlin Stutzman: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm still here with my special guest this morning, Mike Donnelly, who's an attorney and, originalist and, you know, someone that you really need to follow on X at Donnelly Speaks, for his wit, his perspective and occasional snark, which is, you know, something that we always appreciate about him. So, so, Mike, you know, the other, topic that's not so much in the news right now, but something that overall I think that we need to, consider moving forward, especially as there are governor's races that are a very big deal, coming up this November as well. It's not just the composition of Congress for the midterms that everybody kind of focuses on. there are a lot of governorships that are open, for this election, especially including who will replace Ron DeSantis in my home state of Florida. And I really, really wish that we could just extend that into perpetuity and you know, he could just become the king of Florida. I'd be okay with that. One exception to the Constitution for Ron descendants. That's it. But unfortunately, he's term limited. He loves term limits. We do, too. I'm, I'm mostly kidding, but, but that's going to be a very big deal. And so in the context of governors, we saw not that long ago, I mean, it's been six years, but really not that long, ah, since 2020 and the utter abuse of executive emergency powers that, basically were just delegated, completely. The legislative power was delegated to the executive to have emergency powers kind of extend into Perpetuity for as long as the executive, deemed it necessary. And so after 2020 and the whole, you know, Covid disaster and, kind of, you know, public, trial, I think, of how much we were all willing, to put up with our rights and liberties being trampled. there was a call for legislative changes to emergency powers, and that really, isn't in the news much anymore. and so where are we at in terms of emergency powers and ensuring that something like, Covid and some kind of public health crisis, quote, unquote, can't infringe upon our liberties moving forward?
Mike Donnelly: Jenna, I'm so glad you're talking about this. This is a really important question. And, you know, it's, six years, but we all remember, like, it was just yesterday when the federal government led the way and then the states just followed suit. And what an insane response that we had to live through for what was that? two or three years. And the impact that it had on so many people, so many people negatively on kids closing down all the schools. Of course, as homeschoolers, we continued on, and the schools tried to do zoom school, but didn't work out very well. The damage that was done by the way that was handled was, just indescribable and hard to quantify. We're still dealing with the effects of it, but there's some good news coming out of that. Right? A lot of states did realize that their emergency powers laws allowed governors way too much leeway. And so a number of states took action in the 22, 23, 24 timeframe to limit governors abilities to declare, emergencies, limited the circumstances, and also limited the duration. You know, my own state of West Virginia, you, know, we had Jim justice, who was elected as a Democrat in 2016, then became a quote, unquote Republican. not really. Now he's our U.S. senator. And he, used emergency powers, and he basically, followed, what Mike DeWine was doing in Ohio, which wasn't very good. So he was just a little Mike DeWine. Everything Ohio did, West Virginia did. And it was. It was. It wasn't the worst. It wasn't like NewSong York or Michigan, but it wasn't Florida. And that's what we wanted in West Virginia. We wanted what Florida was doing. We wanted what Ron DeSantis was doing, which was, hey, we can make these decisions for ourselves, not government's role to tell people how to do this. You know, let people make their decisions. And unlike the federal government also, that was trying to Put the thumb on all of us and put their food on our throat. And also, by the way, what interfering with Facebook and all the things that came out of that was horrible. But, you know, states have passed a lot of legislation, so that's a good thing. There are still some states that are dealing with this, and some states went in the wrong direction, actually, like California.
Marlin Stutzman: Shocker.
Mike Donnelly: so I think we learned some things out of it. but there's still more to learn. And I just want to say one thing about governors. You know, you're right. You said governors are important, and they really are. Going back to my, point earlier in the conversation about federalism, if we're going to reassert true federalism and reduce the size and scope and power of the federal government, it's going to come from the states. It's going to come from governors like Ron DeSantis leading and showing the example. And I want to point out two people who are actually leaving the U.S. senate. You think nobody would ever leave the U.S. senate, but you've got two senators, Marsha, Blackburn and Tommy Tuberville, who are leaving the US Senate to go back to their states to run for and almost certainly win as governors. So I find that encouraging.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely.
Jenna Bennett: Emergency powers really came down to a Supreme Court decision
And, you know, speaking of, emergency powers and all of this, as you were saying, you know, how much, we had to endure as a nation, and, you know, some states obviously more than others. Mainly, you know, the contrast between California, NewSong York versus Florida, a lot of that, unfortunately, yet again, came down to a Supreme Court decision. Right. If the Supreme Court had not, ruled the way that it did in the OSHA mandate case and, the Biden case, I. I think that the COVID narrative would have continued for as long, really until Trump, took office again. I mean, I think that the Biden administration was planning on continuing that to try to infringe upon our freedoms and liberties for as long as they could get away with it. And it's unfortunate that it had to come down to a Supreme Court opinion to our point earlier in the show, that all of these things really shouldn't come down to that. But part of the reason that the executive, emergency powers were so important to, reconsider and legislate on, on the state level is that we saw during COVID there were so many states that had basically just ceded to the governors to be able to exercise emergency authority over and above anything that the legislature did. And we, even without legislative consent, they could just continue to extend their own emergency powers into perpetuity for as long as the executive deemed fit. And so that, really goes against the non delegation clause of the US Constitution, because emergency powers are supposed to be just for what they actually purport to be, an emergency. A very limited, concrete, clearly defined time period to deal with an emergency. Then if states want to legislate accordingly, it can go before the full body and there can be the deliberative process with the constituents input. And that didn't happen during COVID And that was the main problem was that then there were so much power that the founders never intended in state governors, and they basically became petty tyrants of their own states. And so with the states that have legislated, accordingly after 2020 and the whole, Covid narrative, what have they changed about emergency powers?
Mike Donnelly: Well, that's exactly what they have changed, Jenna. The core changes have been to not allow this extension ad infinitum, at the governor's discretion. They basically said, no, you have 30 days or 60 days, and then the legislature must act. The governor cannot extend it on his own. The legislatures have to vote to extend it and then legislate accordingly. So that's exactly what they've changed. All those states, that have made changes, those are the primary changes that they've made. But you know, you talk about emergencies going on forever. I mean, this is a problem at the federal government level as well. I mean, there are emergency states of emergencies that have been going on for decades, like Jimmy Carter's Iran emergency, declaration, which by the way, maybe it needed to go on for decades because, you know, Iran declared war on us back in 1979, and we never declared war on them until recently, and we didn't even declare war. Donald Trump is just doing what he has decided needs to be done in the best interest of the United States. Okay, fine. but the point being that there are a lot of other emergencies. And what that does is it gives the president just all kinds of authority to spend money and to do things. And again, that's really not what these emergency powers are supposed to be for. They're supposed to be limited in duration for particular things. And it's been, it's been abused by all of the presidents. and Congress has made some efforts to change that. There have been some bills introduced, but they just haven't been able to get it through. And of course, then you've got to get it past the president. And what president wants his power to be curtailed? Even Trump. Right.
Mike Donnelly: So I don't know. I'm not sure if we're going to see significant reform even at the federal level.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, it's so amazing to me that as much as this current Congress, even including some Republicans, genuinely just hate Trump, regardless of what he's doing, it's surprising to me that Congress, even under that theory, and we can disagree with that, but then wouldn't do the right thing by curtailing overall presidential power that we would agree with even if the motivation was wrong. It's actually surprising to me that Congress isn't reining in, the federal government's power by their own constitutional prerogative. I mean, the Congress and even the members of Congress are looking to the Supreme Court to do it, which is the totally wrong thing. It's like they don't even recognize their own power under the Constitution.
Mike Donnelly: No, they don't want to exercise it because they don't want to be held accountable. They want other people to be accountable so they don't have to be. And this is the problem we've been dealing with for 75 years, ever since Congress started to delegate its authority to the administrator, to the executive branch, started doing that in the 30s, 40s under FDR, Truman, and Congress was like, we can just pass a law, tell the executive branch to write rules, and then we don't have to do anything. This is great. And nobody can blame us because we can just say, well, don't blame us, blame the executive. And that's what's happening. And so the incentive is for Congress to do that because they don't want to do the work. And frankly, again, going back to the whole problem, the federal government is too big for one body to manage. It's just too big. You need an executive branch, powerful one, to administer a entity as big as the federal government. You want it to be efficient. You want it to be able to do things if you want to do things, which I don't want it to do things. But if you're going to have it do things and take all that money and spend it all, it's got to, you know, it's just naturally going to have that level of power and, and try to take power back from an, a bureaucracy like that. Not easy to do because it has money, it has interests. You know, the incentives in Congress are not to be held accountable. They don't want to be held accountable. They want to point the finger at somebody else. So that's fundamentally part of the problem we have to grapple with as a Country is our all articles in the Constitution are not being, not operating the way they were intended to operate. And I'll point it back to yesterday was, was Tax Day, April 15. Everybody paid their taxes, and we benefited from the, one big beautiful bill. My taxes were better. I think a lot of other people's were as well. So that's great. But, but what does that mean? All that money still going to the federal government? And that's why we have a federal government out of control, because it can stick its hands in our pockets anytime it wants to and just take money out. And the founders never intended that. They did not give the federal government the direct taxing power for that reason. Okay? And it wasn't until the 16th amendment in 20, 19, 13 that was passed that gave them that authority. And now what do we have? We have the monster that we have right now. So if we want to do something about it, we've got to deal with cutting off the oxygen to the fire, you know, stopping the bleeding, whatever analogy you want to use. And that means getting rid of the income tax, in my opinion. That's, that's the one thing we could do to really make some reform that would affect the size and scope of the federal government. I mean, look, Trump has done a lot of good things. This federal government is smaller than it's ever been. you know, the one big beautiful bill has made some changes, but if we're going to really fundamentally reform how the power the federal government has, we got to deal with that.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, 100%. And, and that's really the biggest breakdown of the federal government is the legislative branch and Congress not actually doing their job. And I think it's absolutely spot on that they don't want accountability. They just want to be performative in front of the cameras. They just want to have their little intramural spats and they, want fame and power and, you know, stock trading and all of these other things. And, you know, the, on the Republican side, the Mar A Lago invites, and on the Democrats side, you know, just to be able to, to be obstructionists, for Trump. And they don't actually want to get anything done on either side. So, we've got to take a break here, but Mike Donnelly, really appreciate it, as always. And again, follow him on X at Donnelly Speaks.
Jenna Ellis: Congress should decide birthright citizenship, not the Supreme Court
And speaking of another thing that Congress should be doing that they're not, we mentioned earlier in the program about the Supreme Court deciding a birthright citizenship. Well, that should be Congress's job. And so even though you know, we can debate about how, the Supreme Court should opine and decide that case. It really shouldn't have come before them to begin with. This needs to be, Congress legislating according to their vested authority from article, one, section eight of the U.S. constitution. That gives them the subject matter of establishing a uniform rule of immigration naturalization. They can, decide birthright citizenship. So I wrote a piece that you need to read this week in the Daily Caller. the title is, Jenna Ellis, Congress should, decide birthright citizenship, not the Supreme Court. All right, we will be right back
Mike Donnelly: with more good article.
Jenna Ellis: Thank you.
Jenna Ellis: Congress needs to set higher standards for itself
Marlin Stutzman: Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of things that Congress really needs to fix and they're not, is higher standards across Congress, regardless of party. And this call was from Congressman Marlon Stutzman from the great state of Indiana. And, you know, it's. It's so true. And we've been talking about, the, the lack of moral standards across Congress, throughout this week with, the resignation of both Eric Swalwell and then also the Republican, Gonzalez, and, looking at the uniform assessment of both parties that, yes, their actions warrant resignation from Congress, but shouldn't that then motivate and warrant Congress actually imposing some standards for themselves and perhaps, creating a standard to say, you know, if you don't abide by this in your personal life, then you are subject to expulsion because under the US Constitution, that prerogative is given, to the House that they can, and the Senate as well, that they can expel their own members. And so, let's welcome in a Congressman Stutzman. And, you know, I think that, expulsion for lack of good behavior, for example, which is the same thing that, Justices and federal judges can be impeached for. That's something that really does need to change in Congress.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, Jenna. Ah, I would agree. I mean, we need to hold ourselves accountable. We also need to hold ourselves, to a higher standard. You know, the one thing about, whenever there. The Bible talks about leadership roles, that leadership is held to a higher standard. And, Congress falls in that category, of course. And you know, whether it's a member of Congress, whether it's a pastor, whether it's a business owner, a CEO, or anybody in leadership. I mean, we have rules even in our office, down to, you know, anybody who's handling, the internship program, that there has to be guidelines and, restrictions on any sort of relationships because we don't want Somebody in authority taking advantage of their position of authority over someone else. And so this is a, you know, it seems like common sense, basic, you know, basic morality. But I'll tell you, you know, I've known Eric Swalwell for a long time. I didn't know Tony Gonzalez as much, but Eric Swalwell has always been, ah, kind of greasy to me, and also very arrogant. And so, you know, I guess I'm really not surprised. of course, very disappointed, especially with the rape accusations. But, every member of Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, we need to be held to high standards. And, ultimately, I know the American people, our voters will. But I think as soon as these cases come up and there is evidence, especially if there's criminal evidence, then, Congress needs to take a serious look and act quickly.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, a lot of this is really boiled down to more political convenience. And, you know, I was talking, yesterday with, one of my pastors, actually about, you know, with how the standard of morality seems to just be a political convenience, for Congress, and it really shouldn't be that way. And so is there discussion, among the leadership, I mean, at least, like Speaker Johnson, for example, who himself is, you know, a very devout Christian. he has a high moral ethic for, himself and his family, which I deeply respect. And, you know, proposing some kind of code of conduct or, you know, something that governs this, Congress. I mean, obviously that could be changed in future Congresses, but, to at least maybe establish that kind of protocol.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah, no, and you know what, Jenna? I would actually argue because, I've been, you know, in Congress from 2010-17, then I was in the private sector from 2018 to 2024, now back in Congress that, there is, with all of the camera phones, with all of the. I mean, politics is a. It's the art of taking the other person, you know, down a notch, if possible. You know, people are trying to climb up and whenever they can, you know, find somebody doing something inappropriate or unethical, it's, you know, reported generally. And, you know, but I see when I was in the private sector, you know, even business owners, businessmen that I worked with that were living inappropriate, lives that, you know, no one was holding them accountable in a newspaper or on TV or on a radio station or on the floor of Congress. And so I do believe that, you know, we as members of Congress need to hold one another accountable. And, we have to. You know, we're a representative of the United States society and as a whole, to the rest of the world and also to our country, of course. And so, you know, whenever we have an Ethics committee that these cases go to immediately if there's question, and the Ethics Committee works through those, and oftentimes it's done quietly, because we do want to make sure that if there is innocence, that that is protected. But at the same time, when there is strong evidence and of course, criminal activity, or criminal investigation, then there's. There's more room to act as a whole body in Congress.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, and there is definitely a, A place, for due process, even within the context of. Of expulsion, or, you know, or process that Congress may determine, through the Ethics Committee and so forth. Because we've also seen the political calculation on the other side where false accusations can damage or end a person's political, ah, career. And that is totally unwarranted. So, absolutely there needs to be a balance. but it seems like there are fewer of the false accusations when it comes to some of this stuff that, like in Swalwell's case, I mean, there were journalists that were on X basically saying they've known that for the last 13 years. And it's like, well, great. Why didn't you report it until it came out now? I mean, because it seems so politically convenient. so where do you see that balance then? being struck between accusations that are false? And we've seen those, you know, hurled at President Trump, for example, like, oh, you know, oh, he's a racist. Oh, he's, you know, this, that and the other. That clearly has no grounding in fact, that the left is trying to use simply to damage him politically versus holding members of Congress and also presidents. And, you know, everybody in public office actually accountable, for the deeds that they do, not just in office, but also their personal life. Because that does matter. Having a moral and upright character.
Marlin Stutzman: Yeah. You know, and I think it goes back to all of us as individuals, you know, whether we, you know, if we know something is wrong, if somebody, you know, whether you follow the Matthew 18 model and maybe you don't know that person in that close enough of a sense. But if you have that ability to approach them one on one, if they refuse to hear you and you feel like the evidence is strong, then you need to go two with two people. And you would, of course, go to leadership. I mean, I've run into cases myself with other members that I knew were doing something inappropriate. And so I went straight to the leadership of the caucus and said, I think we have a problem. And then, of course, you know, and many times the speaker, of the House, they don't. I mean, they're not allowing these things, and oftentimes they take care of them personally. in the case of Tony Gonzalez, I was one of the first members to call for him to, not run for reelection. And he did decide not to run for reelection. The case with him, I mean, the girl that he was having an affair committed suicide. You know, I don't know for sure if there's a criminal investigation going on. I'm sure. I know there is an ethics investigation with him, and I think he made the right choice by stepping down. but of course, in the case of Eric Swalwell, I mean, this young lady and the other ladies that are stepping forward and announcing what happened to them, that's very brave. I mean, and I think it's a difference. There's a double standard oftentimes on the left and the right. but, you know, somebody steps up on the right, making an accusation towards anyone on the left, or if they would know something, they're just immediately beat down. But in this case, it was just so strong and evident, and, you know, people say, well, why did she do it? Now, I tell you, that's a hard thing to do, especially for a young lady in that situation that doesn't have the same platform or the same, you know, I mean, here, you know, Eric Swalwell's running for governor of California. He's got a huge platform and, has the ability to speak loudly. So I think that that's, you know, difficult for each person to make that decision themselves. But, boy, when they step forward and do what's right, I think that's always rewarded.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. Well, so well said. And I hope that, Speaker Johnson and maybe Leader Thune can, you know, get together and, maybe have just a standard, basic code of conduct that hopefully members of Congress shouldn't have any. Any problem living up to. but I really appreciate, you always having the biblical worldview and the moral position, for even things, you know, like a code of conduct in Congress. So thank you so much. And listeners, can follow, Representative Marlon Stutzman at Rep. Stutzman across platforms. And as always, you can reach me and my team, Jenna afr.net.
