‘TYRANNICAL’: Mark Levin unloads on Democrats

hello America I'm Mark Leavvin and this is Life Liberty and Levvin Sunday welcome two great guests Secretary of Defense Pete Hegath his first appearance on the program and our friend Kaylee Mcini but before we get to them I want to start with this clip from PBS the other evening and it tells you all you need to know about what the Democrat party's up to what these judges are up to and take a look then we'll expand on it go there are those who believe that we are in real time living through an assault on the

constitutional order do you believe that we are in a constitutional crisis right now yes our democracy is at risk because Donald Trump shows that he wishes to violate the laws in many many different ways the good news here is we did put um 235 judges uh progressive judges judges not under the control of Trump last year on the bench and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time and we hope that the appellet courts when it gets up there and the Supreme Court will uphold those rulings uh they restored the money to NIH

now why is this important because Chuck Schumer who was majority leader of the Senate just confessed to everything I've been saying that is we put progressives aka American Marxists aka people who do not believe in the Constitution if you saw the show last night people who are Hegelian Marxist who believe in judicial tyranny who reject the vote of the people this last election he just loaded up the judiciary with 235 of these radicals that's what he just said 235 progressives that's how they selfidentified 100 years ago and today we know what that means so he

didn't put people on the bench who are going to uphold the Constitution and their oath we're going to interpret the Constitution follow it we're going to respect the Constitution separation of powers the authority of the president under article two he put people on the bench for the sole purpose of usurping thwarting and obstructing Donald Trump should he get elected by the American people he just said it now last night's program I went into great depth about why the Democrat party why these judges and their media why they and we have almost nothing in common because

we embrace our founding we embrace the founders the declaration the constitution John Lock Montescu Jefferson Madison and so forth they do not they reject the declaration they reject the Constitution they're good at sloganering and waving it around but they despise it and these elections if they win they have a mandate if they lose they go to their unelected branches the massive bureaucracy that they've built and these judges that they've installed the progressives he said for the purpose of thwarting Trump it is they who are unconstitutional it is they who are anti-democratic it is they who

are tyrannical now where does this whole idea of judicial review come from you hear people come on this channel they're on other channels they blindly talk about judicial review you have to honor judicial review that's the role of the judges i want to talk about this as I wrote the biggest myth about judges is that they're somehow imbued with greater insight wisdom and vision than the rest of us that for some reason God Almighty has endowed on them superior judgment about justice and fairness but the truth is that judges are men and women with human

imperfections and frailties some have been brilliant principled and moral others have been mentally impaired venal and even racists and now we have these ideological bombthrowers that Schumer put on the bench i want you to remember that three of the most horrendous things ever done to this country were done by the United States Supreme Court the DreadScott decision of 1856 upholding slavery basically said black people in the United States can never be free and can never be citizens that was the Supreme Court we had to fight a civil war we the people to undo that not

that long later about 40 years 1896 Py versus Ferguson separate but equal is equal enshrining segregation into our Constitution it's not in the Constitution they said it is then sometime later in Cormasu versus the United States what was that internment camp set up for 120,000 Japanese Americans and Americans of Japanese descent the great Franklin Roosevelt three of the most horrific decisions that had major consequences for this country came not from we the people or the president or the congress but the judiciary thomas Jefferson said in 1825 "This member of the government the judiciary was at

first considered as the most harmless and hapless of all its organs when it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is by sapping and mining slightly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution can do what open force would not dare attempt." That's what you're seeing right now a judicial oligarchy a judicial tyranny a counterrevolution to the American Revolution trashing separation of powers trashing the authority of the president donald Trump is defending article two defending separation of powers defending the Constitution that's what he's doing he's conducting himself and doing the ministerial tasks

the basic things that an executive is supposed to do he was elected They were not he stood for election in front of the whole country they didn't stand for election in front of anybody they were nominated got through a Democratc controlled um Senate and there they sit with their two or three law clerks deciding who should stay who should go what's on our websites and on and on and on the framers would be disgusted the framers did not intend to grant general authority to the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of legislative acts madison summed

up the Constitution's take on judicial review this way he doubted whether it was not going too far to extend the jurisdiction of the court generally to cases arising under the Constitution and whether it ought not to be limited to cases of a judicial nature only staying in their lane the right of expounding the Constitution in cases not of this nature ought not to be given to that department that comes out of Madison's notes during the Constitutional Convention the final analysis that the framers had wanted to empower the judiciary with a legislative veto they could have

done so they did not instead the convention crafted a federal judiciary like many other provisions of the final constitution as a product of compromise it was a compromise between the interests of the individual states and the need for a federal government that would be strong enough and flexible enough to meet the present and future needs of a nation with diverse interests it was also the clear intention of the framers that no one branch could be subsumed by the other the judiciary did not represent a threat Hamilton wrote in Federalists so long as the judiciary remains

truly distinct from both the legislative and the executive for I agree that there's no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers there he is basically reflecting the writings of John Lock and especially Montescu and Hamilton was the biggest of the centralists of the national government advocates and this is what he said while the constitution created the silhouette of the national judiciary it was up to Congress actually to form it with legislation that would constitute a functional system of federal courts congress did this with the Judiciary Acts of

1789 and 1801 the biggest problem with the Judiciary Act of 1801 was timing the bill was introduced before the presidential election of 1800 but was not passed by the Federalist controlled Congress until after the election and while the deadlock presidential election was being determined by the House of Representatives President John Adams signed the bill on February 13 1801 just three weeks before the end of his term of office he lost he was a Federalist the Federalists lost the House of Representatives the Federalists lost the Senate so the Republicans that is Jefferson party took all the

elected branches all of them he also sent to the Federalist controlled Senate that is Adams his own Senate nominees for the 16 new judgeships so he's lost the election so the Federalists his party they create these 16 new federal judgeships he wants to rush them through he wants to get them populated as fast as he can and they were confirmed shortly before the end of the Adams administration now these judges came to be called Adam's midnight judges some of whom became the subject of the case called Marberry versus Madison that's the crucial case Marberry versus

Madison on March 8 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 29 1802 Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1802 which among other things abolished the 16 new judgeships created by Adams and the Federalists by the way this has been my point impeachment will not remove these judges because you're not going to get a supermajority 67 senators to remove them you say "Well we should go through the process anyway." I don't believe in banging heads against walls you can

remove the judges just like Jefferson did you can defund the judges and as I've written in my book Men in Black you can take jurisdiction away from them the best thing to do is to point out some of the most rogue reckless of the judges like Boseberg and abolish his position in its 1803 Marberry versus Madison decision this is crucial the Supreme Court determined that it had the power to decide cases about the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions and when it deemed them violated the Constitution could overturn them where did this come from you

just heard what the framer said no it's not in the Constitution the shorthand label given to this courtmade authority is judicial review now most of you've heard oh it's judicial review judicial review like it's in the Constitution it's not it's specifically not in the Constitution i don't care what all these legal analysts say on TV this is your history your history and this quite literally is the foundation for the runaway power exercised by the federal courts to this day or all the progressives that Schumer put on the court to stop Trump what is far less

recognized is that the Marberry decision started out as anything but the ominous president it has become this is your history it's important to know it this is your country and they're trying to take it away from you marberry was a brilliantly conceived political strategy crafted by John Marshall who'd been chief justice for a few weeks he was a master politician marshall Marshall the chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote the decision not to set a revolutionary president but to deny the new president Jefferson his longtime political rival they were distant cousins and they detested each

other an opportunity to rebuff a Supreme Court controlled by Jefferson's federalist opponents marberry was precipitated by that election of 1800 in which Thomas Jefferson the incumbent vice president leader of the Republicans ran for president against the incumbent president John Adams leader of the Federalists the Federalists controlled both houses of Congress but were torn between the followers of Adams and Alexander Hamilton who was also a Federalist hamilton's faction withheld its support for Adam's re-election bid in 1800 and the race ended in an electoral college tie between Jefferson and his vice presidential running mate Aaron Burr aaron

Burr said "You know what i want to be president." And so you had this mess taking place in 1800 in Congress nothing close by the way to what was going on on January 6th adams came in third the election was then thrown into the House of Representatives realizing he would not win re-election Adams moved to solidify his party's influence in the federal government now how did he do that the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1801 creating 16 new federal circuit judges was part of his strategy just prior to leaving office Adams selected in the

Federalist controlled Senate the lame duck Senate confirmed nominees to fill the posts adams turn ran out however before John Marshall who was then Secretary of State marshall was Adams's Secretary of State signing off on these judges before he could actually deliver the commissions of the office to some of the designates signing off but they never quite got them to the judges marshall's successor as Secretary of State under Jefferson was James Madison he refused to deliver the commissions as President Jefferson directed and William Marberry among others filed suit in federal court seeking an order ridandamus directing

Madison the secretary of state to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace marshall long arrival at Jeffersons in Virginia politics was one of the most articulate leaders in the federalist party he'd served in the Virginia state house the US House of Representatives as one of President Adams representatives to France and then as Secretary of State he was nominated to be chief justice by Adams and assumed the post on February 4 1801 exactly one month before Adam's turn back then the election would be in November but the inauguration of the president was in March

they've obviously changed that to January because a lot of mischief can be done in between which is what Adams was up to and with a Republican majority elected in both houses of Congress in 1800 Marshall realized that Jefferson and his Republicans could denude the Supreme Court of Authority and that he as Chief Justice could be impeached and removed from office marshall understood that in the Marberry case if he ordered Secretary of State Madison to deliver Marbury's commission to office Jefferson would order Madison to ignore the Supreme Court's rit 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 Marberry who had assumed his position as a justice of the peace and had been hearing cases and issuing judgments for a year so what happened bearing all this in mind Marshall's decision to Marberry 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 Marberry consistent with legal doctrine at the time had something akin to a property right to this office to which he

had been nominated and confirmed marshall also said that the federal judiciary should be able to issue an order directing the appointment of Marberry but because the Constitution did not enumerate such an original right for the Supreme Court the court was powerless to do so so you would think okay Jefferson and Madison won slight of hand 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 he said even though we don't have any authority here by

the way if we have the authority to make decisions about the Constitution we have authority to look behind those decisions and determine whether they're legitimate or not he just seized the power for the courts to make the final decision which means the election of 1800 Jefferson the Republicans in the House Republicans in the Senate could now be thwarted somewhat by the Supreme Court marshall's Federalist Party had lost the presidency in Congress but Marshall was determined to fight back and so this is how the doctrine of judicial review was born yes the constitution is indeed the

supreme law of the land but now this court and now the lower courts that didn't even exist by their own fiat would decide what is or is not constitutional the constitution structure including the balance of power between the three branches was now broken jefferson in 1820 said "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one in which would place us under the desperatism of an oligarchy our judges are as honest as other men and not more so they have with others the same passions for

party for power and the privilege of their core and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries are to the elective control the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that to whatever hands caned with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots it has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-s sovereign within themselves i began this opening statement with Chuck Schumer we appointed 235 progressive to the courts progressives just in case Donald Trump got elected to stop him

to thwart him according to Jefferson and he's right these are despots who do not have constitutional authority to do what they're doing and they are doing tremendous tremendous damage and I would say this to we the people you the American people if these judges don't have respect for our constitution for separation of powers for the rule of law for the authority of the president the president who we elected if they don't have respect and belief in that then why should we have respect and belief in them hey Sean Hannity here hey click here to subscribe

to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis you will not get it anywhere else