On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, the Constitutional crisis we face right now is coming out of the lower courts of the federal judiciary and it must be stopped. We have a federal Judge who ordered President Trump to call back an airplane that was flying vicious criminals back to El Salvador and we have every right to call these Judges out. When Judges act like politicians they must be criticized. This all ties back to Marbury vs Madison and it affects you. Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision, which established the Supreme Court’s power to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, was a dangerous overreach not intended by the Founding Fathers. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the judiciary this authority, portraying judicial review as an implied power that Marshall seized to expand the Court’s influence. This decision in this case laid the groundwork for the judicial tyranny which has since undermined the republic, allowing unelected judges to override the will of the people and the legislative branch. Also, for the apologists of the Iranian terror regime, a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental missile has the capacity to kill millions of Americans. To pretend otherwise is unconscionable and insane. Trump is 100% right, Iran must never get a nuclear weapon, period! The official position of MAGA: Iran will not get nukes. The President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor all said in the last 24-36 hours that by hook or by crook, Iran must not and will not get nuclear weapons. Then comes this bizarre claim – Israel’s got nukes! Yes, but they’ve never dropped them on any of their enemies, never even waved them around as a threat because Israel’s the core of the Holy Land.
Storage.Courtlistener
RESPONSE AND MOTION TO VACATE HEARING
X
STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP…
Photo by: Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. I never know how my voice and the asthma and the rest of it are going to behave until I start the program. So far, so good. But it’s early yet. It’s a lot to get into America. I’m very resentful right now. In fact, I’m pretty angry right now. The left, the media, former federal prosecutors and their ilk. Seem to be saying if we criticize federal judges. If we criticize them, there’s something wrong with us if we criticize them. We’re the ones who are politicizing the judiciary if we criticize them. We might even being encouraging violence against judges. That is a contemptible, blasphemous lie. Any more than criticism of any public officials would cause any of those things to occur. This government was founded for. We the people. We the beaten. By and for we the people. We have a constitutional construct. That is being attacked at every level and at every direction. It is important that those of us who believe in the Constitution. And believe that it protects we the people speak out and defend it. If you’re interested in taking somewhat of a deep dive here, then this is your right show. The Constitution of the United States creates one court, the Supreme Court. I disagree slightly with my friend Newt Gingrich. No, Congress cannot abolish the Supreme Court. It can change the number of justices, but the court is a constitutional construct. Every other court is a creation of Congress. They created it. It can eliminate it. It funds it. It can defund it. I also don’t agree that we should be impeaching these judge. Did you want to know why Now one of them will be removed. Not one. We don’t have a super duper majority of senators that will vote to remove any one of these judges. As long as the Democrats hold 47 seats. So that’s not going to happen. So let’s not piss in a win win ourselves in the face and act like we’re doing something. There are ways to address this, and I’ll get to this later. These federal district courts are a creation of Congress. And the president with his signature, they pass what are called. Judicial acts or judiciary acts starting in 1801. There’s literally nothing in the Constitution that confers judicial review on any court, including the Supreme Court. So judicial review is at best an implied power. Thomas Jefferson would even reject what I just said. The framers of the Constitution, The ratifies of the Constitution believed strongly and said so and wrote so. That the action would be in Congress and in the executive branch, the elected branches. At no time. And nowhere. Did anybody federalist. non-Federal, whatever you want to call them. Wigs. At no time did anybody argue for judicial supremacy. At no time did anybody argue that the Supreme Court should have the final say. Let alone. Litigation trial district courts created by Congress. Obviously, they hadn’t been created yet, but they couldn’t have imagined it. And the idea that you can’t criticize the judges. The vast majority of whom were appointed. Because they reject the constitutional order, the vast majority of whom were appointed. The ones we’re talking about by Clinton, Obama and Biden, because they were vetted as radicals, as activists, because they believe in the Wilsonian view of the judiciary. That radical change, that revolutionary change, centralized government, comes from unelected judges. The idea that somebody like me writes about it and speaks to it and criticizes it and says enough is enough, that somehow I’m political. That somehow that this could lead to violence. It’s outrageous. It’s disgusting. It’s unconscionable. We have free speech in this country, not just for Hamas supporters. But for law abiding, patriotic Americans. There’s not a word that passes my lips that suggests anything but legitimate and civil criticism. And that goes for anybody that I talk to on radio or TV. Just because some former federal prosecutors and others. Have been captured. Captured. By what’s been created out of whole cloth. Just because they lived it and they practiced it and they were paid for it. Doesn’t mean the rest of us have to watch our Constitution be shredded right in front of our eyes. We now have a federal judge. Who says he ordered the president of the United States to call back an airplane or more maybe to. That were flying vicious rapists. Some killers back to Venezuela from where they came. Excuse me. To El Salvador. These Venezuelan gang members. And we have the media, including the Wall Street Journal, Politico and all the rest, saying people like me are politicizing the judiciary. Let me be clear. The judiciary’s politicizing the judiciary. When judges act like politicians, they must be criticized because they are surrendering. Their crucial responsibility. To the left. To the abuses of government. They can’t claim the role of referee and then put on the uniform of one side or the other. You don’t hear me. You don’t hear me attacking the independence of the court system. You hear me demanding the independence of the court system, upholding the Constitution, eliminating activism. That’s where I come from. The key to our Constitution. As the framers explained in the Federalist Papers more than once, the key to our Constitution is, the great Antonin Scalia said. Is separation of powers. Jefferson made the point. And he wasn’t alone. Madison made the point. The Father. The Constitution. Jefferson. The father of the Declaration. Where else are we supposed to go play along? Only exercise free speech when it’s approved, when it’s okay. No, now we’re not going to do that. The criticism of these judges is more than warranted. Their way out of line. They know they are the plaintiffs. That is the petitioners bringing these cases. They know they are there specifically picking these. Heavy Democrat cities because they know it’s more than likely they’ll get one of these radical judges appointed by Biden or Obama or Clinton. That’s why most of these cases are brought in Washington, D.C., in New York. Providence. Rhode Island. Boston. Massachusetts. Seattle. Washington. San Francisco. California. Their game in the system. They’re literally picking judges who they know will rule on their behalf. This isn’t about some criminal case, a motions filing a brief where you don’t like the result, a sentencing where you disagree with a judge. This is about the republic. It’s bigger than one case. The myopia of some of these commentators is pathetic. They want to defend these judges and defend them. But get into the case. Explain to us what the Constitution says. Explain to us what the law says. Show us how the judges are ruling. By upholding the law in the Constitution that they won’t do. They speak in generalities. The constitutional crisis we face right now is coming out of the lower courts of the federal judiciary, and it’s got to be stopped. He has to be stopped by the Supreme Court or stopped by Congress. The problem with Congress is the filibuster rule in the Senate, and I support the filibuster rule. But the Democrats are not going not going to try and limit the authority of these unelected lawyers at the trial court level. They’re not going to do it. That doesn’t mean we don’t push it. That doesn’t mean we don’t put it on as writers. It doesn’t mean we figure out how to put it in some kind of reconciliation so we can get past the the filibuster or. The smart parliamentarians in the House and the Senate who know Robert’s Rules up and down. They need to put their heads together and help figure this out. The four original constitutionalists on the court. Alito. Thomas Kavanaugh has been doing well. Gorsuch. They need to sit down and have a chat with the chief Justice. Because things are out of control and they’re going to continue to go out of control if federal district judges act like federal national potentates. I’ve got a lot more to say. And I want to focus in. And what this judge did or tried to do. When he tried to order. The president of the United States. To call back planes in international airspace. To return Venezuelan gang members, vicious, vile gang members back to the United States. You see, Joe Biden can open the border and invite them in in specific. Violation of federal immigration law. But if Donald Trump is trying to enforce federal immigration law and remove them. Apparently he needs this judge’s permission. That’s bull crap. We’ll be right back.
Segment 2
So you have union bosses, you have immigration groups, you have private lawyers representing immigrants. You have attorneys general from blue states, all coordinating, all collaborating, all colluding and bringing scores and scores of lawsuits, bringing them in front of as many Clinton, Obama, Biden, Never Trumper judges as possible. And so right now we have chaos, if not outright anarchy. We’re individual judges who are supposed to be ruling in specific federal districts, are ruling nationwide, making nationwide decisions. The law right now is unstable. It’s unpredictable. The courtrooms are more like political rooms than courtrooms. And you and I are supposed to keep our mouths shut. Now, that’s not happening. Now I have something very special for you. We’ll start at the top of the next hour. Many of you have heard of this case, Marbury versus Madison. You probably don’t have any idea what it is. That case affects you and has affected our forefathers. And it’s crucially important to understand. Especially if you’re not a lawyer, especially if you’re just a blue collar person who’s out there working every day and you don’t follow this stuff, You don’t much care for lawyers. You didn’t go to law school and all this gobbledygook. I’m going to explain it in plain English, because that’s what I do. I’m going to explain it in plain English so you understand what’s happened to your country. And then you will see that what these judges are doing absolutely outrageous. They’re destroying separation of powers. They’re destroying the power of the executive branch under Article two. The Supreme Court is Article three. What the what the founding framers did. They created a silhouette of a judiciary, if you will. For Congress to figure out the rest. But no, Congress has the power to delegate presidential slash executive branch powers. Two judges. Congress doesn’t have the power to create these judges and then they delegate to them powers that belong to another branch of government. In fact, the president of the United States does not have the power to delegate to judges that power that belongs to the executive branch. No single president, no single Congress, no subsequent president, no subsequent Congress has the right through statute to change the manner by which the Constitution was created and established. Period. Period. More when I return.
Segment 3
Okay, let me let me do it now. Not next hour, because Mr. Produce is going to push this segment as far out as he’s allowed under the rule of law now, as far out as we can. Okay. This comes from my first book, Men in Black, which was a massive bestseller on the Supreme Court. They’d never been a massive bestseller on the Supreme Court before. But I want you to listen to this. As I said, while the Constitution created this silhouette of the national judiciary, they’re very, very important. You’re going to now know more than anybody else. It was up to Congress actually, to form it with legislation that would constitute a functional system of federal courts. Remember, whatever Congress creates, the president either signs or doesn’t as well. Congress did this with the Judiciary Acts of 1789 in 1801. Now, the biggest problem with the Judiciary Act of 1801 was timing. The bill was introduced before the presidential election of 1800, but it was not passed by the Federalists controlled Congress until after the election. And while the deadlock, the deadlock presidential election was being determined by the House of Representatives, President John Adams. He was the Federalist signed the bill on February 13, 1801, just three weeks before the end of his term of office. So he signs the bill knowing he’s a lame duck, knowing that he lost. Jefferson won. The Democratic Republicans won the entire House and Senate. And so the Federalists are going out and Adams signs it anyway. He also sent to the Federalist controlled Senate his party nominees for the 16 new judgeships. And they were confirmed shortly before the end of the Adams administration. So the Federalist created these judgeships, filled these judgeships. After they lost, but before they left. Now these judges. Sorry, I’m having to move the book around. Came to be called Adams Midnight Judges, some of whom became the subject of the case Marbury versus Madison, on March eight, 1802, just days after Thomas Jefferson’s followers, the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 on April 28, 1802. Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1802, which, among other things, abolished those 16 new judgeships created by Adams and his Federalist Party that were now out of power. In its 1803 Marbury versus Madison decision, the Supreme Court determined that had the power to decide cases about the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions, and when it deemed they violated the Constitution, it could overturn them. Their shorthand label, given this court made authority, is judicial review. So here’s the Supreme Court made up mostly of federalist. That decides in the first full year of the Jefferson presidency. Oh, by the way, we have the power to decide what you Republicans in Congress do or what the Republican president does is constitutional or not. And this quite literally, quite literally, is the foundation for the runaway power exercised by the federal courts to this day. The shorthand for this judicial review. What is far less recognize is that Marbury started out as anything but the ominous precedent. It has become. You ready? Marbury was a brilliantly conceived political strategy created by John Marshall, a master politician. Marshall, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote the decision not to set a revolutionary precedent, but to deny the new President, Jefferson, his long time political rival, an opportunity to rebuff a Supreme Court controlled by Jefferson’s federalist opponents. Marbury was precipitated by the election of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, the incumbent vice president, a leader of the Republicans, ran for president against the incumbent president, John Adams, leader of the Federalists. The Federalist control both houses of Congress, but war torn between the followers of Adams and Alexander Hamilton, who was also Federalist. Now, Hamilton’s faction withheld its support for Adams re-election bid in 1800, and the race ended in an Electoral College tie between Jefferson and his vice presidential running mate, Aaron Burr. Whole nother crazy story. Adams came in third. The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives. Realizing he would not win re-election. ADAMS Adams moved to solidify his party’s influence in the federal government, so he exploited the situation. The passage of the Judiciary Act of 1801, creating 16 new federal circuit judgeships, was part of Adams’s strategy. Just prior to leaving office, Adams selected the Federalist controlled lame duck Senate confirmed nominees to fill these posts. Adam’s term ran out, however, before John Marshall, who was then secretary of state. He was Adams’s secretary of state. Could actually deliver the commissions of office to some of the designees. Marshall, his successor, because he moved to chief justice of the Supreme Court in the last year of Adams, his presidency. Marshall, his successor is Secretary of State James Madison, refused to deliver the commissions at President Jefferson’s direction, and William Marbury, among others, filed suit in federal court seeking an order, a writ of mandamus directing Madison to deliver his commission as justice of the peace. Is this clear so far, Mr. Producer? So Marshall Long, a rival of Jefferson’s and Virginia politics, was one of the most articulate leaders in the Federalist Party. Marshall had served in the Virginia State House, the U.S. House of Representatives, as one of John Adams’s representatives to France in 1797 and then as secretary of state. He was nominated to be chief justice by President Adams and assumed the post on February four, 1801, exactly one month before Adams left office. With a Republican majority elected to both houses of Congress in 1800. Marshall realized that Jefferson and his Republicans. Could. It could do that. Excuse me. I’m having trouble reading. Could denude the Supreme Court of authority. And then he, as Chief justice, could be impeached and removed from office. Marshall understood that in the Marbury case, if he ordered Secretary of State Madison to deliver a Marbury Commission to office, Jefferson would order Madison to ignore the Supreme Court. And the court’s authority would be seriously weakened. Marshall was also concerned that he not be seen as protecting the interests of the federalist jurists like Marbury, who had assumed his position as a justice of the peace and had been hearing cases and use in issuing judgments for a year. Before he was confirmed. Bearing all this in mind, Martial’s decision in Marbury, while upsetting the Constitution’s balance of power and the relationship between the federal government and the States, was a master political stroke. Marshall stated that Marbury, consistent with legal doctrine at the time, had something akin to a property right to the office to which he had been nominated and confirmed. Marshall also said that the federal judiciary could be able to issue an order directing the appointment of Marbury, But because the Constitution did not enumerate such an original right for the Supreme Court, the court was. Our list to do so. He says, Look. Probably has a property right in that judgeship, but we don’t have the authority to do anything about it. The marshal then went on. He went beyond the specific issues in the case. Now, by the way, remember, as secretary of state, it was Marshall who signed off on this guy’s courtship, Mr. Producer. He shouldn’t have been hearing the case. He shouldn’t have been involved in the case since he had been a immaterial actor in the case. So Marshall went well beyond the specific issues in the case. He said that the court had a responsibility to set aside acts of Congress that violate principles enumerated in the Constitution. So he says, look, we don’t have the power in this case to get this who maintain this guy’s judgeship, to give him a judgeship. But I want to be clear, even though we’re not doing it, so we rules on behalf of Madison and Jefferson. But then he says. But I just want to be clear. We have the power to make the final judgments on whether an act of Congress. The act of a president is constitutional or not. Based on what? Based on nothing. In fact, I quote. He said. Between these alternatives, there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either. A superior paramount law. Unchangeable by ordinary means. It’s on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like other acts, is alter alter a ball when the legislature shall please to alter it. But he says, the judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of these of those who gave this power to say that in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises. This is too extravagant to be maintained. That’s the most famous paragraph of all reason I’m having trouble reading as I know my glasses. So in any event. There he is. Now, he didn’t punch Jefferson in the nose. In Madison. In the nose he gave them. This this judicial vacancy back. But in doing so. He assumed enormous powers for himself, the other Federalists on the court and the Supreme Court forever. Hey, look, if we’re supposed to look at this stuff, of course we have to look at whether it’s constitutional or not. Marshall’s Federalist Party had lost the presidency in Congress, but Marshall was determined to fight back. And so the doctrine of judicial review was born. Yes, the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land. But now that court and this court in particular by its own fiat, would decide what is or is not constitutional, the Constitution structure, including the balance of power between these branches, was now broken. Although Jefferson is claimed by modern Democrats as the father of their political party, he was a leading opponent of judicial activism. And after Marbury, Jefferson became an even more vocal critic of what he viewed as the overreaching of the judiciary. Under Marshall’s leadership. To Abigail Adams, John Adams wife. Jefferson wrote a year after Marbury the following The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion that’s Marbury, which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not. Not for themselves and their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres would make the judiciary a despotic branch. And he became even more. Even more irritated by it up to the time he died. Now, according to some people on TV, according to some people in the media. You’re not to criticize what these lower court judges have done. What do you think Jefferson and the founders would have thought? A federal district judge’s. Created by Congress. Ruling outside their districts, issuing national edicts across the land. Probably on two dozen occasions in the last six weeks overruling the president of the United States without frankly, constitutional or legal bases of any significant kind. What do you think Jefferson would say about that? And to repeat, we have separation of powers, number one, to repeat. Number two, the idea of judicial review. It may be an implied power, but it was grabbed. It was seized. By Marshall. So shouldn’t the courts at least be a little restrained in their use of judicial review? The answer is yes, of course. Number three, Congress has no power to delegate the power of the presidency. Two judges. That they create. Number four, no president has the power to delegate to judges that Congress creates and he signs off on. And changes the balance of power for the president. In other words, no branch has the power to rewrite the Constitution, to take one power from another branch. And yet we’re seeing it over and over and over again on the ministerial duties of this president, whether it’s immigration and the deportation of violent gang members, whether it’s what you put on websites in the federal government, whether it’s the abolition of a department or an agency within a department, whether it’s human resources decision about how many bureaucrats you want and which ones you’re going to release. And you’ll hear people say, well, it has to comply with the federal statute. Well, if a federal statute is tying the hands of the president of the United States, who’s in the Constitution, who’s elected nationwide, only he and the vice president, then there are serious questions. If they go to the heart of the ability of a president to manage his executive branch, a unitary executive branch, claiming independent agencies. Claiming that they had written statutes to tie his hands. Then let me suggest to you that most of that is unconstitutional. And no, I won’t shut my mouth. You can tell the Hamas supporters to shut their mouths. Me? Never. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
Now, you know, more than 99.9% of the people, the other people in the United States, and probably 90% of the attorneys who like to hear themselves talk. Marshall was extremely political. He was a political animal. He was given the chief justice slot on the Supreme Court one month before Jefferson took over and Adams was leaving. And he used that position to seize power from the elected branches. That’s what he did. And today we just quaintly call it judicial review. And we’re supposed to bail every time it’s issued. We’ll be right back.