On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Federal District Judges lack the authority to mandate the return of deported individuals to the United States. This power is beyond their jurisdiction, and there is no desire to allow illegal criminals back into the country. The demands of these radical judges are considered preposterous and out of line. Additionally, the left considers President Bukele to be a dictator. Bukele has actually improved his country. Dictators typically damage countries for their own benefit, rather than improving them. Meanwhile, the media continues to harass President Trump with trivial questions about whether he will continue to “export” illegal immigrants. The focus should be on Iran, which poses a significant threat. Trump is committed to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Also, it is concerning that the left remains fixated on criticizing the president’s deportation policies instead of addressing the threat posed by Iran. Lastly, Rep Hakeem Jeffries is criticized for supporting what is perceived as radical nonsense from the left. He attacked Pete Hegseth claiming that he is not fit for this role, but he is and has proven he can handle the job. Hegseth is good and he deserves all the credit he can get. Jeffries and Bernie Sanders despise Hegseth because they are pushing their agenda. Sanders argues that our generation should fight for economic justice, but it would be more beneficial to strive for economic freedom. He does not believe in the concept of a nuclear family, nor does he believe in resolve our foreign issues. He thinks we are running an oligarchy, which is preposterous.
History
The Largest Mass Deportation in American History
Free Speech Center
Sedition Act of 1918
The Washington Post
Man charged with attempted murder, terrorism in fire at Gov. Shapiro’s home
Texas Wire
No bail for man accused of posting Facebook threats against Trump day before Jupiter trip
Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP
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. Good Passover for my Jewish friends. Now, man, we’ve got a lot to talk about, but I want to dig in here. A lot of violence out there. I mean, really hideous stuff going on. But before we get to that, let’s get to this. Judges, the administration has taken the position that no federal judge can order a president of the United States to demand from another country that they take their citizen who’s been deported to their country and bring them back to the United States. The administration has also argued that a judge does not have the power to interfere with foreign policy like that either. The administration is correct 100%. Now, I like to go back to the beginning. As you know, ladies and gentlemen, that beginning being the Constitutional convention, sometimes before that and this issue actually came up. You know, we didn’t always have a Supreme Court and a president and separation of powers. They sat down in Philadelphia over that summer for a little over five months, and they worked out the details of this this fantastic governing document, the Constitution. The world has never seen anything like our Constitution then and since. And so they were creating this office of the presidency. They were creating this Supreme Court. They were doing something that had never been done before. Three separate branches of government, the judicial, the legislative and the executive. It had been mentioned a couple 100 years earlier. By Montesquieu in his writings. It was mentioned a little bit earlier than that by John Locke in his writings. But Montesquieu was very specific about what he had in mind. And they weren’t the only ones. Divided power. Aristotle wrote about it. Cicero wrote about it. And if you look at England, once the monarchy began to lose power. They had a separate parliament and a monarch and a court system. At no time not one syllable was expressed in support of the idea. In any of the. State ratification conventions that receive the Constitution, that the judiciary was lacking power, that this Supreme Court that they created was lacking power. But what’s interesting and I did a little review of this over the weekend, if you go back and you look at Madison’s notes and you look at what they proposed about the presidency, the United States, they did have an idea that came up and was quickly rejected by the overwhelming majority of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. And that was a judicial council. And this judicial council has they were thinking about it. Would oversee every decision that would be made by this president they were thinking of establishing. And so you would effectively have. Some kind of judiciary, some kind of court, some kind of judges. Having the power. To veto a presidential decision or to help convince a president to change his decision somehow, you know, alter it or modify it. Now three of the most powerful, the delegates who came up with this idea. Two of them being Madison himself and John Dickinson supporting it. But the vast majority said, no way. This president, that we’re thinking of establishing this executive branch. There must be a distinction. Between the judges and the president. And these members of the legislature, there must be a distinction. There must be a separation of powers. Because Montesquieu, as they would later write, informed them that at the legislative. Becomes part of the executive or the executive becomes part of the judicial or judicial becomes part of the executive. You will have tyranny. 20 said. Now we bring it to modern day. We have a phalanx of judges unknown to you. Their resume is unknown to you. Their backgrounds are known to you. Without your consent, without your knowledge, without your input in any way determining that they shall make executive branch decisions, that they will in fact be a traditional council, if you will, looking over the shoulder of the President. Making decisions for the president in lieu of the president or trying to force the president to modify his decisions. And they do this without any constitutional any constitutional basis whatsoever. Then an interpretation of the Constitution which was wholly bastardized. Back in 1803 and then Marbury versus Madison by a very partisan political chief justice by the name of John Marshall. That’s the only basis upon which they’re doing what they’re doing. It completely changed the nature of our government. One of the great constitutional thinkers of all time was not a lawyer. But he was a historian slash philosopher. And his name was Raul Burger. And Raul Berger wrote an entire book on this subject, and he was. Prolific in the book, said he wrote and prolific in the research that he did, like few others. He and Robert Bork became good friends. But he was a professor. He became a professor. He didn’t start out that way. He was an immigrant and a Jewish immigrant from Germany. And he talked about government by the judiciary. He did the most thorough analysis of this of anybody I’ve ever seen. He’s not with us any longer, unfortunately. But you understand. And there is nothing. Nothing that confers this kind of power on these courts, the lower appellate courts, the court for that matter, nothing. They talk about the necessary and proper clause. Folks, you’re going into second year law school here with me, but I’m putting it in plain English. The necessary and proper close. What’s that all about? Well, the clause hasn’t actually called the necessary and proper clause, but it is a clause in the Constitution where Congress is granted the power. To pass laws and the executive to enforce laws that are necessary and proper. For what? For the general welfare. The public? No. For what? The more modern activists call this the elastic, the elastic claws, the elastic claws. And so you see, their perspective is the necessary and proper clause destroys the entire. Constitutional Convention, the focus of the Constitutional Convention, the construct of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, everything just with this one clause, the necessary and proper clause that somehow authorizes Congress. Congress to do whatever is necessary and proper that Congress thinks is necessary and proper. So here you have two views from the hard left that are preposterous. One is that the judiciary, through judicial review, that’s not in the Constitution. Power is seized by the Marshall Court. Embraced and expanded by subsequent courts. Judicial review. We had the final say. Where’s that written? Nowhere. And then the Congress can pass laws on anything it once, if it’s necessary and proper, Necessary and proper meant what? It meant when Congress passes a law within the construct of the Constitution that has to do with national matters or has to do with the language that is specific to Congress under Article one. Then. Otherwise the stage pass laws. The state create the bank, not the Fed, not the national bank that the Washington created and so forth. Now the states have all this authority. The lawmaking was released to be the province of the States. But with the necessary and proper clause argue. The big government types. Basically, Congress can pass laws on anything they want and under the supremacy clause, whatever Congress says goes, whether the states like it or not. That is not what was debated and discussed at the Constitutional Convention. Nothing even like it. What the necessary and proper clause meant then and should mean today. If Congress passes a law legitimately within its Article one powers defined authority, then it can pass additional laws. That are necessary and proper for carrying out the laws that were properly passed in the first place. Or that the executive can take steps to execute laws that were properly passed under Article one. In the first place, it didn’t give Congress the power to pass laws on every but thing. It was necessary and proper. Oh, great. You with me on this, Mr. Brewster? It’s gets a little heavy, but this is where we need to be. So we have a situation. Well, the Supreme Court seized power from the other branches of government says we will say what is final period. They call it implied powers. Implied powers can mean any power. Implied powers. Has no boundaries. What does that mean? That’s number one. That’s the court. Number two, Congress has seized power from the states that Congress does not have. Then that’s the same property clause. Doesn’t give it the Congress in any respect. Number three, the supremacy clause. What the federal government passes, the Congress cast, passes its supreme. Do anything the state passes. No. It means if there’s a conflict of laws, that is where Congress is operating within its Article one powers And it passes a law that is legitimate under the Constitution. And let’s say it conflicts with a state or several states laws. Under those circumstances, in those circumstances only. Does the supremacy clause kick in and Congress wins the dispute. The federal government was. Be very limited in what it could do, but what it could do, it had very powerful authority, but it had to operate within its zones, within its lanes. I know this is heavy. I’ve thrown concepts to you. I’ve thrown the Constitution at you. I’ve thrown what they’ve done to the Constitution at you. But it’s very important to understand implied power. Judicial power does not exist. The necessary and proper clause, which they claim allows Congress to pass laws on anything they want. That’s not the necessary and proper clause in the Constitution. The supremacy clause or whatever the federal government does trumps the states. That’s not what the supremacy clause means either. So you can see the centralization of power under the federal government. And this is what Donald Trump, whether they articulated at the Justice Department this way or not. It doesn’t really matter. This is what they’re trying to challenge and confront. The problem is the Supreme Court has given itself the power to make the final decision. In the lower courts have given themselves the power to make the initial decision and usurped the power of the presidency. I’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Now, ladies and gentlemen, of course, the left will get excited about what I’ll say the reprobates and media which stand there and just hate Trump. Hate Trump, hate Republicans, hate Fox. Hate me on and on and on. Basically, these are low IQ. Radical leftists sit in their basements at home. I’d say they have a, you know, five five day growth on their face, but I’m not sure they’re even capable at it. They sit there with golden spoons in their mouths, but I want to have an honest discussion with you. It won’t even take long on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1951. I’m literally doing this by memory. I think it was February 1951. But they study this stuff and there are some people out there, there are the foggiest idea what they’re talking about, others who are trying to exploit this to attack President Trump and conservatives. But some people out there who say it doesn’t say what it says. Of course it says what it says. And I want to make the case not only about what it says, but what we as constitutionalists, as people who believe in liberty, what we should be thinking about, the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. And we’ll do this right after the bottom of the hour. This one won’t be as complicated. It’s actually quite simple. We’ll be right back.
Segment 3
I also believe in what’s called intellectual honesty. That’s what we constitutionalist say. No activism. Read the text of it straight forward. And it is what it is. It’s not straight forward. And we look at what was intended when the text was written. Maybe we’ll look at the debates around it, at a language at the time and so forth. But that’s what we we seek to do. There needs to be a rule of law in the Constitution as our rule of law. You and I favor term limits for members of Congress, don’t we? I do. But you have to amend the Constitution to do that. Many states have term limits for the representatives. We do not, except for the president of the United States. The Constitution was in fact, amended. Amendment 22. The 22nd Amendment to the United States. February 27. I just looked it up. I was close. I said. February 1951, February 27, 1951. What happened? What would cause three fourths of the state? Actually more of the states out there that would include Democrats? States? I would include Democrats. What would cause them to vote to limit the term of a President Franklin Roosevelt cause. Up until Franklin Roosevelt, no president ever served more than two terms. That was the tradition set by George Washington. Why did George Washington do that when George Washington could have been president for the rest of his life? Because Washington believed that was too akin to a king, a despot. And that was the tradition followed. No more than two terms up until Franklin Roosevelt decided to run for a third term. Then he decided to run for a fourth term, even though he was dying, even though he knew he was dying for terms. The only president of the United States to serve more than two terms. And so Congress got concerned. Including Democrats. They said, What if we have a popular Republican president? And to amend the Constitution either through convention of states. Or through Congress. And the state is very difficult. Very difficult. The first way. You need two thirds of both houses of Congress to pass a proposed amendment has to have the exact same wording. They send it to the states and then you need three fourths of the state legislatures. To ratify. That’s a super duper majority or convention of states where the states propose. The stage proposed an amendment to a supermajority. And yet they still need three fourths of the states to ratify what the states propose. Here’s what the SEC, the 22nd Amendment to the United States, says granting Section one. This isn’t plain English. It’s so plain that even Joe Biden can understand this. No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, comma. That’s where it really ends. And no person who has held the office of president or acted as president for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected to the office of president more than once. Now, what they’re saying there is let’s let’s let’s take an example. We have Calvin Coolidge. Harding died in office. So Calvin Coolidge finished the the Harding term. Then he ran for his own term and he served a total of seven years. And so they’re saying, well, Calvin Coolidge couldn’t run again. Why? Because if he won, he will have been serving for 11 years. The cutoff is ten years. Two terms plus two years. That’s eight. Four plus four plus two. Four plus four plus two. The same with Harry Truman. Just a few months after he was re-elected and sworn in, Franklin Roosevelt passed away. Harry Truman stepped in. Harry Truman would serve a total of seven years. He couldn’t run again with this amendment if it had been in place, because he would have wound up serving more than ten years total. That is nothing to do with what we’re talking about now. So everything after that comma doesn’t matter. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. That’s 14 words. They could not be clearer. And that’s the way it is. Obama couldn’t run again. Clinton couldn’t run again. No person shall be elected the office of the President more than twice. Then we get all these kinds of conspiracy theories and other theories that are irrelevant. Well, what if somebody runs for president and and Donald Trump or whomever is vice president? They’ve served eight years and then that person would step aside and that now, now, now, none of that works. None of it works, and we don’t want it to work. We’re constitutional conservatives. We know what the 22nd Amendment means. We know why it was. Adopted excuse me, passed by Congress with a supermajority, then passed by the States with a super duper majority. We know it was meant there’s really no debate. Even President Trump has said, I don’t know. I don’t know. He doesn’t bring it up. They bring it up to him. Well, we’re going to get a group of people to really look at this while we’re looking at all you want. Stripes are stripes. Dots are dots. And the 22nd Amendment is the 22nd Amendment. That’s the way it is. This is why I spent the first part of the program discussing with you. Why it’s so detrimental to our country, to our system. When the Supreme Court and the courts do what they do and have done what they done, when Congress has done what it has done with the necessary and proper clause to basically claim it’s a national legislature, they can legislate on anything it wants. That was never the intention. And here we are with a fourth branch of government, this massive bureaucracy, which is clearly unconstitutional. If you want to make it constitutional, then you amend the Constitution in one of two ways. But that’s not how they function on the left. That massive bureaucracy, that fourth branch of government never passed the lips of a single delegate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It never passed the lips of a single delegate to the ratification conventions in our state capitals. Not one person brought it up or argued for it. Not one. And yet there it is, massive. Because that’s what the early progressives, a.k.a. American Marxist, wanted, unelected judges and an unelected bureaucracy controlling our lives. That’s what they wanted. That’s why they hate Trump, because he’s challenging both. He’s pushing back. He’s doing it out of common sense. But what he’s doing out of common sense has. Incredible consequences for our republic. Incredible. And this is why I support him. And this is why all conservatives should support him. We’ve never had somebody push back like this, certainly not in modern times. We had Reagan, but now we have Trump. It’s very important what he’s trying to do. Very important. The so-called conservatives who attack him now, they have seriously psychological issues or they’re just more comfortable whining, talking, writing, having seminars where they talk to each other. Trump’s not into that. He knows I got one life to live. I’m only going to be here a certain amount of time. Let me make a difference. Let me do what’s right. This. Here’s why. On last night’s Life, Liberty and Levin, in the opening. I spent more time than usual 20 minutes in that monologue, and I went on about what past presidents have done, and I could have gone on for 20 hours. That make Donald Trump look like a Boy Scout as president of the United States. Yet they keep calling him a dictator, a despot, Hitler On and on and on and on. They never said that about LBJ. Or John Kennedy, dare I say, and go on and on about it. Trump has done nothing like any of those presidents that I mentioned last night on Fox where I just mentioned to you. Nothing. But what’s true is true. And with the Constitution says it says and in this instance, the text is so clear. It is utterly unequivocal. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, comma. It goes on. It doesn’t relate to what we’re talking about. No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice. And you should be very happy about this. Because Donald Trump won’t be with us forever. We won’t be here forever. And we don’t want the iron fist of the radical left police state because that is a greater threat, whether it’s the judiciary, whether it’s the bureaucracy, whether it’s Congress, certainly the presidency, that is a greater threat than any other threat we face. The left, the Democrats, this is why they hate the Constitution. This is why they hate the Electoral College. This is why they hate separation of powers. This is why they they attacked the independence of the Supreme Court. Not the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, where you and I are debating and aggressively attacking the lower courts for stealing authority from another branch of government. No, no, no. They object to the Supreme Court because they don’t get the outcomes that they want. They attacked the electoral system. They have an entire bill put together that they introduce every two years to steal the authority from the states, to run elections, to turn the whole nation into California so that Republicans are any other party. But the Democrat Party can never win. They borrow this from their Marxist brothers and sisters, a single party. They have a Communist party. We have a Democrat Party, a single party, a one party country where the other parties. Well, I like the. Washington generals playing the the Harlem Globetrotters are there. But their foils, they don’t matter. The Republican Party would be the Washington generals. In other words, you go through the emotion of an election, but the outcome for the other party is certain. That’s how they want to change the electoral process. So you and I have to stand as constitutionalists. We have to stand firm. And I intend to. No matter what comes. And I seriously doubt. That anybody seriously believes. That President Trump would run for a third term anyway. He loves to troll these people on the left and they bite down hard every damn time. Every damn time. And no, I’m not defying the president. No, I’m not undermining the president. He and I are very, very good, close friends. Got that? That simple. He’s been through a hell of a lot. And I. And you, we have stood with him. Through all the injustices. Through all the abuses of power. Through all the unconstitutional attacks on that man. If we have differences, maybe difference on a policy here or there, so be it. But I’ve explained the tariffs. I’ve explained what I believe his intentions are, certainly what I think the outcomes will be, not because I love tariffs, but because I think the consequences of what he is doing and what he will do are going to have a huge impact on behalf of the United States and in fact, creating much freer markets all over the world. We now have 130 countries, I believe, and we’ll get to that a little later in the program. 130 countries or so who are trying to negotiate with us. Did you see that, Mr.. Is. Well, they’re not trying to negotiate for higher tariffs. They’re trying to negotiate for lower tariffs. They want us to lower ours now that he put them on and they will lower theirs. And so the result will be the freest global trade in modern American history. If he pulls it off and only he can pull it off. And the Lilliputians biting at his heels. They’re so-called experts who are not experts, those who claim to be fiscal conservatives who blown the lid off our budgets. Stop listening to them. If they were right, we wouldn’t be here in the first place. I’ll be right back.
Segment 4
For these reasons, other than Section 22 of my earlier comments as why I talk about we live in a post constitutional America. What is this? To the extent there are constitutional boundaries, it’s no thanks to the Democrats or the left. It’s no thanks to the media. And this battle between the president and the courts is a battle that is needed. It is needed. You can’t just acquiesce. To this judicial, despotism and power grab, because once the precedent is set, it’s going to be almost impossible to undo it. Like in the state of Israel, where they essentially have a so-called Supreme Court that is akin to a Soviet style politburo. They’re even deciding what amendments their legislature, their parliament, the Knesset, can pass through their own laws, and they’ve ruled that they cannot reform the Supreme Court. That must be great. So tyranny comes in many forms. It can be a president, it can be the courts. It can be the legislature. And. The left. Almost doesn’t care as long as it gets its turn. You know, Woodrow Wilson, in his writings, he was one of the early American Marxists. He pushed for an all powerful president. And then he decided, no, I have a better idea, an all powerful judiciary. Why? Because the judiciary is not elected. And so he got annoyed, as do most Marxists, American Marxists, so-called progressives, leftists, whatever you want to call them. They get annoyed with the interference in their project, you know, with elections. And so they try to fix the election. So the outcome is certain. They try to empower their party. So regardless of the outcome of the elections, they have control. And short of that, they try to empower the unelected parts of the government, which they had the bureaucracy and the judges. So election or no election, they rule the day. And that’s where we are. And Trump says no. No, we’re not. Can you imagine? Republicans like Romney. A Republicans like you name them, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski. These are the buffoons. These are the fools that the hard left counts on. I’ll be right back.