Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:05.680] Welcome back to the channel. You're probably aware of the leaked draft decision written by [00:05.680 --> 00:11.840] Justice Alito concerning Roe v. Wayne. It appears the so-called conservative wing of the court [00:12.480 --> 00:22.480] may be about to repute and overturn Roe. But there is something dastardly in Alito's [00:22.480 --> 00:27.680] draft, something unrelated to abortion that no one's talking about. [00:44.240 --> 00:49.120] Let's recap a few points from Roe before we get into the disturbing language in Alito's draft. [00:49.840 --> 00:57.120] Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, and a simple explanation of it would be the court said that it [00:57.120 --> 01:03.760] was a woman's right to be the only one to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy or terminate [01:03.760 --> 01:08.800] the pregnancy, and that the government could not be a part of that decision-making process. [01:08.800 --> 01:13.840] I think it's important to say in this context, the government means the vote of the people, [01:13.920 --> 01:19.680] the vote of the representatives of the people. So if 51 percent of the voters acting through [01:19.680 --> 01:25.280] their elected representatives say, a woman can't do that, the Supreme Court said, you people have [01:25.280 --> 01:31.840] no say in that. She gets to make that decision without you being involved. If you read Roe, [01:31.840 --> 01:40.160] it's really not about abortion. It's about what we just discussed. Can the community, can 51 percent [01:40.160 --> 01:45.600] of the voters acting through their legislators tell somebody who's facing a medical decision [01:45.600 --> 01:49.680] what they can and cannot do? That's really what it's about. And to be clear, as we progress in [01:49.680 --> 01:56.640] this presentation, I'm not taking a stance for or against abortion. This is not that video. This is [01:56.640 --> 02:03.120] about the disturbing language that appears in Alito's draft and what it could portend for the [02:03.120 --> 02:11.200] future of this country. Alito's draft opinion states that Roe, quote, must be overturned. That's [02:11.200 --> 02:19.120] exactly what the draft says, must be overturned, because, and I quote, the Constitution makes no [02:19.120 --> 02:26.080] reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. [02:26.720 --> 02:33.040] Close quote. Did a problem jump out at you with that language? All right, let's take a look at it. [02:33.040 --> 02:36.000] It's essentially two clauses. Let's take a look at each of them. The first, [02:36.800 --> 02:42.800] the Constitution makes no reference to abortion. We're going to come back to that in a minute. [02:42.800 --> 02:49.920] The second part, second clause, quote, no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional [02:49.920 --> 02:59.040] provision. Implicitly protected. Implicitly. So we begin with this. Implicitly has no meaning [02:59.040 --> 03:04.960] in a legal dictionary. So then we have to resort to a plain English dictionary. And when we go to the [03:04.960 --> 03:12.080] English dictionary, we find that it has two very different meanings and, oddly, neither brings [03:12.080 --> 03:18.480] anything significant to understanding Alito's point. If we substitute one definition of implicit [03:18.480 --> 03:26.720] in Alito's sentence, it would read like this. No such right is indirectly protected by any [03:26.720 --> 03:32.800] constitutional provision. If we substitute the other definition of implicitly, then the sentence [03:32.800 --> 03:39.280] reads this way. No such right is absolutely protected by any constitutional provision. [03:39.840 --> 03:45.120] At this juncture, I should probably point out that in Alito's draft, the language he chose, [03:45.120 --> 03:50.240] and we don't know who he may have worked with on this, so it's under his name, but we don't know [03:50.240 --> 03:57.200] which other four of the so-called conservative wing of the court justices he may have worked with. [03:57.200 --> 04:08.080] But the main point is this. It does not say that the right established or declared in Roe is not [04:08.080 --> 04:16.640] a right. Alito doesn't say that. Indeed, implicitly—now, I'm going to use that word—implicitly [04:16.640 --> 04:24.800] or tacitly. By referring to it as a right, he is impliedly saying, yes, what the court declared in [04:24.800 --> 04:31.680] Roe is in fact a right. However—that seems to be the gist of what he's saying, because at no point [04:31.680 --> 04:38.400] in his draft does he say the right declared in Roe is in fact not a right at all. He doesn't say [04:38.400 --> 04:48.160] that. His argument seems to hinge on whether the court should protect that right. And again, [04:48.160 --> 04:52.480] this is a legal discussion. I'm not taking a position for or against abortion. So if you're [04:52.480 --> 04:57.760] on either side of the fence and you're getting upset at this moment, this is a legal discussion. [04:57.760 --> 05:02.480] This is about how legal arguments are fashioned. This is about what we call a line of reasoning in [05:02.480 --> 05:08.400] a decision. It is not pro-abortion. It is not anti-abortion. So at this point, we are left [05:08.400 --> 05:15.840] with three elements to what Alito is asserting. One, the draft tacitly acknowledges the right [05:15.840 --> 05:24.400] addressed in Roe does exist. Two, abortion is not referenced in the Constitution. And three, [05:25.200 --> 05:30.800] no provision of the Constitution protects the right being discussed. Moving forward, [05:30.800 --> 05:36.640] we're going to limit the discussion to only points two and three. The reason being is those [05:36.640 --> 05:44.320] two points portend a very chilling future for rights in the United States if the rest of the [05:44.320 --> 05:51.840] court, or at least the four additional justices in the so-called conservative wing, agree with [05:51.840 --> 05:59.440] Alito and adopt his language. A very chilling future if we take those two points together [06:00.080 --> 06:04.560] as clearly Alito intends because he put them in the same sentence. [06:05.360 --> 06:11.120] Let's take a look at the potential consequences of the court adopting the language that Alito [06:11.120 --> 06:20.240] used in the draft. You have hundreds and hundreds, perhaps thousands and thousands [06:21.360 --> 06:27.440] of rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. They are not mentioned in [06:27.440 --> 06:32.080] the Constitution, and there is no specific enforcement mechanism designated in the [06:32.080 --> 06:38.480] Constitution. So with Alito's language taking the position that if it doesn't appear in the [06:38.480 --> 06:42.160] Constitution and there's nothing in the Constitution saying, oh yeah, guys, you should [06:42.160 --> 06:48.800] protect this right, then the U.S. Supreme Court won't, according to Alito, moving forward, [06:48.800 --> 06:54.880] looking into the future, won't protect that right. Again, you have hundreds or thousands of [06:54.880 --> 07:04.320] non-enumerated rights. For instance, apparently the court would not protect your right to procreate, [07:04.320 --> 07:10.080] as one example. How about the right of contract? As far as individuals are concerned, as far as [07:10.080 --> 07:14.800] citizens are concerned, that's not mentioned in the Constitution. So under Alito's language, [07:14.800 --> 07:22.080] the Supreme Court, moving forward from 2022 onward, would not protect your right to contract. [07:22.800 --> 07:28.000] How about living wherever you choose in the United States, provided you can financially afford it? [07:28.960 --> 07:33.440] If that were to be restricted in some way and it were to arrive at the Supreme Court, [07:33.440 --> 07:41.200] according to Alito, the court cannot and should not protect that right. How about [07:41.200 --> 07:46.080] raise your own children? You're in charge of the upbringing of your children. [07:47.040 --> 07:51.280] If a local or state government were to intrude on that, or the federal government were to intrude [07:51.280 --> 07:57.760] on that, according to Alito's language, according to what he is establishing by his line of reasoning, [07:58.480 --> 08:03.520] then that right would not be protected by the Supreme Court from 2022 onward. [08:03.520 --> 08:07.360] Another one might be starting your own business. You don't want to work for somebody else, [08:07.360 --> 08:11.760] so you want to create your own business so that you can prosper and you can become [08:11.760 --> 08:15.680] well-to-do and not have to work for somebody else. So if restrictions were put on that, [08:16.800 --> 08:23.920] according to Alito, moving forward, based on his strictures, then the Supreme Court would not [08:23.920 --> 08:29.760] and should not protect that right. These are all things that are universal. These and many, [08:29.760 --> 08:34.640] many, many, many, many more are things universally accepted by the American people as our [08:34.640 --> 08:41.760] unalienable rights. And Alito is saying, if it's not in a provision and there's not something in [08:41.760 --> 08:52.480] the same, we should protect it, then we shouldn't. There is a reason the Ninth Amendment exists. [08:53.120 --> 08:57.440] Yes, I know you probably have never even heard of the Ninth Amendment. You've never thought about [08:57.440 --> 09:02.080] the Ninth Amendment. You've never read about the Ninth Amendment because the Court really, [09:02.080 --> 09:06.640] since the inception of this nation, has rendered it a dead letter. The United States Supreme Court [09:06.640 --> 09:12.160] has relied upon the Ninth Amendment in exactly two cases in the entire history of the United States. [09:12.720 --> 09:20.000] So let me share with you what the Ninth Amendment says. The enumeration in the Constitution [09:20.080 --> 09:24.880] of certain rights, that would be the ones in the early part of the Bill of Rights, [09:25.680 --> 09:35.200] shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Deny. Disparage. [09:36.320 --> 09:41.840] So if the Court said, if the Court followed what Alito has written in his draft and the Court says, [09:41.840 --> 09:46.640] moving forward from 2022, because we're going to rule on this this way, then moving forward, [09:46.640 --> 09:53.440] we're not going to protect any of the non-enumerated rights, which is exactly what [09:53.440 --> 09:59.360] the Ninth Amendment is all about. We're not going to protect any of them. Would that not be a [09:59.360 --> 10:03.120] federal institution? Because remember, the Ninth Amendment is in the federal Constitution. Would [10:03.120 --> 10:10.560] this not be a federal institution, the United States Supreme Court, effectively denying the right [10:11.200 --> 10:17.760] by denying protection of the right? Unless we want to have a shooting war, what protects our [10:17.760 --> 10:22.800] rights ultimately, other than a court saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's a [10:22.800 --> 10:26.160] fundamental right, constitutional right, unalienable right, whatever the issue is. [10:26.160 --> 10:32.080] And so no, the government cannot intrude on that. Once the courts start saying, no, no, sorry, [10:32.720 --> 10:42.320] not going to rule on that. That is effectively a denial of that right. If you can't enforce that [10:42.320 --> 10:47.280] right, other than with the cartridge box, if you can't enforce that right, you don't have that [10:47.280 --> 10:52.960] right. In other words, if the majority of the court chooses to adopt Alito's language and that [10:52.960 --> 10:58.640] ends up being the actual decision of the court, which is probably going to be issued in roughly [10:58.640 --> 11:05.600] seven weeks or so, if that ends up being the language that's in the decision, they essentially [11:05.600 --> 11:13.360] just delivered not only a death blow to the Ninth Amendment, but a death blow to all those hundreds [11:13.360 --> 11:19.840] or thousands of inalienable rights that you have, which are under the umbrella of the Ninth Amendment [11:19.840 --> 11:24.640] because they're not enumerated. If the people of the United States wanted to do away with the [11:24.800 --> 11:31.360] Ninth Amendment, they can certainly do that. Two-thirds of the legislatures of the states [11:31.360 --> 11:38.880] can vote on an amendment that would nullify the Ninth Amendment. That's how you would properly [11:38.880 --> 11:44.560] and constitutionally do away with the Ninth Amendment. There is nothing right and proper [11:44.560 --> 11:50.880] or constitutional about the way it appears Alito intends to do away with the Ninth Amendment and [11:50.880 --> 11:56.240] the ability for you to protect your hundreds or thousands of rights that exist under the umbrella [11:56.240 --> 12:04.720] of the Ninth. No matter what your views are on abortion or the case of Roe v. Wade, this line [12:04.720 --> 12:13.200] of reasoning is not something I think any American should support because it is destructive to the [12:13.200 --> 12:19.360] very fabric of our inalienable rights. If you agree that this is a terrible line of reasoning, [12:19.360 --> 12:24.000] you may even want Roe to go away. But if you agree this is not the way, this is a terrible [12:24.000 --> 12:29.200] legal line of reasoning, do yourself, do all of us a favor, reach out to your elected representatives [12:29.200 --> 12:34.480] in Congress and let them know that they need to contact the court and tell them that basically [12:34.480 --> 12:39.680] delivering a death blow to the Ninth Amendment and the hundreds or thousands of inalienable rights [12:39.680 --> 12:45.440] that exist under the umbrella of the Ninth Amendment is absolutely unacceptable to you [12:45.440 --> 12:50.000] and the other citizens of this country. If you value this sort of analytical presentation, [12:50.000 --> 12:54.880] help me to continue to be here for you. And the way you can do that is you can go to [12:54.880 --> 13:02.560] DrReality.News, pick up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist or Body Science or both. [13:03.120 --> 13:06.480] You've probably heard me talk about it before. Each of them in their respective fields, Income [13:06.480 --> 13:10.960] Tax Shattering the Mist, the field of Income Tax and Body Science, the field of Physiology with an [13:10.960 --> 13:20.000] emphasis on nutritional physiology. In both those areas, these books absolutely shred the false [13:20.000 --> 13:26.880] establishment narrative. And it's not me doing it. It's not my words. In both of those books, [13:26.880 --> 13:33.760] it is the words of the very people who are lying to you, but the words, their words that you have [13:33.760 --> 13:40.400] never, ever heard. And they are consistent and conclusive. And what I mean by that in the case [13:40.400 --> 13:45.600] of Income Tax Shattering the Mist is the societal narrative that everybody who earns some income in [13:45.600 --> 13:51.600] the United States owes some to the federal government is a complete... I hate to use words [13:51.600 --> 14:00.080] cavalierly like lie, but it is. It's a complete freaking lie. And the only reason you believe it [14:00.640 --> 14:04.960] is you've never read what they really said. You've been socialized since you were knee-high to a [14:04.960 --> 14:10.560] grasshopper that, yeah, yeah, you got to file tax returns and paying up tax. No. If you stop [14:10.560 --> 14:16.400] believing the whole societal narrative and say, you know what? I'm going to do what a good American [14:16.400 --> 14:21.840] should do. I'm going to go find out for myself. You will have your mindset right. And the same [14:21.840 --> 14:27.200] thing with body science. America, as you've probably heard me say, is the most chronically [14:27.200 --> 14:34.240] ill society in the entire history of mankind. That's quite a statement. The most chronically [14:34.240 --> 14:42.160] ill society in the entire history of mankind with all of our wealth and all of our science [14:42.160 --> 14:48.640] and all of our technology and all of our abundance. The most chronically ill society in the history [14:48.640 --> 14:54.960] of mankind. How do we get there? Well, body science tells you how we got there politically, [14:54.960 --> 15:00.240] economically, trillion dollar industries, the false narratives that they put out for 60 years [15:00.240 --> 15:05.840] that I don't mean to be offensive, but you probably believe most of them because there's been very few [15:05.840 --> 15:11.760] voices in opposition because they are trillion dollar industries. So they can afford to suppress [15:11.760 --> 15:18.320] the speech of others. But it sets the record straight. And then it explains to you based on [15:18.320 --> 15:23.360] once you understand the falsehoods, then it gets into a discussion of how human physiology really [15:23.360 --> 15:27.840] works in the discussion. Even though physiology is science, it is represented in a way that every [15:27.840 --> 15:36.320] single person can absolutely understand. And once you understand how human physiology with an emphasis [15:36.320 --> 15:42.160] on nutritional physiology truly operates, then it explains to you how other than things that [15:42.160 --> 15:49.920] are caused by genetic problems, you can avoid virtually every chronic disease and live long [15:49.920 --> 15:55.040] and healthy and happily. Yeah. Speaking for myself, of course, you know, I would never write [15:55.040 --> 16:04.080] something that I don't believe in 1000%. So, you know, I'm 62. Most people at 62, I think, [16:04.080 --> 16:10.160] are sort of saying to themselves, I'm in the twilight of my life. I'm not saying that I plan [16:10.160 --> 16:16.560] to be healthy and happy and live to be 100, 110, 120. Understanding how your physiology really [16:16.560 --> 16:22.000] operates is a game changer. So again, go to DrReality.News, grab yourself a copy of Income [16:22.000 --> 16:26.640] Tax Shattering the Mist or Body Science. There is kind of a little promo I'm running right now. [16:27.280 --> 16:35.280] If when you go to the shopping cart in the coupon code area, you enter tax honesty, all one word, [16:35.280 --> 16:39.920] tax honesty. Whether you've bought Income Tax Shattering the Mist or Body Science or both, [16:39.920 --> 16:45.440] if you put tax honesty in the coupon code, I will personally, no robo signing or anything, [16:45.440 --> 16:51.360] I'll personally inscribe and autograph whichever or both books that you purchase. [16:51.360 --> 17:03.360] Thanks for being here. Have a wonderful day.