This debate examines whether President Donald Trump upholds or violates constitutional norms, with one side arguing he violates multiple constitutional provisions including the War Powers Act, Due Process Clause, and First Amendment, while the other side contends that historical precedent shows previous presidents have similarly expanded executive power and that constitutional interpretation should consider how the Constitution has actually been implemented throughout American history.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Destiny Reacts To Michael Knowles Live Debate With Mehdi HasanAdded:
I want to watch this. Why did Michael Nolles agree to do this debate?
That's what I want to know. Is it because I wonder is it the Daily Wire's viewership is down or he's he has to branch out a bit or >> That's very awkward. [laughter] Anybody know any good jokes?
[cough] >> Oh, and another question would be, did they get paid for this? I wonder.
[clears throat] Yeah.
[cough] Heat.
Right. Good evening everyone. My name is Josh Baliski and I'm the events director for the Dartmouth Political Union. To discuss constitutional norms under President Trump, the DPU is proud to host Michael >> Wait, somebody said better audio.
Clean audio and I'm the events director for the Dartmouth political discuss constitutional norms under President Trump. The DPU is proud to host Michaels and Medie Hassan. Founded in 2018, the Dartmouth Political Union is Dartmouth's preeminent nonpartisan studentled political organization dedicated to fostering open discourse and challenging preconceptions. To this end, we host speakers from across the political spectrum, organize both student and expert debates, and hold campuswide discussions on the issues that matter most. Our event tonight is the eighth in a series of expert debates, the DPU debate series, critical discourse in the age of disagreement. This series puts into conversation some of the most pressing and controversial topics facing our nation, promoting respectful discourse and controver and challenging preconceptions. This series was brought to campus with the support of the office of the president and Dartmouth dialogues. Tonight's event would not have been possible without the support of our donors and the office of student life, particularly president Block and Assistant Dean McKenna.
>> Jesus.
They're clapping, I imagine.
>> Both so much for being here. Um, I can hope only hope that one day I have as impressive of an intro as you guys both just had. Um, and thank you so much to the audience and to everyone watching online. Uh, the way this debate will function is we will begin by doing a moderated Q&A where I will ask a question directed at one of you. We will alternate who begins every question and you will each have opportunity to give a two-minute response and then whoever started we'll have time for a one minute rebuttal and then after the moderator Q&A we will switch over to audience questions. So start getting them ready.
Um so to start off before specific issues I would like to start with foundational question. What in practical terms do you believe it means for a president to uphold or deviate from the constitution and does this differ from upholding constitutional norms? If so, how? We'll start with you, Medie, and you can each give a two-minute response and a one minute rebuttal.
>> Wow.
>> Uh, yeah. So, thank you for having me.
Great to be here. I'm actually disappointed with that vote of 7822 cuz you know what they say, the only way for me is down.
>> Yeah. So, >> oh, I'm guessing I hate it when they do this is when they do uh to see who won the debate, how many people were persuaded because Yeah. If you start off where it's like 8020, like 80% of the audience sides with me, 20% sides with the other guy. If he convinces like a few people, he's probably going to win.
And he's got 80 people to convince. I've only got 20. They're probably more hardcore dug in if it's like the odds are that skewed like gh.
>> Good luck to me. Um I would say constitutional norms very vague. I'm not sure actually what that means apart from a historical precedent, what other people have done. And I think tonight, uh, I'm guessing, and Michael can tell me I'm wrong, that a lot of Michael's argument will be, well, other presidents did this, a lot of what aboutism, a lot of see what X did, see what Y did, see what Obama did, see what Biden did. And I think we have just have to be very clear here. We're talking about Donald Trump tonight. Donald Trump is generous.
There's never been a president like him before. Certainly not in our lifetimes.
Uh, he's undeniable.
>> Gave your answer before hearing them.
What was the question to this is um, what do we think of when we think of a president adhering to constitutional norms?
Um I mean it I guess it really depends. I would say I would say there's like a spirit of how the government works and the idea is that you are in good faith trying to work with the system to bring whatever changes you want to see uh about understanding that sometimes you lose and when you lose it's okay and you try to win. I don't know. It's very broad. I guess it would depend. I I would have to prepare a particular answer for this debate though. I'd have to sit down and write one out, which I did when I was debating Laya.
Violating both constitutional norms, i.e. presidents, but also the constitution, the amendments, the articles of the constitution in this country. He's doing it all the time. Uh at this point, at this stage, anyone who tells you Donald Trump is not violating the constitution is gaslighting you and or a member of his country. Right?
That's the facts are very clear.
>> We can go through them in order. I mean, right now, if you look at the Constitution, Donald Trump is violating the annual appropriations clause, the emolements clause, the elections clause, the taxing and spending clause, the take care clause, the declare war clause.
He's also violating the first amendment, the second amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment, the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment, maybe soon the 22nd amendment.
>> And you know, yes, other presidents, go back to your question, have violated norms. Other presidents have certainly violated clauses of the constitution, but no president, certainly not in modern American history, has launched a multi-pronged acrosstheboard open assault on forget norms, on the amendments and articles of our constitution in the space of less than 18 months, right? Yes. Previous presidents have violated perhaps a single constitutional amendment. Sure.
And been called out for it. None of them none of them said they plan to terminate the constitution as Donald Trump once did. None of them said I don't know when they were asked as Trump was on Meet the Press last year, is it the job of the president to uphold the Constitution? I don't know. He said none of them declared themselves to be a king or a dictator even for a day. None of them were rebuked by their own vice president for trying to violate the constitution and the rule of law. What did Mike Pence say? I know Michael's big fan of Mike Pence, so I came specially with a Mike Pence quote. Mike Pence said, "President Trump demanded, I choose between him and our Constitution." If you are pressuring your own vice president to put you above your Constitution, you're not just violating norms, you're violating the Constitution, you're violating your oath of office. And it is very clear tonight, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the Constitution. Forget norms. Let's raise the bar. to the Constitution, to the articles and amendments of the Constitution, to our rights and liberties, to our democracy.
And you don't have to take my word for that tonight. Just take Mike Pence's >> the Mike Pence standard uh of constitutional juristprudence. Okay. Uh wonderful to be here. Thank you all for having me. Uh you know, my my father is a Dartmouth graduate, so I hope I don't do the family too much shame this evening.
>> But I don't think I >> the what? His tie looks [ __ ] Too big.
>> Why? Really?
>> I think it's like the new Trump [ __ ] thing where everybody has like the huge [ __ ] middle area of the tie.
>> Stupid. [clears throat] >> Okay.
>> Well, because we we have to, to Medi's points, we have to narrow in on what exactly we're discussing. What does it mean to uphold the Constitution? And I uh certainly hope that my opponent here does not mean some kind of pedantic literalism that merely looks at the text of the Constitution, though we should certainly do that as well. But to uphold the Constitution, it would seem to me entail upholding the what the Constitution has meant, how the Constitution has obtained, how it has in fact governed our country from the beginning through the present. And so, uh, I think my opponent here is is trying to, uh, break me away from citing historical precedent and how other presidents have upheld the Constitution.
And I think that's for very good reason.
If I were in your shoes, I would do the very same because when you look at at how the Constitution has in fact been put into effect in the United States, uh, no reasonable person could could even suggest that Trump is upholding [snorts] it. Uh oh god, you know, if we were to use >> this very limited, pedantic literalist constitution, then we would we would have to disqualify virtually every single president we've ever had from upholding the constitution. All the modern presidents who have uh surveiled on on mass uh all of the great presidents who have violated habius corpus, who have interned people, two two great presidents and two great parties, the uh Republican Abraham Lincoln and the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. But going back even further, we would have to disqualify Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase. We would have to we would actually have to disqualify President Washington because President Washington declared neutrality in the French Revolutionary Wars. And he was accused of violating the Constitution by no less a man than James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
But Madison gets his comeuppance because Madison would be accused of failing to uphold the Constitution when he annexed West Florida. So I think when we take a look at what the constitution has meant, how it has been interpreted by the three co-equal government, adjudicated by the Supreme Court, laws enacted by the congress and then of course the executive power and the president, we will find that uh the constitution prevails. The warnings of the histrionic critics of President Trump who have been promising us that he's on the brink of shredding the constitution for about uh 10 years now, any day now, it's coming.
I think we will find that President Trump is indeed the president and the constitution nevertheless and I think very much for that reason prevails.
Would you like to resp >> the best thing about social media uh you can see what's going on in the world and today I looked at Michael Nulls's tweet advertising this event and underneath the tweet Tim P another podcaster some of you may know posted what looked like a grock generated list of previous presidents who had violated the constitution. So I was able to prep myself for the debate knowing that Michael would all of those examples which he did. Thomas Jefferson, Louisiana Purchied by Congress, Abraham Lincoln and FDR, Civil War and World War II. I don't see either of those things happening right now. We can go through the list. I've already conceded that previous presidents have done unconstitutional things. But Donald Trump has done it in a way that no other president has. In a time frame, no other president's without the excuses that other presidents could at least point to. World War II and the Civil War. You think that's what's happening in America right now when he goes after migrants and Home Depot parking lots? No, that is not what's happening right now. And let's just be very clear, Michael. No one could dispute uh that he's upholding the constitution. He says histrionics.
Do you know who Terry Douty and Nancy Brazil and Amy Santiv and Trevor McFaden?
>> Do you think you can win an Israel Palestine debate against Medy in top form? I would win an Israel Palestine debate against any pro Pal in the world 100%.
>> And we go through the list. Daniel Rodriguez, sorry, excuse me, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., Alan Albbright, Eric Committee, KL Dudet, Justin Lang. We can go through the list. You know who these people are? They are Trumpapp appointed judges who have ruled against Donald Trump since last January in key constitutional cases. First amendment, fifth amendment, sixth amendment, 14th amendment. They've all said Donald Trump what he's doing is violating the constitution. These people are not liberals or Marxists as Steven Miller says. They're not doing histrionics. As Michael says, they are looking at the constitution and even as MAGA judges, they're saying you've gone too far. You have violated these amendments of the constitution. One jud I mean it's it's Trump judges saying this, not me. It's Mike Pence saying this, not me. Michael can make these arguments about liberal hyrionics. The problem is now >> is your is your position closer to Med Hassan or Mark Lean?
>> Is Mark Leven the crazy Is he a conservative talk show host?
>> Is he the British guy that used to fill in for um Rush? I'm making that up, right? I feel like we've watched Mark Le before. I I I don't know. That guy's [ __ ] crazy. But Medusan is a little bit crazy on Israel, too. But but Mark Lean is insanely crazy. I [ __ ] I don't know. I I have no idea. now is that people with eyes and ears who are not magapons see what is happening here.
[sighs] Even better audio.
We're at 2720.
>> Oh [ __ ] It's not starting from the same spot >> right now. When he goes after migrants and Home Depot parking lot, they are looking at the Constitution and even as MAGA judges, they're saying argument about liberal hyrionics. The problem is now is that people with eyes and ears who are not magapans see what is happening here. Donald Trump is doing things the president not done before, including ignoring a 90 Supreme Court ruling.
>> Okay. Um let's try our hardest in the next question to really adhere to Tire regulations.
>> I will right there.
>> Oh, are you going to I saw it and defied it. You at least didn't see it.
>> Wait, it's not that bad, I guess. But like did somebody take the cleaned up audio and use like uh some kind of AI or whatever to like fill what the what was missing. I think that's what happened right that I that's what I feel like I'm hearing.
>> Um [snorts] let's try our hardest in the next question to really adhere to tire regulations.
>> I will but it's right there. Oh, are you a strike?
>> I saw it and defied it.
>> Like that sounded like a bad like um like a Chinese like a kung fu movie dub [laughter] >> regulations.
>> I will. But it's right there.
>> Oh, are you a strike?
[laughter] >> God damn it. Just let me watch the other one. The other one was fine enough.
>> It's over.
>> Deportation on this to hearing and legal >> a Supreme Court ruling.
>> Okay. Um, let's try our hardest. The next question is to really adhere to time and regulations.
>> But it's right there.
>> Oh, are you serious?
>> I saw it and defined it. You already >> Thank you so much for those thoughts.
That was really interesting. Um, Medie, I know you mentioned you talked about ICE immigration. And actually in 2025, the Department of Homeland Security reported record-breaking immigration and enforcement actions with over 600,000 deportations. Given this information, should undocumented immigrants have a right to due process under the Constitution? And if so, can deportations at the rate completed in 2025 be carried out without compromising access to hearings and legal representations?
>> Uh, sure. Uh, yes. Uh, in in most cases, theers who are being deported are entitled to due process of the law. This is not the case necessarily when it comes to revocation of visas which are not some natural or constitutional right but in the case of the people who are being deported uh they are entitled to due process and they are received access actually from uh President Trump uh but not all due process is created equal and the immigration and uh nationality act is uh endured for some 60 years and in other forms for longer uh recognizes that there is a role for expedited uh deportations And uh it's not only President Trump who's insisted upon this, but it's all of his recent predecessors going back to Bill Clinton and George Bush and Barack Obama who uh he contradicts himself sometimes. The Democrats when they want to appeal to the people who voted for the mass deportations and in the vote, they pretend that Barack Obama deported lots and lots of people as many as Trump. But then when they want to say the deportations were unconstitutional, he really barely deported anybody. But Joe Biden did the same thing and and Trump as well. Uh my opponent says that no one has acted as quickly in these egregious displays as President Trump. That of course is facially absurd because President Trump is only the second president in American history to win a non-consecutive second term. So he's just had longer than any other president other than FDR who certainly did upset constitutional norms. But regard >> Well, I think he said in the last year and a half, didn't he? Did I misunderstand that?
>> Uh they do have due process. He is uh following that. And the mass deportations really could be much larger. Uh let's not forget the great Democrat President Truman who deported uh near threequarters of a million foreigners, Mexicans. Uh he did so with scant scanty uh due process of the law.
That was in 52. Follow President Eisenhower 1954 deported 1.1 million in operation [ __ ] There was not even really the suggestion that either of those men had violated the law by deporting foreigners who don't really have any right to be here. So, President Trump is very much within the mainstream of of uh the Constitution in his deportations and frankly I wish you were more.
>> So, uh just to respond very quickly on on the on the on the main point about deporting foreigners, you said at the end, who have no right to be here?
Notice the phrasing deporting foreigners have no right. How do we know they have no right to be here? Due process unless they have due process. That's the whole point. When you end up deporting American citizens, do you know they deported American citizens? Uh Terry Douty is a Trump judge who last year ruled that a 2-year-old American child who was deported with her mother against her father's wishes who was in the US.
He said, "We just the administration just deported an American citizen without any meaningful process." That was a Trump judge's verdict when he heard what ICE had done. Right. In Minnesota, another Trump judge, her name is Nancy Brazil, appointed by Donald Trump, she said the government asserts the right to arrest thousands of people, put them in an overcrowded warehouse, and then deny them their right to due process. That's Nancy Brazil ruling against this administration on fifth amendment grounds. Again, Trump judges.
Uh Steve, uh Michael seems to be under some illusion that we're here to debate Democrats versus Republicans. Unlike Michael, I'm not a partisan. I'm not here to blindly defend Democratic presidents. I don't really care what Harry Truman did. I already conceded presidents have done bad things, but no one has done stuff like Trump. Let me give you one example. 18 months he's been in office. 18 months, he's defied court cases, defied court orders. In one in eight cases, AP just did a story, the Associated Press the other day. 31 court cases that he lost, he's just ignoring the court orders. Presidents haven't done that before. They violated the Constitution. Then a court says, "Hey, you did something wrong." And then they fix it. They don't say f off to the judges. That is what this president does. Let me give you another example.
On the immigration front, between October and February of this year, according to a recent study, hundreds of judges across the country ruled 4,400 times. I'm going to say that again.
4,400 times judges across this country ruled that Donald Trump and his administration were illegally detaining migrants in this country without pressing. 4,400 times. You find me another president, I'll wait here all day, who has done that in a 4-month period, 4,400 rulings by judges, by the way, in one in four cases where judges rule against Trump, these are Republican appointed judges. So this argument from Miller and Co, these are all Marxists.
No, these are judges, Confederate, liberal, press Republicans, saying Donald Trump's violating the law, even when it comes to migrants, even when it comes to foreign students who have a right to be here and have a free speech rights under the Constitution. First Amendment covers foreign students in this room. I hope foreign students here know that.
I'm a little confused by my opponent's argument because he tells me he's not a partisan and he's not here to debate Republicans and Democrats. He wants to defend >> almost the very first word out of his mouth was Mike Pence and appealing to all of these Republican judges. But listen, I think the Republican >> what kind of God, I hate this guy. The reason why Medi is appealing to Republicans is because it's a strike against the idea and and I don't even have to say this because Medi himself said it like 20 times. It's a strike against this idea that these are all Marxist partisan judges. They're not.
They're Republican judges that are ruling against you guys over and over and over again. That's why he's bringing it up. But Michael Nolles is a professional dipshot. So >> his mouth was Mike Pence and appealing to all of these Republican judges. But listen, I think the Republican party is the worst party in the United States other than the Democrats. So, you know, I'm not here to uh as as my opponent does seem to be to go tit for tat on Republicans versus Democrats. We're here to talk about the Constitution. And we can't talk about how the Constitution has actually governed the country unless we talk about the people who have who have uh affected it. and those people are Republicans and are Democrats. But I I'm also confused by my opponent's uh reaction be and I think this might be because opponent here has the misfortune grown up in a foreign country who did not learn proper English. You know the United Kingdom they don't. So maybe maybe he missed heard when I spoke but I I answered in the affirmative. Of course uh illegal aliens in most cases have the right to due process but they don't have the right to lengthy due process. This has been uh >> Oh, not lengthy due process. Oh, not lengthy due process.
>> The United Kingdom, they don't. So maybe maybe he missed heard when I spoke, but I I answered in the affirmative. Of course, uh illegal aliens in most cases have the right to due process, but they don't have the right to lengthy due process. This has been precedent for many decades. And uh in all of those cases, my my opponent here cites the AP.
This involves uh these uh problems with the courts generally involve delays more than outright refusals. And both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have also been guilty same delays. So uh I I I I'm happy that in this one case we >> I'm sorry. I have a strong feeling on this especially because I see it happen in my court case all the time. I think that federal judges need to be way more uh aggressive with contempt. I think so.
I think that if you are if you can demonstrate that somebody is being contemptuous of the court process, is delaying too much on following through with the court order, is ignoring preliminary injunctions, uh stays, preliminary stays or whatever. Like I I think that judges need to start handing out these contempts way way way more quickly. That's just my opinion. I think it's crazy how many times um what's his name? Is it It's not It's not Boozenberg.
Booseberg. Um and and like these other judges, the one in Minnesota, are like finding that the Trump admin is just goofing off over and over and over again. It's like do something about it, okay? Get the marshals out there. Make them earn their paycheck. Go start rounding some of these [ __ ] up.
Arrest them. Charge them with something.
Hold them in contempt if they're not they're not engaging honestly with the process.
>> You're in agreement. The illegal aliens deserve due process. And now that they have it, they need to get out. That's >> okay. Well, again, thank you. Um remember, we're keeping this a nice respectful debate and >> Oh my god.
This is his alma matter. They said I hate this so much, dude. Medi is a [ __ ] for however broken he might be on Israel. Medy's he's a debate assassin. Okay, so this is just to protect Nolles. Oh, it's his dad's. Sorry. Okay.
>> You were keeping it respectful.
>> Love talking.
line for here in the etc. Um specifically, President Trump's operation epic fury to targeting Iran was carried out without pro authorization from Congress. This >> was carried out without prior authorization from Congress.
>> This has reignited a long-standing constitutional debate over war powers.
At the same time, President Trump has argued that involving Congress can pose operational risks, citing concerns about leaks and the need for speed and national security deficiencies. M >> so the question is how should we balance Congress's right to declare war with the practical demands of secrecy and rapid response in modern warfare and was Trump's action significantly different from that >> by the way there are arguments you might be able to make about what you should have to go to Congress for or what the [ __ ] ever that's not one of them I can't talk to my Congress cuz I'm scared they're going to leak [ __ ] like you can still have closed door hearings you can do closed door stuff we got we had the we voted for the [ __ ] war in Iraq this idea like I can't tell Congress they might leak it is the most [ __ ] possible excuse you could give for this that's insane to me >> that's or does it represent a growing trend among the executive branch we'll start with you >> um it's a great question and I'm glad you mentioned the speed issue and Michael mentioned speed a moment ago when it came to migrants uh no speed issue bombs dead ass during the actual debate the original shitty audio is better than this I saw it and defied.
Where's the original one? Oh my. I'm not going to be able to find it now.
>> [sighs] [clears throat] >> 3519 countries last year after claiming to be the prince. Uh there's no speed issue.
Donald Trump bombed seven countries last year after claiming to be the the peacemaker and insisting on a Nobel Peace Prize, but he got a FIFA one. Um, bombed seven countries uh which weren't attacking us. He started this year by bombing Venezuela and taking kidnapping the president of that country.
>> I I'm sorry. Cough for is too triggering and they're going to be covering the whole time. I can't. Sorry. 3532 Venezuela and taking kidnapping the president of that country. Uh again, not a country that was attacking us. There was no self-defense right. No UN resolution. You can only go to war in this country uh under international law.
Uh if it's self-defense or if it's authorized by the UN, not the case in Venezuela. Not the case in Iran. Iran obviously was not attacking us. We're in the middle of negotiations when we attacked them. Um and Marco Rubio admitted we attacked them because Israel was about to attack them, not they were about to attack us. So there was no speed. There was no justification. And it is a good question about balance. And again, I suspect Michael is going to say, well, all previous presidents have declared war without uh congressional approval, which isn't true by the way.
George W. Bush. I'm going to go home and take a shower after this, but I'm going to defend George W. Bush.
>> He's going to say >> George W. Bush went and got an authorization for the use of military force against in 2001. He went and got an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.
Now I feel disgusting, but George Bush did that, right? Uh Barack Obama, when he was about to bomb Syria, tried to go to Congress, couldn't get the votes, did not bomb Syria. Now Libya, Barack Obama did go and violate the Constitution and the War Powers Act. I will agree with that. But let me say a couple of things here. Number one, uh Barack Obama, he would argue, let me make the case for why it's different. To go back to your question, um there's no comparison between Iran and Libya. First, there was a UN resolution.
>> If you would asked me to [ __ ] make a prediction here, I would have never predicted that Medusan was going to provide the positive argument for why the United States needed to intervene in Libya. Most people hate this intervention, but interesting. Okay. for Libya was being enforced by NATO operation that the US joined to stop an imminent massacre of people in Benghazi.
That was the state aim. No UN approval in Iran, no NATO mission in Iran, no imminent massacre of civilians. That happened in not when we attacked. Number two, Barack Obama claimed it wasn't a war because it was a limited military operation because no American troops were at risk and no regional escalation.
Well, in Iran, 13 Americans dead, hundreds of Americans injured. Not just regional escalation, but global fallout, right? Americans suffering at the pump because of this war. Uh, and number three, I would say this. Look, this is undoubtedly unconstitutional against Congress. Donald Trump's admitted it. He said, "If I call it a war, I'll have to get approval." And then he called it a war. Um, but I will agree it was unconstitutional under Obama. I don't think it's unconstitutional under Trump.
And I hope Michael will agree that we can both agree that in both cases, neither president was upholding the Constitution. I'll add that to my list of constitutional abuses by Donald Trump tonight.
>> You agree? Well, my opponent continues to issue comparisons to past presidents that between the Democrats and the Republicans. But you're right. I was going to bring up Lydia uh because uh this involves not only the Constitution, but also the War Powers Act. One thing it doesn't involve though, I I'm a little little confused. Are we debating tonight UN resolutions? Are we debating the NATO charter? I thought we were debating constitutionality, and I suspect Mr. Assan is uh deferring to these other organizations because there was not a great constitution predicate for what happened in Libya. The War Powers Act gives the president uh the ability to wage war without the approval of Congress for 60 days and then it can be extended for an additional 30 days to take it to 90. Now the president as the commander-in-chief of the military already has a constitutional predicate to lead the the military. Uh however, what Barack Obama did in in Libya did not just go for 60 or 90 days. It went for eight months. How about Joe Biden?
Joe Biden waged war in Yemen against the UI. That went on for a year. I didn't hear peep from the people concerned about the shredding of the Constitution.
But when it comes to the war, >> um I believe it's stupid and it seems to contradict Obama, but I thought that the AUMF, the author's introduced military force, as annoying as it is, it I thought that applied to the entire theater of the Middle East with respect to perceived terrorist groups. Now, this is obviously the [ __ ] broadest thing possible, but technically I believe that the authorization for the Eastern Military Force does cover the entire greater Middle East region with respect to if you consider them a terrorist group. I believe this I mean it's technically legal, but because Donald Trump carried on all these same warfares against like Yemen and the Houthies and everything as well for even longer.
>> Iran, I'll I'll put my on the table. I was skeptical of the war before it began. I was skeptical when it was declared. I remain skeptical of it today. Happily for me, I don't need to convince you to support the war in Iran.
That's a combination of the liberal pronunciation and the conservative pronunciation. Iran and Iran. Uh I don't need to convince you to support the war.
I don't need to convince you to like Donald Trump. I don't need to to convince you this is a good military operation. I just need to show you that what Trump is doing is well within constitutional. It's in fact much more restrained than anything his recent predecessors have done. I'll remind you that the past presidents, George W.
accepted, we think of Ronald Reagan, Grenada, we think of George HW Bush in Panama, but we can go back even further than that. We go to Harry Truman who waged a war in Korea that went on for three years without any formal declaration of war. Uh so we can say that war is very bad and Trump shouldn't be in Iran. But the the topic at hand is whether or not Trump is within the constitutional mainstream. And at that he's actually quite moderate.
>> So uh 60 seconds. Let me just quickly respond. Uh number one the bigger point.
Let me start with the bigger point which is Michael's what aboutism tonight which is keeping pointed to previous presidents. As I pointed out the analogies don't work. They're not the same in many of the cases he's citing.
And even if they were the same all that would prove is that previous presidents didn't uphold the constitution either.
The debate tonight is is Donald Trump upholding the constitution? We can all agree he isn't. Michael seems to agree he isn't. His only defense is well other presidents didn't uphold it either. Um let's just deal with some facts. Uh the UN charter uh is not some foreign uh body. The UN charter was incorporated into US law as a treaty in a Senate vote in 1945 by a vote of 89 to2. It is the law of the land. Donald Trump violated the UN charter and violated international law and US law by bombing Iran. He violated Congress uh by bombing Iran and he violated the war powers act.
By the way, Michael is completely wrong.
the war powers. Act does not give you the power to declare war without congressional approval. Exactly the opposite. It says if you go to war without congressional approval, which is wrong, you have to notify us within 48 hours and then you have 60 days to stop, which he hasn't done. He crossed 60 days last week. So, he's doubly illegal. In fact, Una Hatheraway of Yale University, professor of international law, says this war is triply illegal because it's against UN charter. It's against uh US Congress's right under the constitution and it's against the war powers act.
That doesn't apply to Libya, by the way.
Uh so, Trump is unique there. And this idea that he was following Congress when he bombed Yemen last year, when he bombed Nigeria on Christmas Day, remember that? Probably not because he bombed so many countries without congressional approval. The idea that he's upholding the Constitution while stealing Congress's right to declare war and bombing multiple countries is absurd.
>> Who would like to stay on this foreign policy um avenue and talk a little bit about Venezuela? So, President Donald Trump characterized former Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro as uh quote terrorist and cited his indictment on drugrelated charges as justification for the U US military raid in Karachi in early 2026. By framing military action in Venezuela as a law enforcement action, does that expand presidential power in ways that unfairly bypass Congress or is that a necessary adaption to modern threats? You absolutely cannot enforce like internationally your law system. This is this is just like the most like not okay thing. You can never do this. Is obviously not good. You can't do this. This is these are war crimes. You can't you can't go and enforce law in another country your own. It's just so stupid. This is peak stupidity.
>> Uh no, it's uh certainly not outside the norms. It doesn't expand presidential power. toppling dictatorships in Latin America is as American as apple pie.
>> Not in a good way, but good.
>> I can't help but call out a rather dishonest tactic that my opponent here is using. He keeps suggesting what aboutism because I'm making historical comparisons and invoking presidents of both parties. I would like to point out my opponent opened the debate. He made the first statement and he began by doing just that. So I and I think it's good that he did that actually because there is no way to understand what it means to uphold the constitution without reference to history. And in the case of Latin America, obviously our history goes goes back a very long way. The Monroe doctrine is a cornerstone perhaps the cornerstone of American foreign policy. And there were there was a legal predicate of Nicholas Maduro. uh in in the case of President Trump's military actions. By the way, it's worth observing that we never hear why he is engaging in these in Nigeria, of course, why would you bomb Nigeria on Christmas Day might have to do with the genocide of Christians that is going on in Nigeria and America's role as the the global hegeimon, which again, like it or not, is u is pretty well predicated. But uh but returning to the specific topic at hand, Nicholas Maduro, he it had been an aspect of American foreign policy for some 26 years to depose the regime in Venezuela. We had a a legal reason to do it. Not only were they stealing our goods, but they were also sending uh criminals into our country, helping to to flood our country, basic break our basic laws, and they were working with designated foreign terrorist organizations. So any way you slice it, we had the right to arrest him. uh um a lawless president would have just blown his head off as we've as we've done before, but President Trump did not do that. Uh Nicholas Maduro is enjoying due process of law in New York City, and it's probably a much nicer place than uh than Venezuela is. So, I I I look forward to uh I I look forward to uh oil prices going down. I look forward to a flourishing country. uh and and I look forward to the recognition that uh President Trump's policy in Venezuela is not only out of step with American constitutional norms. It is in fact part of American grand strategy dating back to 1999.
>> Prison in America is a nicer place than Venezuela.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Um let's just deal with some issues uh that you raised there. Michael made an admission he perhaps shouldn't have made there. Do you notice what he said about Maduro? He said a lawless president. His words, am I being dishonest? Is that what you said? A lawless president. Not with reference to Trump.
>> A law. But you said a lawless president would have just killed him.
>> That's [snorts] funny cuz what did we do in Iran on day one of that war?
>> Uh-oh.
>> We kill We kill the leader of Iran. So by Michael's definition, Donald Trump is a lawless president. He went to war in Iran without congressional approval, without a UN Security Council resolution, as we've already discussed.
went to war in Venezuela without a congressional approval or UN Security Council resolution. The idea that he did it because the guy's a drug trafficker is hilarious. I'm no defender of Madura.
Let's see what the court says. But he pardoned another Latin American head of government who is an American prison for cocaine trafficking into the US. He pardoned him. So, uh, real consistency there when it comes to drug trafficking.
As for Nigeria, uh, number one, it's not a genocide of Christians. The first lady of Nigeria is a Christian. The defense minister is a Christian. uh terrorist groups like ISIS in Nigeria uh and Boo Haram kill Muslims and Christians alike.
It's a horrific violence, but it's not a Christian genocide. No one actually believes that. And even if it was, that's not the debate. The debate is did he have the legal right to bomb Nigeria or did he have to go to Congress, which he did not? He never goes to Congress.
Let's take a step back here. Let's get out of the weeds here. What is the common thread tonight? It's not about just migrants or free speech or students or wars. It is about a president who doesn't just test the limit of the law.
He puts himself above the law. Donald Trump doesn't recognize congressional restrictions. He doesn't recognize Supreme Court restrictions. Michael doesn't want to talk about a 90 Supreme Court ruling saying you got to bring you got to facilitate the return of Kilmer Abrago Garcia and Trump says to ABC reporter, "I could, but I'm not going to. No president has done that before.
You want to play what aboutism?" And it is what aboutism. Tell me which president said after a 90 ruling, I'm not going to do it. There hasn't been one. It's only Donald Trump who does this when it comes to war, when it comes to migration, when it comes to Supreme Court. That is why we're saying he does not uphold the Constitution because the evidence is clear. And if Trump were here tonight, he'd probably say, "Yeah, you're right."
>> True.
Well, my opponent got a great laugh line just now, but unfortunately he only did so by misrepresenting the facts. Uh, one, there's a difference between Venezuela and uh, Iran, but furthermore, when we look at >> There is true, they're different countries.
>> We were not the ones that killed the Ayatollah. That was the Israelis. And my opponent loves to complain about the Israelis. Perhaps you can do it tonight or another time, but that was the Israelis who did it. So, we we do have to get basic facts right.
>> Is that true? Do we do different people get credit for different parts of the strikes there? Actually, I don't know 100% but I'm I don't know.
>> We provided air support to you know >> we provided air support. Weren't the attacks all like bombings from >> I I have I don't know >> if we could avoid the interruption. I just want to point out that your lap on based on a complete misunderstanding actually happened. I'll try to finish my point. So one uh I I think that gives you a good sense of of where we stand on uh international expertise because also Venezuela is a different country from Iran. Iran has been waging war against the United States for somebody said quote as part of a series of Israeli air strikes aimed at high-ranking Iranian officials.
>> In 50 years now they obviously killed over 200 American troops in the Bayroot barracks bombings and uh we have not retaliated for that in a serious way.
Iran since then has killed many American troops throughout the Middle East. There was a very strong legal predicate for uh taking out the Ayatollah even if you think it's not a credential thing to do.
Whereas the very different intervention into Venezuela uh >> well then why didn't he just get congressional approval for it? It was so obvious and so easy and so like such a no-brainer, right? involved uh orders from judges, involved the commission of crimes, and now there will be a trial in in New York. So, the one uh similarity between the two, and perhaps we can agree on this, is that the the intervention into Venezuela was rather restrained. We didn't actually depose the regime. We just put a gun to >> the intervention in Venezuela was restrained when we went in and abducted their leader.
>> Okay.
>> The deputy and said, "Play nice or you next." And uh I don't know that we're going to depose the regime in Iran either. a a more expansive president might do that as Republicans and Democrats have done. Trump, once again, I point out, is so restrained here, so moderate, so well within the mainstream that we aren't even seeing regime change in either of those places.
>> He's doing tricks on it, guys.
>> Well, I think it was briefly mentioned the idea of emergency acts and extenduating circumstances. And I want to zoom in on that. Uh, President Donald Trump argued that his imposition of tariffs during Liberation Day was justified under the International Emergencies Economic Powers Act or the IEPA. However, the Supreme Court found the IEPA does not authorize president to impose sweeping tariffs such as that in liberation day. With this in mind, how should we think about the limits of presidential authority when it comes to using emergency powers to shape major policy? Uh >> oh, >> you okay, take it away.
>> Um uh I'm going to cheat before I answer that question. I'm going to go back to something Michael said a moment because facts of matter. Uh the war on Iran is a joint US-Israeli operation. The idea that Israel killed Kami on their own is absurd. If you look at the reporting, Netanyahu came to Trump, Trump's intelligence agency came and confirmed that Kami was in this building this time at this place. Do you want to kill it?
So, let's just be very clear that we are responsible for that. There was no international legal justification for it. Every international law professor says it was illegal. Every international lawyer says what happened in Venezuela was illegal. We defied. There's a reason why our own allies don't back us in these places. Um, on emergency powers, uh, a great question. We can actually talk specifics. You mentioned Supreme Court. You'll notice, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think, and this is good faith, I swear, I don't think Michael has said the word Supreme Court today.
Maybe I missed it, but let's talk specifics. I mentioned the 90 ruling by the Supreme Court on Kil Margo Garcia.
Trump just said f off. Um, the tariffs case in February. We all knew tariffs are taxes. Everyone knew that. The Trump administration tried to lie to us and say they're not taxes. You know, the Trump administration wants to what's the phrase? Uh, piss on your leg and tell you it's raining, right? It's not it's not a tax. It is a tax. Every economist agrees it's a tax. Every lawyer agrees it's a tax. So, the Supreme Court step in and say, well, you know, the taxing and spending clause says only Congress gets to lay and impose taxes, excises, imposts, and duties. And they strike down 63 63. Not even close. In February, the IEPA used by Donald Trump and say you need to refund the tariffs. True. By the way, the refunds begin next week and 75,000 businesses have asked for refunds, which is weird because I was told China's paying the tariffs. But anyways, on the specific legal part, >> this is really interesting because Donald Trump used the IEPA, which is an act from the 1970s, 1977, which you can use in economic emergency. Trump claimed the emergency was fentinel and migration and trade deficits. He claimed there was a national emergency because we have a trade deficit. Okay? And then here's the best part. He uses the act to go after his enemies like he always does. Like he goes after his political enemies, he goes after his international enemies. He uses the act completely illegally as the Supreme Court's point out to basically settle scores. And we know this. How do we know this? Because Trump said so.
When the Swiss president called him up to negotiate a reduced tariff, he raised the tariff and said, "I did it because she rubbed me up the wrong way." She was annoying. She was aggressive. So he raised the taxes. The Brazilians prosecuted Gab Bolsaro. Good for them. I wish we had done it to Trump. Trump got mad and raised tariffs on American consumers to punish Brazil. That's what the founders envisaged. That's what the founders thought they were doing when we were getting away from mad King George from my old country. Was that what they were doing? Giving the president the right to tax Americans because he gets pissed off by a European leader or a South American government. Of course, it's an abuse of power. Of course, it's completely unconstitutional. Of course, it goes against the vision of the founders. That is very, very clear.
I'm reminded of a meme that I see sometimes in Catholic circles. There's a meme of a guy goes into the confessional box. He says, "Father, I like to hop on one leg while eating a piece of pizza and honking my nose." And the priest says, "My son, that is very weird, but it is not a sin." And that's that's the example that uh Medi seems to be giving here. He says, "I really hate what Trump did on these tariffs."
>> Is that a Catholic Christian? Is that a Lutheran? Who? What? Okay. All right.
and and by one of the mechanisms by which Trump implemented the tariffs, the Supreme Court rejected and the administration being very well within the constitutional mainstream accepted that and then attempted to use other statutes to implement some other tariffs. Uh but nevertheless, they accepted the Supreme Court's rulings as as they generally do. And and so uh it you might say I hate tariffs. You might say I don't like the way President Trump conducts diplomacy. Uh I'm speaking to a group of Ivy League students. Obviously, probably many of you think that. But and there is nowhere that I see that to be unconstitutional. I mean for goodness sakes, the Republican party was founded on tariffs. Uh Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Give me a tariff and I'll give you the best country in the world." The Republican party was pro tariff through the early 20th century. It flipped a little bit in the mid to late 20th century and now we seem to like tariffs again. Presidents of both parties levy tariffs through a variety of mechanisms.
Uh you can say it's bad economic policy, but there's certainly nothing unconstitutional about it. To Medy's point that uh the companies are eating the cost of the tariffs in many cases that is true. I know this because I own a company called Mayflower Cigars which makes great cigars and I highly recommend them. But we we did eat the cost about it. to Medy's point that uh the companies are eating the cost of the tariffs in many cases. That is true. I know this because I own a company called Mayflower Cigars which makes great cigars and I highly recommend them. But we we did eat the cost of >> that means Americans are eating the cost. They're American companies and you won't eat the cost forever. You have to pass it on eventually. You have to >> Thank you very much. We we did eat the cost of a lot of the tariffs. That's true. And I do wonder if as a political tactic the refunds for those tariffs that are forthcoming might actually help juice the economy before the midterm. So in a way it's probably a good political tactic >> to do. It's a good political tactic to steal money from the American people in a manner that we now agreed the Supreme Court said was illegal so that you could give it back to them as a Okay, bro. But I've yet to see some argument that the the tariffs would have been unconstitutional. You know, the point that we've observed here is that the Supreme Court struck them down under uh under the basis of a national emergency and the Trump White House complied. So, what are we even arguing here?
>> So, Michael, since you were the one who introduced the word a dishonest tactic, let me say that to you. I think you're engaged in a dishonest tactic tonight.
by avoiding the substance of argument every time. It's not whether there's a genocide in Nigeria. The issue is did Donald Trump have the constitution about Nigeria? No, it's not whether tariffs are good or bad. That's irrelevant to this debate. Of course, tariffs are totally fine. If Congress impose them, not Donald Trump because he didn't like the female leader of Switzerland. She spoke to Mafara. That is the key question that we're debating tonight. At every instance, every question that Ella has asked, every topic we've covered, I've pointed out that what he's doing is going against the Constitution, going against Supreme Court, going against Trump appointed judges, going against precedents that you like to cite. and you're dodging it and you're saying things about, well, tariffs are part of our history. Okay, great. I This is not about tariffs. It's about what Donald Trump did with tariffs. He took a power from the Constitution, the taxing and spending clause, article 1, section 8, only Congress shall have the power to lay or collect taxes, duties, impost excises. And he arrogated it to himself because he believes there are no checks on his power. He's on the record. He said in 2019, I have an article 2 power to do whatever I want as president.
That's not what Article 2 says.
>> He also tweeted out, "He who saves his country violates no law or whatever, right?
>> He does not have the power to do whatever he wants. The founding fathers did not create America so that they could have another monarch, another king, and another dictator. But no one seems to have given that memo to Donald Trump. And when he lost at the Supreme Court, Michael said he accepted the decision. Again, dishonest. He actually said that the judges were fools and lap dogs. He said Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch embarrassed themselves in front of their families. And he also said that the Supreme Court justices are weak, stupid, and bad. Again, point to me a president who said stuff like that in the modern era.
>> All right. Well, this is unfortunately our last moderated question before we go to audience Q&A. And I would like to bring it back closer to home. You both experienced elite higher education.
>> Okay, never mind. I understand why null's got to do this debate because it's the format is so insanely restrictive.
>> Except I would argue your father Derwith experienced the best higher education.
>> And I'm sure you have seen the recent changes in dynamics between US universities and the federal government.
As debates over free speech and ideological diversity intensify on campuses, what role, if any, should the federal government play in ensuring viewpoint diversity? And what would that role look like within constitutional limits? Um, I believe you started last night school.
>> Yes. I I actually don't love viewpoint diversity. I don't really care for it at all. I know that puts me outside the right-wing mainstream, but I'm perfectly fine with institutions having beliefs and standards and norms, and I think societies ought ought to have that. Even the the notion of protecting viewpoint diversity is relatively recent. Comes from the mid '90s in our jurist prudence. What would that that role look like within constitutional limits? Um, I believe you started last night.
>> Yes. I I actually don't love viewpoint diversity. I don't really care for it at all. I know that puts me outside the right-wing mainstream, but I'm perfectly fine with institutions having beliefs and standards and norms, and I think societies ought ought to have that. Even the the notion of protecting viewpoint diversity is relatively recent. Comes from the mid '90s in our jurist prudence. But, uh, regardless, I'm all for uh reforming universities, which are are failing in their chief missions. So, I suppose the question is, is President Trump suppressing the First Amendment?
And uh I know that my opponent here on stage made a bold prediction, a promise really in March of 2024. He said that if President Trump were to be elected again. The the the stakes for the media were very very high. What would happen to the free press under President Trump, you know, he's already threatening to do it. Uh last I checked, unfortunately, the New York Times and the CNN CNN still get to publish. Uh MSNBC has sort of gone downhill, but that's mostly because NBC didn't want to deal with them anymore. Uh there's been really no threat to free speech whatsoever.
>> That's like I can't I I'm going to I can't say anything. this >> President Trump his critics are are allowed to >> Michael Nolles by the way literally tweeted out like two weeks ago that he wants people like me to go to jail. Okay like like just unfucking believably subhuman cretinous behavior just unbelievable how disgusting these [ __ ] people are to kill him. I mean, in the case of Assan [ __ ] uh, one of the chief, uh, critics of President Trump and one of the people who who's instigated violence was exalted by the New York Times just last week, uh, after three assassination attempts. So, I I wish that, frankly, there were more limits on speech under Trump, but there there certainly is not.
And then when you look at constitutional precedent, we of course have to remember that our second president of the United States, John Adams, uh, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, uh, much of which remains on the books today. Uh, under Woodro Wilson, Democrat president, imprisoned his political rival, Eugene Debs, leader of the Socialist Party. But that act has been used to prosecute people for speech for many many years, including the uh socialist journalist, the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, and Bradley Manning, even under Barack Obama. So, uh we've seen a lot of curtailment of uh speech. I think a lot of that is within the confines of the First Amendment. And I wish the President Trump would tighten it up a little bit, especially when it comes to those left-wing universities that receive federal dollars and certainly don't need to.
>> That is an amazing answer, Michael. Uh both to deny that there's an assault on the free press and to say you wish there was a bit more of an assault on the free press. Uh let's just be very clear. Uh let's just be very clear about where the facts are on this. Michael thinks everything's fine. Okay. Uh Donald Trump has arrested Don Lemon. He's raided the home of a Washington Post reporter. Uh he has >> We've got multiple civil lawsuits against what the Wall Street Journal.
There's been like two or three that he settled. He tried to sue just the pollster seltzer out of business because he didn't like the poll they made. We've got the DOJ issuing indictments against political enemies. Um he he brought up the FCC thing in Kimmel. Like there's like [sighs] >> AP from the Oval Office. Uh he tried to defund NPR and PBS. The judge shot it down. He's tried to ban flag burning burning which goes against Supreme Court cases.
>> I wrote an executive order on it.
Remember that >> versus Johnson from 1989. Uh he's tried to get a late night comedian fired because he didn't like his jokes. Uh he has uh just go down the list when it comes to free press. He tried to restrict reporters reporting at the Pentagon. A judge shot that down too, saying you're not supposed to prescribe the press. Uh he has threatened the New York Times just the other day. He said they should be guilty of sedition because they reported on his Iran war in a way he did not like. Uh he has engaged in multiple lawsuits to try to intimidate and suppress the press. His defense secretary bragged loudly that CNN will be coming under new Trump odish proTrump ownership. Um, just go down the list, students. We talk about universities. We've seen students arrested for their speech, not for violence, for their speech. A regular appointed judge said the arrest of students like Manu Khal was a fullthroated assault on the first amendment. A regular appointed judge, William Young, said that, not some liberal Marxist. And as for, you know, threatening people's speech, just the other day, just a few months ago, Donald Trump threatened six members of Congress with death for their speech. He said, "Sedicious behavior punishable by death." What did they do? They did a video saying, "Hey, military, don't follow illegal orders." He said, "You should be killed for that. This is the most anti-free speech, anti-free press, anti- viewpoint diversity administration in American history. It's led by a complete snowflake who can't tolerate any criticism."
>> One of the things that Republicans have done to cheat is they you know how we used to have like in Minecraft or in a video game. For them, for for them, they just do like the in court, right? This guy needs to be We need to kill this guy after he's found guilty of citiz. We need to This guy needs to be executed after being found guilty in a court of law of treason. Like, oh [ __ ] good one.
>> from anyone. Can't tolerate jokes from late night comedians. Think about the countries where comedians are taken out, taken off the airwaves because the leader didn't like their jokes. Are those constitutional democracies? Are those constitutional republics? Are those democracies that we think Americans have? Think about that when you are when you vote tonight. Think about the kind of place where the president threatens students, threatens media organizations, threaten comedians, and threatens members of the other party while arresting journalists. The whole thing is absurd to suggest he's not anti-f amendment president. He's actually at the core of my argument for why he's not upholding the constitution because he's not upholding the first amendment. Michael, >> I think it's very telling that my opponent objects to the arrest of Don Lemon, uh, which was not in fact for free speech, but was because Don Lemon violated federal law and excuse me, and violated federal law and bragged about it on camera >> like this format. Medie is so cucked in this format. It's such [ __ ] because this is like this is the only way that these [ __ ] losers can survive is is to be in a format where they can just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie with no fact correction. And I think that the that hardcore British interview style excels the most when they can fact check you and hold you to account when you just say a [ __ ] lie. But as long as Nolles can just rattle off 10 lies while he's giving some [ __ ] ass waste of time 30 60cond answer, then it's like, oh god, I hate this format so much.
>> He if you'll allow me to finish, I'm trying to engage in my free speech and there seems to be a heckler's veto.
my free speech, too.
>> So, what Don Lemon actually did was he violated a federal law, the base act. He uh walked in with an unruly mob to disrupt a religious proceeding. Uh this this terrorized children. He did all sorts of terrible things, targeted Christians.
>> I still and again, I don't I've never wanted to take like a strong stance on this just cuz I haven't seen like the footage. And maybe there's bad stuff out there that I'm just not aware of, but like I just never saw any of what was claimed about the um breaking into the church. I saw the interview where he walked in and they were talking to the guy, but like the rioting or like attacking or any of that. Like the people ran in the church protesting for sure, but like was there any footage or anything of this happening of them like breaking down a door or them like damaging stuff or screaming and attacking people?
>> No surprise that that would be given a pass from the man who denied the um genocide of Christians in Nigeria tonight, noticing a touch of a trend.
But to bring us back to the point, the the uh defunding of PBS is somehow a violation of the First Amendment. I thought that the president and the congress had the right to uh well to take care to make sure that the laws are affected and executed and also uh congress has the power of the purse. I didn't know PBS and big bird were in the first amendment to the constitution.
That would be news to James Madison. Uh when it when it comes to uh the the curtailment of reporters, uh no one has been more transparent than President Trump. He answers the phone. He answers the phone when CNN journalists call him.
I would never do any such thing, but the president does that. He has open gaggles very contrary to his immediate predecessor Joe Biden. And so uh yet again uh President Trump has uh exalted the first amendment. In fact, he has embraced a free speech. He has embraced a free speech absolutist.
>> Like this is this should be studied.
This is like crazy. He's doing tricks on it, bro. Like like unbelievable tricks like 20 years of experience.
Even when it comes to flag burning, I'll just finish up on this point. My Medi Hassan points out that the flag burning was ruled un a constitutionally protected right in 1989. Curious that it was in 1889 or 1789. It's a live question debated in American juristprudence. President Trump has issued an executive order to bring that challenge back to the court as he should and we'll all be debating it along the way because President Trump loves free speech.
>> All right. Well, we're going to pivot to audience Q&A. Uh we'll have two mic runners, one on either aisle. I will call on three people um to go to each mic runner. So, six in total. I'll start. I'll do you blue shirt. Another blue shirt. There's a lot of blue shirts, a white shirt, a blue shirt, red shirt, and then green shirt. So, three over there and three over there.
Perfect. If we have more time, we will take more student questions.
>> Great. Any chair?
>> Yeah. So, thank you guys so much for coming today. Um, a lot of the conversations circulated uh particularly around Trump's second term activities. I was just curious um to the question of not whether Trump upheld the constitution in with regards to January 6, but did he uphold constitutional norms?
>> Great question.
>> Is that for any one of us in particular?
>> Uh particularly you, Michael, but either of you could go at it. Off >> to Michael.
>> Sure.
>> Two minutes in two minutes.
>> Yeah, sure thing. Uh yes, he did. Again, I'm not convincing anyone that they should like love the horn hat guy.
That's not the basis on which you're voting this evening. Uh but there is a great precedent for uh contested elections in the United States. In fact, that's that's what >> that's what they did in 1965 in Hawaii.
>> 12th amendment is about. Uh we've had a number of contested elections. Uh obviously 1860, the election of Lincoln, the Rutherford Gayes, which resulted in the compromise of 1876. Uh Bush vGore Al Gore refused to concede for months after that. And there and there were I thought he accepted the Supreme Court ruling the day it came out. Am I wrong?
I thought one of the biggest criticisms that people had of Gore was why did you concede as soon as the Supreme Court ruled against it? I thought that was always one of the biggest. When did Gore concede election? I I could be wrong.
When did the Supreme Court issue their ruling?
He I mean he conceded on December 13th, 2000. So that was bas about a month before the the vote count, the electoral vote count.
But I guess that maybe they tried to fight the the Supreme Court decision for about a month, but hold on.
Damn, [ __ ] tried to concede on election night. [laughter] I promised that I wouldn't call him back this time, Gor said, referring to the moment on election night when he called Bush to tell him he was going to concede and then called back a half hour later to retract that concession.
[ __ ] libs, man.
Where is this wouldn't concede for months thing at? This is I don't This is just not true at all.
Um, [ __ ] I don't know. He's just he's just lying.
He's just lying.
>> Some [ __ ] loser.
>> Uh obviously 1860, the election of Lincoln, Rutherford v. Hayes, which resulted in the compromise of 1876. Uh Bush vGore Al Gore refused to concede for months after that. And there and there were some riotous events. So what occurred on at the capital on January 6 was very unfortunate. The riotest events, by the way, uh around the Gore election were the um uh [ __ ] what was it called? It wasn't Stonewall. It was um no um [ __ ] what was it called? It was Roger Stone Brooks Brothers.
Brooks Brothers riots. Tell me if this sounds familiar. By the way, Roger Stone led by the way.
The Brooks [clears throat] Brothers riot was a demonstration led by Republican staffers at a meeting of election canvasers in Miami Dade County, Florida, United States on November 22nd, 2000.
During a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election with a goal of shutting down the recount [snorts] after demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early.
H that's what that Supreme Court decision was about by the way that people got so aspainted rightfully so about because they were within their recount um uh trigger thing and the Supreme Court basically shut down the recount and then gave the election to to Bush the Brooks Brothers Brigade to oppose the recount of ballots during the Florida election recount lied about it's Worth pointing out that the only person who was killed in political violence that day was a Trump supporter who was killed by a trigger-happy cop. There's also a special irony to Democrats complaining about January 6th as the worst day in the history of this republic. Uh >> what about the BLM riots?
>> Because [laughter] not only was it not the worst political violence in American history, it wasn't the worst political violence of that year. It followed the little prosecuted BLM riots uh that very same year uh where >> which happened in one day in one event.
By the way, >> Harris and staffers for Joe Biden actually, >> by the way, they actually supported that because they bailed all the prisoners out. Kla Harris retweeted uh Minnesota bail fund one time, by the way. It got like 20 likes, by the way. But that's what he's about to say.
>> BLM riots uh that very same year, uh where Kla Harris and staffers for Joe Biden actually bailed the riers out of jail. But there's a great >> That's not true. That was also a [ __ ] lie. But this guy is an actual hell swan from [ __ ] Satan. So he just lies about [ __ ] everything.
>> Five or six, depending on how you score it, attacks on the capital in American history. Virtually all of them have been perpetrated by radical leftists, a Marxist Harvard professor, Harvard man of course, but then one in 1971 uh was perpetrated by Billys of the Weather Underground, Bills in whose living room by the way, Barack Obama all the I've heard these conspiracies my whole life.
>> Obama launched his political career. So it's very unfortunate that that took place on January 6th. It's unfortunate that there were questions about the 2020 election, questions which arose because the election rules were radically changed in the weeks and months before the election in some cases unconstitutionally as in the case of mail and ballots in Pennsylvania. It's also a bit strange that Nancy Pelosi took responsibility for not >> oh this claim because Nancy Pelosi in a car was like you know this is our fault we should have done better or something and they're like oh see she took responsibility for the whole thing cuz these guys can't conceive of they can't even fathom a president that would actually take responsibility for anything let alone stuff that's directly his fault >> having sufficient security of the capital that day she did that on camera it was actually a film that her daughter made you can easily go look it up uh and it's very strange that some of the capital police gave the leaders of the insurrection private tours of the capital notably [snorts] the aforementioned horn hat guy but regardless it's it's a great pity it took place. I hope it doesn't take place again. And uh unfortunately, it's also not totally out of the norm for the United States going back at least to the middle of the 19th century.
>> So glad you asked that question because January 6 hadn't come up and it was a big issue from Trump's end of his first term. Mike Pence, we talked about Mike Pence, who Michael Pence, keep coming up >> because you're a fan of, isn't he?
>> Uh whoa, he should shut him down. Why is he interrupting? Excuse me.
>> The vice president who didn't endorse the president for another term because he said he made me do unconstitutional stuff. He wanted me to violate my constitutional. That's from Mike Pence's testimony. You want to dismiss it because you know there's comeback for it. You cite Al Gore, Al Gore never incited an insurrection. There is no precedent for January 6. There was >> even worse, um Nolles did something tricky there. He said there were riots um around the 2000 election. The one that he's referring to, there was one.
It was a Republican le one to stop the recount, but he was very tricky when he brought that up.
>> We were used to peaceful transfers of power. Richard Nixon agreed even though he's probably robbed by JFK. Al Gore agreed even though he's probably robbed by George W. Bush. Donald Trump actually lost for sure and he still didn't accept it and incited a riot. Michael says, "Oh, Democrats thought it was a waste of history." Um do you know who said bar?
None. It was the most horrifying day in >> Ben Shapiro.
>> American politics in my lifetime. Mike Pence. No, I don't.
>> It was Ben Shapiro on January the 7th.
He said it was the most horrifying day.
>> Yep.
>> In American politics, a noted Democrat said on January the 7th. So, let's just deal with some facts here. Uh, the people who attacked the capital were not going on private tours. They were not just a horn hat guy. It was people like Daniel Rodriguez who assaulted Michael Fenone, put him in a stroke, got 12 years in prison. The judge said he was an army of hate and violence. Donald Trump pardoned him. It was people like Andrew Paul Johnson who was just sentenced to life in prison for sexually abusing two children in Florida. Donald Trump pardoned him uh for January the 6th. Uh he pardoned a neo-Nazi called Bradley Tyler Dyes who did a seat tile salute as he attacked police officers.
These are the people Trump pardoned Michael has never condemned Trump for that. Harry Sison asked Michael on his show earlier this year. Would you condemn Donald Trump for doing that? And he wouldn't answer the question. I'll never condemn Donald Trump. Do you condemn Donald Trump for pardoning neo-Nazis, domestic abusers, pedophiles?
>> Well, hold on. Was he would you condemn Trump for >> I'm just asking a clarifying question about that guy. Was he one of the neo-Nazis who was getting three million bucks from the SPLC or was he a different >> Oh my god. Was there any individual that got maybe over five years or something?
Oh, they do. They love that indictment.
They love that indictment, bro.
[sighs] >> Nice, nice diversion. Do you I'm not Harry Siss. I'll use up my time. Do you condemn Donald Trump for pardoning neo-Nazis, violent criminals, people who assaulted 140 police officers on January?
>> One last real one last real >> I'll ask again. Do you No. Simple question. Do you support pardoning the 600 people who were charged with assaulting police officers for Daniel?
He pardon them for assaulting the police. Oh, >> do you support them? All right.
>> He has a lot of assaulting police.
>> Donald Trump for pardoning. I have 600 people who assaulted police officers.
Fourth time. Can you do it? I'm happy to. I condemn pedophilia. You're not >> And I will not.
>> See, it should be like an hour and a half debate of that and then nulls would just be crying by the end. But >> format, we're going to stick to the debate format. We're not going to >> I bet Nullles and her they they probably had a very big conversation on moderation everything beforehand. I asked at the beginning of this, why would Nulls agree to this debate? But it's it's because it has to be on this hyperspecific format so that Nolles gets to walk away from this going, "Oh, well, I debated Medana." Like, no, dude. This was like a like a like a like they're having a pillow fight basically.
>> I'm happy to answer on the substance if you >> So, obviously Netty's being very very dishonest. President Trump didn't uh didn't pardon anybody for pedophilia or Nazis or whatever. If you'll allow me to finish. Uh so what what he pardoned them for is because there was a massive prosecution of thousands of people on January 6th that was uh politically motivated that was disproportionate because the federal government had let all of the leftist riers who unlike the January 6th killed dozens of people and resulted in over a billion dollars worth of property damage led them off the hook and in fact raised money to bail them out of out of jail. And so because of the unjust prosecutions where you had Midwestern granny's who were not pedophiles and Nazis but who were eccentrically excuse me who walked around the capital despite all of the lies suggesting police officers were killed. If that was not true the corners proved that. Uh so he he recogniz at least two officers that died for sure because of Jensen sex. Yeah.
>> Proportionate prosecution. The same goes for the pro-life granny's who were arrested by Joe Biden who were in prison for praying at abortion clinics.
President Trump pardon them.
arrested by Joe Biden >> for the the pro-life granny's who were arrested by Joe Biden who were >> Oh, pro-life. I don't know anything about those.
>> Prison for praying at abortion clinics.
President Trump pardoned them. Now, on the pardon power, >> would this have been arrested by Biden or these have been state police if they were protesting outside abortion clinics? Okay.
>> There are lots of bad pardons that go on. Joe Biden took it to an egregious degree, but >> Oh, over the he didn't >> pardon power is absolute. And >> oh, he's talking about the Hunter Biden.
>> If we're here to defend the Constitution, we would have to defend the plain words of article two, which say the president has pardon power.
>> Okay. Thank you both. Um, I appreciate the sentiments. We're going to keep interruptions to a minimum.
>> Why? Yes.
>> Be fair. It wasn't exception. I gave up my time to ask a question. He didn't answer it six times.
>> Okay. First off, Mie, big fan. Big fan.
I love your work. Uh, to Michael, I would like to say so there is a new I think with your uh assault on free speech and how we should in your words tighten. Uh, there's a new act proposed by Congress, the Mamani Act. Are you familiar with that?
>> I'm not, but I like. It is the it is a measures against measures against Marxist defenders and noxious Islamists act. Uh and it and it essentially extends the power of the federal government especially by Trump to deny citizenship to deny uh entry and to essentially deport to go to these ICE you know horrible camps. Any person who is a radical Islamist or a communist or any other sort of leftist gives very broad powers. Do you support that and is that constitutional at all? Well, I love the acronym and I I take it from your description of the act when you mention that this would be a way to uh deport people to deny them visas to deny them entry to schools or that the the people we're talking about here are not American citizens. So, it's really crucial to to recognize here a point that is being glossed over which is that when Medi Assan says that the Trump administration >> if that is true and it doesn't apply to citizens, why is it called the Mum Dani Act?
>> Is arresting students for stating their opinions even if they're radical leftwing opinions? He's not arresting American citizens. What the secretary of state came out and said is that they are going to revoke or deny visas to people who have views that are contrary to the American national interest, which is not only entirely constitutional. That is just plain common sense. You don't want to bring in foreigners who have no right to be in your country who who actively undermine your society. I mean, that's the most basic charge of immigration.
So, and and then to your point, you say, uh, we're going to even deport some people. Well, to deport those people implies that they have no right to be here. That is, they're not American citizens. And in that case, yes, I favor deportations quite broadly. And uh the fact that it has that beautiful acronym is a cherry on top. I am calling with with very little knowledge beyond what you've just suggested about the act. I am calling on Congress today to pass it to pass it twice.
>> Epic.
>> So >> yeah, it's interesting that Michael again says Ban thinks foreign students are having their rights. No. William Young, a veteran Reagan judge, said it was a fullthroated assault on the First Amendment. He said, "I'm going to answer the constitutional question posed here, which is, do legal immigrants have the same constitutional rights to free speech as citizens? Yes, they do." He said, "These are his words. Yes, they do. There is no invidious distinction that Trump makes." His words, juristprudence, history does not back that. In fact, go back to 1945 Bridges versus Wixon famous Supreme Court face where they said, "Immigrants here in the country have the same first amendment rights as everyone else." And these are not students who are, you know, trying to undermine America. Romea Ostk is a student from Turkey who wrote an op-ed in a newspaper saying, "I think my university should divest from Israel."
That's what she wrote. said nothing about the United States of America. Said nothing violent. Masked men grabbed her off the street. Have you seen the video?
It's one of the creepiest things you'll ever see. Bunch of masked men with no IDs grabbed this young woman off the street and they imprisoned her. And Michael, it's totally constitutional.
Actually, the law that Rubio is citing, it's 1952 law obscure amendment. Do you know who said it was unconstitutional? A woman called Judge Marian Trump Barry.
Donald Trump's late sister is the only judge to ever adjudicate on this. And she said, "I think it's unconstitutional." Never reached the Supreme Court, but it's the only time an American judge has looked at it and they think what Marco Rubio is doing. Trump's late sister thinks it's unconstitutional. A Reagan judge thinks it's an assault on the First Amendment.
Let's not stop pretending this is about the left and about Muslims and about socialists. No, it's not. I've already pointed out Mike Pence disagree with you. Ben Shapiro disagrees with you.
Reagan judges disagree with you. Trump judges disagree with you. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And I hope the audience tonight disagrees with you.
>> Sure.
>> Did you respond?
>> Yeah. I maybe Mike Pence should have come here tonight. I don't know. Why am I just to clarify like I like Mike Pence as much as the next guy, but I'm not like >> By the way, they [ __ ] hate Mike Pence, just so you know. They [ __ ] hate him.
>> He's not my bosom buddy. I don't know.
We don't sit up text. I don't know why.
>> He was only the vice president before he keeps bringing Donald Trump. But anyway, I guess the question I would ask for Media and just as just as you offered me some of the visa, I'll ask you this. Do you think that foreign students who would apply for a student visa to the United States, do you think that they have some right to that visa?
>> No, I don't think they have the right to the visa, but I agree with the question.
I agree with the questioning my time.
>> That's not the question. What a stupid [ __ ] What is this? He's a PhD. He's a smart guy. Whether or not you have the right to a thing uh is a different question than on what grounds can a thing be taken from you. I don't have a right to sit in a private business and eat food. The restaurant owner can kick me out if he wants. I don't have a right to that. But the restaurant owner can't come up to me and say, "I'm kicking you out because you're a Cuban and I know you're Cuban and I'm going to be racist against you or whatever." He doesn't have the right to do that. The right to the the grounds on which you take something is different than whether or not the person has a right to the thing itself. I don't know why I'm explaining this stupid.
>> No, it's not. We're not in Congress. I'm answering the question. No, it's not a right to have a visa, but it is right to have free speech once you were in the country under the first amendment per Justice Murphy's ruling in Bridges versus Wixon 1945. Once you were in the country right, we're not we're not we're not we're not we're not talking.
>> I appreciate that. This is why, you know, just to loop back a little bit, this is why it's so funny that Medi Hassan takes issue with the arrest of Don Lemon because Don Lemon was arrested claiming first amendment rights, but you don't have a first amendment right when you were actively violating the first amendment rights of others, which is something that Medi is clearly very familiar with. Uh, and in Medi has just admitted the point >> and he keeps dishonestly trying to conflate legal immigrants in the United States with students who are here on visas from some foreign country. And but he's already granted the premise and he's granted the point which is that >> students here on visa from some foreign country as opposed to students here on visa with domestic visas or what the [ __ ] does that even >> the students >> talk about filibuster >> do not have a right constitutional right words in my mouth they do I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm telling the truth to the students that a foreign student who would like to study in the United States at Dartmouth or elsewhere has no right to do so no natural right no constitutional right no legal right >> now we're talking natural rights >> visa that visa is a privilege granted to the United States many and others might want to uh blow open our borders and tell others being the supreme court that they're permitted to come here. You already granted the point many that a foreign student who wishes to come here does not have a right to say they have first amendment rights which you keep ignoring because the Supreme Court is against you Michael as has been all night.
>> Thank you for your time. In the interest >> in the interest of time, we're going to move on to the next question.
>> Hello. Um I have a well I have one main question but I think that it lends to a lot of what this argument has been about and I think a lot of where the argument has gone instead of maybe where it should have been. I'm been really interested and I'm curious to know because Medi as you pointed out there are some moments where the argument has moved as opposed to does the president have the right is it constitutional that the president say take Nigeria for example did he have the right to strike Nigeria instead the question has become is there a genocide in Nigeria should the president have you know stricken Nigeria I'm curious to know whether or not it is constitutional if there is a matter say in Nigeria or elsewhere where the president might personally view um there to be some kind of situation. Do you believe that the president does have the right or in some cases should in your personal opinion violate the constitution? Do you believe that there are moments where the president has that right or should following that? What is the point of the constitution if you believe that the president should or has the right to violate it?
>> Was that question for me or Maddie?
>> For you, but I would.
>> Yeah. Yeah, sure. Well, I I suppose I just disagree with the premise, the suggestion that the the president taking a military action around the world uh violates the Constitution. It does not.
In the case of an intervention in Nigeria, one could make an argument that it pertains to American interests because we're the global empire and we have interests around the world. But but one could also just make that it's a humanitarian intervention. And indeed, that was much of the argument that presidents have made for many decades now. Uh Barack Obama made it, Bill Clinton made it. Um and and furthermore uh you know the Monroe Doctrine which we were discussing earlier in the case of Venezuela which has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy since the early 19th century uh does not have a a literal direct uh constitutional predicate and yet no serious person would suggest that it's somehow contrary to the con.
>> Hold on. I'm sorry I don't I I missed this. Monroe doctrine was basically saying that like no other countries are allowed to interfere uh in our hemisphere. Right. That was essentially the Monroe Doctrine. What does Monroe doctrine have to do with invading Venezuela and capturing Maduro?
Was it was it cited for that or what is theution?
So I I think it would be it would be contrary to the constitution if the president went topple the regime in in Nigeria and made it the 51st state which I don't think any of us want to do. Uh or if the military action went on for more than 60 or 90 days without authorization from Congress as we saw in the cases of Barack Obama and and Joe Biden. But uh a relatively minor military action for national interest or even for humanitarian reasons is is well within the constitutional mainstream.
there's nothing prohibiting the president from doing that and and indeed he is he has a right to do that as the commander-in-chief of of the military.
Um you know I guess one issue one topic that we haven't really gotten to but it does sit at the at the foundation of a lot of the debate tonight is is what the executive really is. Uh and and so this gets back to article 2 section one which in the very first line explains what the executive is and and our our framers said that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. Uh the courts have ruled on this many times. Um, you know, there are all sorts of interesting discussions about inspectors general and all all uh other branches of government trying to involve themselves in the executive branch. But time and time and time again, we recognize that the executive has broad authority and uh in our day and age, a lot of people are worried about an overreach from the executive. But I I don't think that's really serious. First of all, Congress gave away a lot of its authority by establishing the agencies in the executive 100 years ago. But furthermore, if any branch is going to be uh overstepping, it's probably going to be the the judiciary. So, he has a constitutional predicate to do it.
Again, we can we can disagree over the prudence of a strike on Nigeria, but that's not the topic on which you're voting tonight. The question is very basic. Is Trump within the constitutional mainstream? And the answer is yes.
>> That's not a question of if he's within the mainstream. Is he upholding the constitution? Yes or no? Not. Uh what's interesting is Michael again made a weird concession there. He said he hasn't gone over 60 days in the case of Nigeria, but he has in Iraq.
>> He hasn't.
>> He has in Iraq. He crossed he crossed it last Friday.
>> I know I know I know I struggle with British English. You maybe struggle with math. 60 days was last Friday.
>> We crossed it. Donald Trump wrote a letter saying hostilities are terminated and then on Monday there was an exchange of pie between America and Iran which is a reminder of what a lie and a fool he is. Um so no he crossed 60 days it's an illegal war. It was already illegal war now it's a doubly illegal war under the war powers act. Um and I'm glad you raised the issue of executive power. I'm glad you raised the question of what is the constitution for. I'm not a I'm not a blind fan of everything in the constitution. No one is and we shouldn't be. There's amendment for a reason.
Michael you want to change the flag burning thing. Right? You want an amendment to change that.
>> We don't need an amendment to change it.
>> But you want you want to get rid of mind if there were clarity.
>> Okay. And many of us on the left would like some reinterpretation second amendment. He wants flag burning to be illegal.
>> I'm kind of I think that's fair to say.
Um but the point is you do it the right way. I'm not saying that Joe I'm not a fan of Second Amendment. Doesn't mean Joe Biden can come in and just strike down the Second Amendment. By the way, Donald Trump came in and said you can't have guns. He said after Alex Prey was killed. Can you imagine what Michael would have said if Joe Biden had said you can't have guns? By the way, notice that Republicans are always fine with executive power when it's in the White House. When it's a Democrat in the White House, they're screaming from the hilltops about overreach. Ted Cruz called Barack Obama a tyrant. Mike Cuckabe called him a dictator. Donald Trump said Biden was leading a Gestapo administration. They said Obama did too many executive orders. Biden governed by executive order. Well, Donald Trump has done a hundred more executive orders in 18 months than Joe Biden did in four years. He's done almost as many executive orders in 18 months as Obama did in 8 years. So this nonsensical position that we're fine with executive power. No, you're not. You're fine with a Republican dictator. You just don't want Democrats to have any power. And I think you should be honest about that.
People have more respect for your views on the Constitution if you were consistent and not just a partisan.
>> Sure. Billy, it's interesting that Medi brings up President Trump's executive orders because I seem to recall a journalist by the name of Medi Hassan who in early 2021 was begging on television for Joe Biden to issue many many more executive. Yeah. And I I believe that this Mr. Hassan was was asking him to follow the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt who issued thousands of executive orders which were so relentless.
>> And your son was attacking Biden for that. That's my point >> that you wanted more from him. But Trump has exceeded Biden Obama and you were the guy you want more. You're saying you say judges overset, >> but do you want more?
>> In 2022, when a Florida judge shot down the mask mandate, co Michael Nolles tweeted, we're quoting each other.
Michael Nolles tweeted on 2022, the hero judge struck down Biden's mask mandate.
When you're a Republican judge who strikes down a Democrat's policy, you're a hero. When you're a Republican judge who strikes down a Republican president, you have. I've blamed them all tonight.
Oh, then it's judicial overreach. See the double standard?
>> Yeah. This is once again Michael's time defending the First Amendment yet again.
Uh so anyway to to the point I was saying uh Medi was very very upset that Joe Biden wasn't wasn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't isn't issuing more executive orders and he said he has to follow FDR who issued thousands which were so relentlessly struck down by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional that FDR promised to uh totally reconstitute the court for the first time in 70 years and only because a judge backed down uh was was that averted? Uh nevertheless you make a good point. Yes, Republicans and Democrats are different. Uh their policies are different. Some are good, some are bad. I want more of the good ones and fewer of the bad ones. But on the issue of executive authority here, there's really no question. You say, "I'd like to amend the constitution." I don't think we really need to. And on this point, on the unitary executive on on the fact that the executive power is vested in the president of the United States, that is clear as day from the uh Constitution from now 250 years of jurist prudence, almost 250 years of juristprudence, and then all the way up to even the post Watergate reforms, the Inspector General Act, which which acknowledges that very fact, and to Supreme Court cases since then. So, the the executive does have a lot of authority. I don't like it when Democrats win it and and affect it, which is why I think we need to win elections.
>> Thank you for thoughts. Ready for the next question.
>> Hi, Michael Amedi. First of all, I want to say thank you so much for coming uh up here.
>> Do you plan to finish reading/ covering the scod scrolling? Are we just reading?
Um yeah, I'll I'll do it tomorrow.
Tomorrow lesson tomorrow have a full stream. I love you guys. Have fun.
Be careful. Stay safe.
Don't die. I love you.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
