Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:06.600]  Welcome back to the vodcast, activist judges.
[00:06.600 --> 00:11.400]  Americans will tell you they absolutely despise activist judges.
[00:11.400 --> 00:14.720]  They want judges to rule on the law.
[00:14.720 --> 00:19.080]  As an example, the left will tell you that the Supreme Court in Dobbs wanted to overturn
[00:19.080 --> 00:21.880]  Roe v. Wade was an activist court.
[00:21.880 --> 00:24.920]  They will tell you they were not acting on the law, they were not acting on the Constitution,
[00:24.920 --> 00:27.080]  they were not respecting individual rights, and so on and so on.
[00:27.080 --> 00:28.360]  It was an activist court.
[00:28.360 --> 00:30.120]  The same thing with the right, for instance.
[00:30.120 --> 00:35.280]  If a judge rules in favor of a gun control measure, the right will say you're not taking
[00:35.280 --> 00:39.360]  into account the history of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and individual
[00:39.360 --> 00:41.280]  rights, and so on and so forth.
[00:41.280 --> 00:46.280]  They'll claim that that judge is an activist judge.
[00:46.280 --> 00:53.000]  In reality, do Americans dislike activist judges, or do they just dislike activist judges
[00:53.000 --> 00:56.600]  when a court rules in a way they don't like?
[00:56.600 --> 01:04.600]  That's the individual Americans, but now we have Congress getting involved in a form
[01:04.600 --> 01:12.400]  of condemnation of a non-activist chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.
[01:27.600 --> 01:30.600]  Let's start with this.
[01:30.600 --> 01:37.200]  The House of Representatives has just voted to remove a statue of former Chief Justice
[01:37.200 --> 01:41.960]  Roger Taney from the old Supreme Court chamber that's now part of the Capitol building.
[01:41.960 --> 01:47.480]  In case you're unfamiliar with Taney, he wrote the Supreme Court's, you know, a lot of people
[01:47.480 --> 01:56.360]  consider it infamous, I consider it spot on, decision Dred Scott, which is roundly condemned
[01:57.120 --> 02:03.120]  by just about everybody as an incredibly racist decision by the court in the years leading
[02:03.120 --> 02:05.120]  up to the Civil War.
[02:05.120 --> 02:09.400]  Many of you probably remember hearing and passing about the Dred Scott case when you
[02:09.400 --> 02:13.720]  were in school, but you probably really don't know what it was about or what Taney ruled
[02:13.720 --> 02:17.360]  in, or I'm not going to share the entire framework of the case with you.
[02:17.360 --> 02:19.200]  You can simply look it up for yourself.
[02:19.200 --> 02:25.120]  However, I do want to address that the Dred Court, Chief Justice Taney wrote the decision,
[02:25.120 --> 02:28.680]  it was a seven to two decision, and he wrote the published opinion.
[02:28.680 --> 02:38.800]  I want to tell you it is one of the most legally spot on decisions in American Supreme Court
[02:38.800 --> 02:40.340]  history.
[02:40.340 --> 02:46.360]  The problem is it goes against our modern ethos concerning race and racism, which by
[02:46.360 --> 02:48.180]  the way, I support it 100%.
[02:48.180 --> 02:52.620]  If you've been following me for any length of time, you know I absolutely detest bigotry
[02:52.620 --> 02:55.560]  in any of its forms, including racism.
[02:55.560 --> 02:59.580]  But that wasn't the framework of the United States back at the time that the Dred decision
[02:59.580 --> 03:06.620]  was issued, and it wasn't the framework, more importantly, of when our nation was founded.
[03:06.620 --> 03:11.500]  And the seven to two decision only took a look at what the founders created and said,
[03:11.500 --> 03:17.220]  look, moral, not moral, ethical, not ethical, this is what they wrote in the damn document
[03:17.220 --> 03:18.940]  called the U.S. Constitution.
[03:18.940 --> 03:21.000]  We can't make shit up.
[03:21.000 --> 03:26.960]  We have to actually rule on what's there, which is why it is such a spot on decision.
[03:26.960 --> 03:32.400]  It's a completely non-activist decision, and I'm going to explain to you in brief why it
[03:32.400 --> 03:37.160]  is one of the best, most accurate United States Supreme Court decisions in history.
[03:37.160 --> 03:41.720]  You've probably heard these words that are in the preamble of the United States Constitution.
[03:41.720 --> 03:44.560]  We the people, in order to create a more perfect union.
[03:44.560 --> 03:45.560]  Okay.
[03:45.560 --> 03:48.200]  Now, first of all, preamble is not law, to be clear.
[03:48.200 --> 03:51.360]  So when you look at the United States Constitution, which is in the preamble, you cannot go into
[03:51.360 --> 03:56.120]  court and argue anything because preambles are not considered part of what does then
[03:56.120 --> 03:59.040]  constitute law, which is the body of the Constitution.
[03:59.040 --> 04:03.280]  Nevertheless, we the people of the United States, that's the significant phrase, so
[04:03.280 --> 04:04.280]  keep that in mind.
[04:04.280 --> 04:08.880]  Then, let's jump forward into the main body of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 2,
[04:08.880 --> 04:12.560]  the very first place citizen of the United States appears, and I'm going to read that
[04:12.560 --> 04:13.760]  briefly to you.
[04:13.760 --> 04:19.320]  No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years and
[04:19.320 --> 04:26.760]  been seven years a citizen of the United States, and that's one of 24 appearances of citizen
[04:26.760 --> 04:30.040]  of the United States in the United States Constitution.
[04:30.040 --> 04:35.320]  So the upshot of dread, leaving aside the race issue, I mean, it's kind of impossible
[04:35.320 --> 04:40.280]  to leave aside the race issue, but looking at the legal issue rather than our modern
[04:40.360 --> 04:46.680]  framework of race and racism, looking at the legal issue, what the court ruled in dread
[04:46.680 --> 04:53.200]  was that dread, being born a slave and having run away, and he was now bringing suit, claiming
[04:53.200 --> 04:59.160]  he had a right to be a free man, the United States Supreme Court ruled, as someone born
[04:59.160 --> 05:06.120]  into slavery and not emancipated by that person's owner, despicable words, that person's owner,
[05:06.120 --> 05:12.280]  but having not been emancipated, that person was not, could not be, a citizen of the United
[05:12.280 --> 05:19.280]  States, and access to the federal courts is only available to citizens of the United States,
[05:19.280 --> 05:21.800]  and we're going to get into that in a minute.
[05:21.800 --> 05:25.800]  The first thing we need to talk about is something called Vittel's international law, a compendium
[05:25.800 --> 05:31.680]  that's existed for hundreds of years that lays out the foundation of how nations legally
[05:31.680 --> 05:35.920]  should interact with one another, and the founding fathers were very intimately aware
[05:35.920 --> 05:38.600]  of the content of Vittel's law.
[05:38.600 --> 05:42.320]  One of the things that's in Vittel, and it's true now, just like it was then, is that a
[05:42.320 --> 05:43.520]  person is one of two things.
[05:43.520 --> 05:51.120]  They are either a citizen of the place where they reside, or they are an alien, period.
[05:51.120 --> 05:54.120]  There is no third classification.
[05:54.120 --> 06:00.800]  So prior to the 14th Amendment, what was the sole way that a person could become a citizen
[06:00.800 --> 06:02.400]  of the United States?
[06:02.880 --> 06:10.840]  Well, the sole way was to have citizenship of a state of the union.
[06:10.840 --> 06:15.600]  Today we have this 14th Amendment citizenship, which a federal, well, I don't, most people
[06:15.600 --> 06:22.200]  don't, but the 14th Amendment granted another class of citizenship to the recently freed
[06:22.200 --> 06:25.880]  black slaves, and according to the Supreme Court, others similarly situated, and that
[06:25.880 --> 06:30.920]  is a separate form of citizenship that allows Congress to exercise jurisdiction over the
[06:30.920 --> 06:35.040]  people who are embraced by that form of citizenship.
[06:35.040 --> 06:40.360]  However, there was no 14th Amendment at the time the Dred decision was rendered, and therefore
[06:40.360 --> 06:44.880]  the only way one could be considered this, and Tanny's very clear in the decision, the
[06:44.880 --> 06:48.520]  phrase citizen of the United States isn't actually a real thing.
[06:48.520 --> 06:55.240]  It's a term that's used to express the citizens of all of the states of the union that then
[06:55.240 --> 06:59.400]  have under the privileges and immunity cause of the federal constitution, being citizens
[06:59.400 --> 07:04.320]  of the state, they have certain privileges and immunities under the federal constitution.
[07:04.320 --> 07:09.760]  There was no such thing at that time as a federal citizen, a 14th Amendment citizen.
[07:09.760 --> 07:12.800]  There was no other class of citizen at that time.
[07:12.800 --> 07:15.240]  You are a citizen of your state.
[07:15.240 --> 07:18.480]  That was the sole way to be a citizen, and it was the sole way to be considered this
[07:18.480 --> 07:23.120]  euphemistic phrase, citizen of the United States, which really meant citizens of any
[07:23.120 --> 07:26.600]  of the states of the union who had certain privileges and immunities under the privileges
[07:26.600 --> 07:28.680]  and immunity clause.
[07:29.560 --> 07:35.000]  All right, so the southern states, the slave states, in their constitutions, people who
[07:35.000 --> 07:40.320]  were born into slavery were not citizens of the state.
[07:40.320 --> 07:42.760]  They were not citizens of the state in which they were born.
[07:42.760 --> 07:45.760]  They were not citizens of the land upon which they were born.
[07:45.760 --> 07:49.040]  Because they were not citizens of a state, they could not be embraced by this euphemistic
[07:49.040 --> 07:53.560]  phrase, citizen of the United States, as used in the constitution.
[07:53.560 --> 07:57.880]  They weren't citizens of their state, and therefore, that was the only class of citizenship
[07:57.880 --> 07:58.880]  at the time.
[07:58.880 --> 08:02.440]  And therefore, they could not be considered to have privileges and immunities under the
[08:02.440 --> 08:07.360]  federal constitution, hence euphemistically referred to as citizen of the United States.
[08:07.360 --> 08:12.280]  And that brings us to who has access to the federal courts.
[08:12.280 --> 08:15.760]  If you think just anybody has access to the federal courts, that's not accurate.
[08:15.760 --> 08:17.920]  It is controlled by the constitution.
[08:17.920 --> 08:22.760]  The constitution created the federal courts via Article 3 of the constitution.
[08:22.760 --> 08:24.880]  That's how federal courts were created.
[08:24.880 --> 08:28.160]  Unlike state courts, federal courts have very limited jurisdiction.
[08:28.160 --> 08:32.620]  They can only rule on things that they're permitted to rule on, whether by the constitution
[08:32.620 --> 08:34.720]  or statute.
[08:34.720 --> 08:36.480]  Constitution comes first, obviously, most fundamentally.
[08:36.480 --> 08:41.200]  So let's read what the constitution has to say about who has access to the federal courts.
[08:41.200 --> 08:47.080]  And you'll find this in Article 3, Section 2, which reads, the judicial power extend
[08:47.080 --> 08:53.600]  to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United
[08:53.600 --> 09:01.320]  States and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting
[09:01.320 --> 09:10.320]  ambassadors or public ministers and consuls, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,
[09:10.320 --> 09:11.320]  to controversies.
[09:11.320 --> 09:14.100]  Now, pay attention to this next bit of the paragraph.
[09:14.100 --> 09:18.820]  To controversies to which the United States shall be a party.
[09:18.820 --> 09:21.620]  That would not have affected Dredd.
[09:21.620 --> 09:25.540]  The United States government was not a party to that action.
[09:25.540 --> 09:31.440]  To controversy between two or more states, obviously, inapplicable to Dredd.
[09:31.440 --> 09:39.100]  Between a state and the citizens of another state, Dredd was not a citizen of any state.
[09:39.100 --> 09:45.360]  Between citizens of different states, Dredd was not a citizen of any state.
[09:45.360 --> 09:52.840]  And between a state or the citizen thereof and foreign state citizens or subjects, again,
[09:52.840 --> 09:54.140]  inapplicable to Dredd.
[09:54.140 --> 09:58.520]  And that's the end of that relevant section of the constitution.
[09:58.520 --> 10:02.840]  Given that at the time the Dredd decision was issued, there was only one way to become
[10:02.840 --> 10:06.960]  a citizen, and that was to be a citizen of the state in which you were born, which slaves
[10:06.960 --> 10:08.360]  were not.
[10:08.360 --> 10:12.920]  And that you could not be referred to federally as this euphemistic title called citizen of
[10:12.920 --> 10:18.520]  the United States unless you were a citizen of a state, which slaves were not.
[10:18.520 --> 10:21.700]  Hence, Scott Dredd was not.
[10:21.700 --> 10:30.680]  And as we just read, people who were not a citizen of a foreign nation, not a citizen
[10:30.680 --> 10:35.320]  of a state of the union, did not have access to the federal courts.
[10:35.320 --> 10:39.760]  And that's ultimately what the ruling in Dredd was about.
[10:39.760 --> 10:47.280]  Ultimately, 72, the court said, essentially, the moral and ethical implications of Dredd
[10:47.280 --> 10:52.200]  Scott's filing are not to be considered by the court.
[10:52.200 --> 10:58.160]  Right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, there is no authority under the
[10:58.160 --> 11:04.120]  United States Constitution for Dredd Scott to have access to the United States District
[11:04.200 --> 11:07.680]  Courts, which, of course, is the entry level court of the United States government.
[11:07.680 --> 11:09.240]  So it went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
[11:09.240 --> 11:12.800]  The court said, sorry, the original filing in the United States District Court is not
[11:12.800 --> 11:14.880]  constitutionally permissible.
[11:14.880 --> 11:16.240]  End of statement.
[11:16.240 --> 11:23.880]  Given what you now know, does that sound like an legally inaccurate decision?
[11:23.880 --> 11:27.800]  These justices looked at the United States Constitution and they said, maybe this is
[11:27.800 --> 11:31.220]  right, maybe this is wrong, maybe this is whatever.
[11:31.220 --> 11:34.420]  But the rules are the rules and we're not going to be an activist court, we're going
[11:34.420 --> 11:35.420]  to play by the rules.
[11:35.420 --> 11:36.420]  Now, is that the end of it?
[11:36.420 --> 11:38.060]  No, of course not.
[11:38.060 --> 11:44.020]  Because Congress had the authority to change that by amendment.
[11:44.020 --> 11:47.380]  Congress could vote on an amendment and put it out to the states and the states could
[11:47.380 --> 11:50.340]  change the United States Constitution.
[11:50.340 --> 11:53.380]  Of course, that wasn't going to happen because it requires two-thirds of the states to do
[11:53.380 --> 11:57.540]  that and the southern states weren't going to participate in any way whatsoever.
[11:57.540 --> 12:04.180]  So we ended up slaughtering, what was it, 600,000 Americans slaughtering one another
[12:04.180 --> 12:09.760]  during the Civil War in order to make this situation right.
[12:09.760 --> 12:14.500]  But that doesn't make the DRED decision wrong.
[12:14.500 --> 12:20.660]  We may look back and say, wow, things really screwed up back then.
[12:20.660 --> 12:25.700]  And I'm with you on that a thousand percent, but that's the history of America.
[12:25.700 --> 12:30.220]  The DRED Court ruled correctly on the Constitution.
[12:30.220 --> 12:37.240]  The Constitution and the law of the land concerning citizenship did not permit DRED Scott access
[12:37.240 --> 12:38.860]  to the federal courts.
[12:38.860 --> 12:44.200]  That is a legally accurate spot on, as egregious as it is.
[12:44.200 --> 12:46.980]  It was totally non-activist.
[12:46.980 --> 12:53.580]  It tracked the Constitution spot on every instance of the way.
[12:53.580 --> 12:58.540]  And yet, Tanny, who merely wrote the decision, of course, he was one of the seven that voted
[12:58.540 --> 12:59.540]  seven to two.
[12:59.540 --> 13:01.020]  He was one of the seven who wrote the decision.
[13:01.020 --> 13:03.660]  Now he's being castigated as if it's all about him.
[13:03.660 --> 13:04.660]  It's not about the other six.
[13:04.660 --> 13:06.380]  It's not about what the Constitution says.
[13:06.380 --> 13:08.180]  It's not about how the founders created this.
[13:08.180 --> 13:10.060]  It's not about what Vitell law says.
[13:10.060 --> 13:13.620]  It's not about this whole structure that was put in place to make sure that slaves had
[13:13.620 --> 13:15.280]  no recourse to the courts.
[13:15.280 --> 13:16.380]  It's not about any of that.
[13:16.380 --> 13:22.740]  It's about Roger Tanny and his sculpture bust must be removed from the Capitol building
[13:22.740 --> 13:27.140]  because he's an evil SOB.
[13:27.140 --> 13:28.780]  I don't see it that way.
[13:28.780 --> 13:32.820]  When Americans were done slaughtering each other in the Civil War, and of course the
[13:32.820 --> 13:37.940]  Union prevailed, then the Congress put out to the states for ratification an amendment
[13:37.940 --> 13:40.460]  called the Fourteenth Amendment.
[13:40.460 --> 13:41.620]  Here's the thing.
[13:41.620 --> 13:49.540]  The Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because it didn't matter that the South lost the war.
[13:49.540 --> 13:55.260]  Slaves born in the Southern states were still subject to what those state constitutions
[13:55.260 --> 13:57.980]  said at the time that those people were born.
[13:57.980 --> 14:01.740]  When those slaves were born, whatever the law of the land was at that time, that land
[14:01.740 --> 14:06.740]  being the states, whatever the law of the land was in that state, that was the citizenship
[14:06.740 --> 14:10.580]  or lack thereof of the slaves that were born there.
[14:10.580 --> 14:15.860]  Being defeated in battle couldn't change that little construct.
[14:15.860 --> 14:18.660]  Congress came up with this thing called the Fourteenth Amendment.
[14:18.660 --> 14:21.900]  Basically, Congress was saying, we can't change their status.
[14:21.900 --> 14:25.060]  They are under Vattel's law since they're not citizens, they're aliens.
[14:25.060 --> 14:28.820]  They're aliens despite their birth upon the land.
[14:28.820 --> 14:32.540]  We can't make them state citizens.
[14:32.540 --> 14:35.500]  Congress doesn't have the authority to do that in the first place, and at the time that
[14:35.500 --> 14:39.180]  they were born, the law was in those states what it was.
[14:39.180 --> 14:46.660]  Congress's solution was to grant them a second different class of citizenship, essentially
[14:47.340 --> 14:51.660]  federal citizenship, over which Congress has enforcement powers.
[14:51.660 --> 14:56.740]  Congress has zero enforcement powers over a citizen of the state, but this second form
[14:56.740 --> 15:00.700]  of citizenship granted to the freed black slaves and their posterity, according to the
[15:00.700 --> 15:06.140]  Supreme Court, not me, explicitly in the Fourteenth Amendment provides authority to enforce the
[15:06.140 --> 15:11.860]  amendment to Congress, so Congress can pass any laws that are reasonable for the enforcement
[15:11.860 --> 15:20.580]  of the Fourteenth Amendment and to protect this second other class of citizen.
[15:20.580 --> 15:27.660]  And just a wee bit of historical nuance to this, the Fourteenth Amendment was sent to
[15:27.660 --> 15:30.660]  the states by Congress.
[15:30.660 --> 15:36.940]  At the time the southern states were occupied by the Union Army and Congress made it clear
[15:36.940 --> 15:42.260]  to the legislatures of the southern states, your states will not be allowed to re-enter
[15:42.260 --> 15:43.580]  the Union.
[15:43.580 --> 15:54.500]  You will remain defeated, occupied foe unless you ratify this amendment.
[15:54.500 --> 15:59.760]  So objectively, was the Fourteenth Amendment ever really properly ratified?
[15:59.760 --> 16:00.760]  Of course not.
[16:01.160 --> 16:08.560]  It's existed as a part of the Constitution for so long, since what, 1866, I believe,
[16:08.560 --> 16:11.760]  that it's never going to be questioned.
[16:11.760 --> 16:13.520]  It's always going to be there.
[16:13.520 --> 16:17.760]  The only way it's going to be gone would be if, again, Congress were to put an amendment
[16:17.760 --> 16:21.520]  out to the states and two-thirds of the state were to ratify an amendment, getting rid of
[16:21.520 --> 16:22.920]  the Fourteenth Amendment.
[16:22.920 --> 16:28.960]  Technically, on a legal basis, the potential problem with that is the freed black slaves
[16:29.000 --> 16:36.400]  and their posterity, or their offspring is what that means, had that other class of citizenship.
[16:36.400 --> 16:42.420]  So technically, legally, if the Fourteenth Amendment were to disappear tomorrow, we would
[16:42.420 --> 16:48.360]  have a whole bunch of people in the United States who would be aliens again because the
[16:48.360 --> 16:51.120]  origin of their citizenship was the Fourteenth Amendment.
[16:51.120 --> 16:53.720]  Without it, they're not citizens and they're aliens.
[16:53.720 --> 16:56.520]  Now, on a practical level, would that really be the case?
[16:56.880 --> 17:01.000]  Because, of course, you can't really track anybody down anymore from somebody who was
[17:01.000 --> 17:07.800]  born in, say, 1830 in Alabama and track them all the way through and say, okay, so you're
[17:07.800 --> 17:09.280]  a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.
[17:09.280 --> 17:15.480]  There's too much ... The ability to do that is virtually impossible and who would want to?
[17:15.480 --> 17:21.840]  So if we do away with the Fourteenth Amendment, then what you would end up with is the presumption
[17:21.920 --> 17:28.040]  that every single person is a citizen of a state of the Union.
[17:28.040 --> 17:34.240]  And somebody would have to do something virtually impossible, which is try and track down the
[17:34.240 --> 17:39.760]  lineage of somebody existing, as I'm filming this in 2022, track it all the way back to
[17:39.760 --> 17:43.840]  the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, and prove that that person is the posterity of
[17:43.840 --> 17:47.800]  a slave and therefore ... And then that doesn't talk about intermarrying or any other ... It's
[17:47.800 --> 17:48.960]  absolute nonsense.
[17:48.960 --> 17:52.060]  If we could get rid of the Fourteenth Amendment right now, everybody would be presumptively
[17:52.060 --> 17:55.800]  the original class of a citizen, which, by the way, have a lot more rights than Fourteenth
[17:55.800 --> 17:56.800]  Amendment citizens.
[17:56.800 --> 17:57.800]  I've done other videos on that.
[17:57.800 --> 18:01.280]  I'll actually put that video link down in the notes to that.
[18:01.280 --> 18:06.320]  But the reason we'll never see that done is that to eradicate the Fourteenth Amendment
[18:06.320 --> 18:13.040]  eradicates Congress's jurisdiction over a whole class of issues.
[18:13.040 --> 18:16.280]  Here's an interesting side note from Dredd.
[18:16.600 --> 18:22.880]  In Tanny's dicta, where he's writing out the decision before he gets to the holding,
[18:22.880 --> 18:32.560]  he talks about all of the things that would be true if a slave, after they'd run away,
[18:32.560 --> 18:38.000]  left the state of their birth, could then be considered a citizen of another state.
[18:38.000 --> 18:41.840]  And he lists a number of things that would be so if that were true.
[18:41.840 --> 18:45.340]  One of them is this.
[18:45.340 --> 18:52.800]  If a freed black slave who left the state of his birth and then became a citizen, automatically,
[18:52.800 --> 18:59.080]  legally somehow, became a citizen of another state of the union, that state citizen, who
[18:59.080 --> 19:04.160]  would have black skin at that time, right, in that era, would then have the right to
[19:04.160 --> 19:12.040]  travel throughout the states carrying, carrying a firearm.
[19:12.040 --> 19:16.840]  I think it's important to note that the Dred Scott decision has never been reversed in
[19:16.840 --> 19:18.580]  whole or in part.
[19:18.580 --> 19:23.360]  What happened was, as I mentioned, after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted,
[19:23.360 --> 19:28.280]  and by that, the nation sidestepped the Dred Scott case.
[19:28.280 --> 19:32.220]  It didn't declare anything about the Dred Scott case invalid because the Dred Scott
[19:32.220 --> 19:37.300]  case was and remains to this day 100% constitutionally accurate.
[19:37.300 --> 19:42.580]  All it did was say, okay, so if we can't get it done with this state citizen, then we're
[19:42.580 --> 19:46.180]  going to get it done with this newly created federal citizen.
[19:46.180 --> 19:51.080]  We're going to step aside from the Dred Scott decision.
[19:51.080 --> 19:55.540]  It always blows my mind that people who are pro-gun, myself included, but when they go
[19:55.540 --> 20:02.140]  to court, they never, ever argue that dicta by Tanny in Dred Scott.
[20:02.140 --> 20:08.780]  I mean, what a powerful message that if a slave who became a citizen of another state
[20:08.780 --> 20:15.740]  could then travel state to state carrying on his person a firearm.
[20:15.740 --> 20:21.540]  That's Tanny saying that that is a privilege and immunity of a United States citizen, the
[20:22.300 --> 20:28.140]  United States citizen, meaning a citizen of a state of the union, and yet pro-gun people
[20:28.140 --> 20:31.140]  never, ever use that when they go to court.
[20:31.140 --> 20:33.620]  All right, guys, just a reminder.
[20:33.620 --> 20:36.780]  I've got the holiday special going on now on my books, Income Tax Shattering the Mist
[20:36.780 --> 20:37.780]  and Body Science.
[20:37.780 --> 20:39.540]  I'm not going to tell you about either book, but I'm going to tell you where you can go
[20:39.540 --> 20:43.340]  find out about them in a moment, but I just want to let you know quickly what the special
[20:43.340 --> 20:44.340]  is.
[20:44.340 --> 20:47.500]  Christmas is coming, so it's time to place your order so we can get that order out to
[20:47.500 --> 20:48.500]  you.
[20:49.500 --> 20:52.620]  It'll arrive by Christmas, but here's the deal.
[20:52.620 --> 20:58.400]  If you order anything on the DrReality.News website, I will pay the shipping on it.
[20:58.400 --> 21:05.300]  If your order includes Income Tax Shattering the Mist, Body Science, or both, I will inscribe
[21:05.300 --> 21:09.740]  and autograph those for you in addition to the free shipping I'm going to pick up as
[21:09.740 --> 21:11.220]  my holiday gift to you.
[21:11.220 --> 21:19.860]  All you have to go is DrReality.News at checkout, enter the coupon code Santa, and I will inscribe
[21:19.860 --> 21:22.820]  and autograph them and pick up the shipping for you now.
[21:22.820 --> 21:27.820]  Also, when you go to the link that's in the notes to my website, all you have to do is
[21:27.820 --> 21:32.780]  click on Income Tax Shattering the Mist or click on Body Science or anything else that's
[21:32.780 --> 21:33.780]  there.
[21:33.780 --> 21:36.740]  There is a description of what it's about, and more importantly, I'm going to suggest
[21:36.740 --> 21:40.520]  you read the reader reviews.
[21:40.520 --> 21:42.200]  They are spectacular.
[21:42.200 --> 21:47.600]  By the way, I have never ever had a review come in and said, you know, that's not really
[21:47.600 --> 21:49.760]  a great review so I'm not going to post it.
[21:49.760 --> 21:50.760]  Never ever.
[21:50.760 --> 21:52.120]  I consider that unethical.
[21:52.120 --> 21:55.600]  All the reviews that are there are exactly as they rolled in.
[21:55.600 --> 22:00.600]  Also, presentations like this where I just shared information with you, you probably
[22:00.600 --> 22:02.920]  didn't know 99% of it, right?
[22:02.920 --> 22:05.920]  I've been doing these for close to 20 years, never a cost to anybody.
[22:05.920 --> 22:09.600]  You just got a tremendous education, so one of the ways that you can help me to continue
[22:09.600 --> 22:15.240]  to be here for you is to go to DrReality.News and purchase one of my books, both of my books,
[22:15.240 --> 22:19.080]  whatever you can find on the website that you think you'd enjoy, that would help me
[22:19.080 --> 22:20.560]  to continue to be here for you.
[22:20.560 --> 22:22.320]  Thanks, have a great holiday, take care.