The A&G Replay Monday Hour Three

Summary

Armstrong & Getty On Demand Episode: The A&G Replay Monday Hour Three
Release Date: May 26, 2025
Host/Author: iHeartPodcasts

---

1. U.S. Presidential Engagement in Ukraine Conflict

[00:54] Jack Armstrong: Discusses President Trump's recent two-hour phone call with Vladimir Putin regarding the Ukraine war. Armstrong expresses skepticism about the president's stance, suggesting that letting Ukraine and Russia negotiate could inadvertently favor Putin.

"Trump was on the phone with Vladimir Putin for about two hours yesterday, and the takeaway seems to be, I'm gonna let them work it out. Which... leaves it as a win for Putin." — Jack Armstrong [01:04]

Discussion Highlights:

• Uncertainty about whether the U.S. will continue its significant aid to Ukraine amidst these negotiations.
• Concerns that Trump's approach may undermine U.S. support for Ukraine, potentially siding with Russia's interests.

---

2. Europe's Strategic Shift Away from Russian Energy

[04:02] Armstrong & Getty: Examination of a recent European leaders' meeting focusing on energy independence from Russia. Notable decisions include Germany lifting its long-standing prohibition on nuclear energy, aligning more closely with France to reduce dependency on Russian energy sources.

"They announced Germany is going to lift their prohibition on nuclear energy... that's a pretty big deal economically for Russia." — Jack Armstrong [05:05]

Key Points:

• Poland's leader emphasized the seriousness of Russia's actions, likening them to sports metaphors to illustrate Russia's persistence.

  "Russia has been playing hockey for years. We are not going to figure skate our way out of this." — Polish Leader [05:40]

• European nations are committing to increasing military funding from 2% to 5% of their GDP, signaling a stronger defense posture against potential Russian advances.

---

3. Decline of Europe in the Global Tech Industry

[07:02] Unnamed Contributor: Analyzes Europe's diminishing presence in the global technology sector compared to the United States and China. Cites factors such as stringent labor laws, risk-averse business cultures, restrictive regulations, limited venture capital, and stagnant economic growth as primary impediments.

"Europe is crushed by a timid and risk-averse business culture, strict labor laws, suffocating regulations, smaller pool of venture capital and lackluster economic growth." — Unnamed Contributor [10:01]

Insights:

• The lack of major tech giants in Europe contrasts sharply with the U.S. and China, impacting Europe's economic competitiveness.
• The discussion underscores the necessity for Europe to innovate and adapt to maintain relevance in the global market.

---

4. The Minecraft Movie and Modern Cinema Trends

[12:09] Jack Armstrong: Shares personal reflections on watching "The Minecraft Movie" with his son, highlighting its commercial success despite a modest budget and heavy reliance on CGI.

"A Minecraft movie has made almost a billion dollars worldwide after a budget to make it of only $150 million." — Jack Armstrong [14:08]

Creative Proposal:

• Armstrong proposes the idea of producing movies centered around popular internet memes, suggesting that such content could resonate strongly with younger audiences by fostering a sense of community through shared humor.

"Just a series of popular memes that young people get strung together so that everybody could laugh together about. Hey, I get this meme and feel part of something." — Jack Armstrong [15:20]

---

5. Supreme Court Discussions on Nationwide Injunctions and Birthright Citizenship

[17:48] Jack Armstrong: Introduces recent Supreme Court oral arguments featuring Tim Sandifer from the Goldwater Institute, focusing on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship.

[19:00] Tim Sandifer: Explains the complexities surrounding the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment, which underpins the debate on birthright citizenship. Sandifer argues that the term's meaning is contentious and pivotal to the case.

"The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are US Citizens." — Tim Sandifer [28:45]

Key Discussions:

• Nationwide Injunctions: Sandifer defends their legitimacy, arguing that they are a fundamental aspect of judicial checks on government power.

  "Nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of doing business in the courts." — Tim Sandifer [19:20]

• Judicial Appointments and Partisanship: The conversation touches on the politicization of judicial appointments and the impact of judges' backgrounds on their rulings.

"A lot of Republican appointed judges have been ruling against the Trump administration... The law is not just partisan politics." — Unnamed Contributor [33:10]

---

6. Cultural Reflections and Conclusion

[34:35] Unnamed Contributor: Offers a brief critique of Bob Dylan's poetry, juxtaposing it with traditional poets to emphasize differing interpretations of literary value.

"Lousy poet. No. Read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead." — Unnamed Contributor [34:35]

Closing Remarks:

• Hosts encourage listeners to engage with the podcast for insightful discussions on current events and cultural phenomena.
• Emphasizes the importance of understanding constitutional principles and their application in modern governance.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• "We're not going to figure skate our way out of this." — Polish Leader [05:40]
• "Europe is crushed by a timid and risk-averse business culture, strict labor laws, suffocating regulations, smaller pool of venture capital and lackluster economic growth." — Unnamed Contributor [10:01]
• "Nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of doing business in the courts." — Tim Sandifer [19:20]
• "A Minecraft movie has made almost a billion dollars worldwide after a budget to make it of only $150 million." — Jack Armstrong [14:08]
• "The Constitution is just a promise. And if we don't honor that promise, then it's not worth the paper it's written on." — Unnamed Contributor [25:13]

---

Conclusion:
In this episode of Armstrong & Getty On Demand, hosts Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty delve into critical geopolitical issues, including U.S. involvement in Ukraine, Europe's strategic pivots, and the evolving landscape of the global tech industry. The discussion extends to significant judicial debates in the Supreme Court, highlighting concerns over nationwide injunctions and interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Through engaging dialogue and insightful analysis, the hosts provide listeners with a comprehensive understanding of these complex topics.

For more in-depth discussions and to catch up on missed segments, tune into Armstrong & Getty On Demand.

Transcript

[Jack Armstrong]

You're listening to an iHeart podcast.

[Joe Getty]

Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln radio studio at the George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Armstrong and Getty. And now here's Armstrong and Getty. Armstrong and.

President now claiming, quote, some progress in the effort to end the war in Ukraine, saying he thinks Putin, quote, has had enough, but Putin giving no indications Russia is any closer to a ceasefire. President Trump now saying he will leave it up to Ukraine and Russia to negotiate for.

[Jack Armstrong]

Now, what about the Putin call? Remember we had a clip of that? What was that about years ago? What about the Putin call? That's from, like, eight years ago. So I don't even remember the very.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Beginning of Trump one.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, yeah. Anywho. Trump was on the phone with Vladimir Putin for about two hours yesterday, and the takeaway seems to be, I'm gonna let them work it out. Which. Where does that leave things? It leaves it as a win for Putin, I think.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yes.

[Jack Armstrong]

Although the ball is in Trump's court because he has not said, at least as of yet, okay, if you're going to let them work that out, does that mean them working it out while we continue to a tremendous amount of aid, intelligence aid, maybe being the most important to Ukraine or not? Because if it's. Or not, it's a big deal.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yeah, I, I feel like those of us who would like to see the US backing Ukraine are digging through about our 15th pile of manure, looking for the pony in Trump's negotiations. Just this. Maybe he's got this up his sleeve, you know, feeling or hope. It's just. It's been dashed over and over again.

[Jack Armstrong]

Well, he does have to go one way or the other. We are either going to continue to back Ukraine the way we have for three years or not. And if we're not, that's a major change.

[Unnamed Contributor]

I think it's more likely that one happens.

[Jack Armstrong]

Will he announce it or will it. Will it just become evident at some point?

[Unnamed Contributor]

I don't know. After this period of Zelensky and Ukraine and Europe doing everything conceivable. Conceivable. To make it clear we want peace, too. We're with you on this. And Putin never giving a single sign that he has any interest in Trump's peace deal. No, if it. If the US Policy becomes. Well, then y' all are on your own. We're not going to support Ukraine.

[Jack Armstrong]

Well, then we've. But it's not a nothing. We've sided with Russia, in my opinion.

[Unnamed Contributor]

I know. 100. That's exactly my point. Yeah. And what seemed to be the lean is indeed coming true.

[Jack Armstrong]

It was, it was less than Putin showing he wasn't interested in peace right now. He gave Trump a long lecture about why Ukraine belongs to Russia and all the. He said this will not end until the underlying problems are solved. Well, the underlying problems will not be solved until he has Ukraine. Correct.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yeah, yeah. As Rich Lowry writes in the National Review, the play for the Kremlin is obvious here. It wants to keep inching ahead with territorial gains and if it continues to string along the negotiations, has to hope that Trump tires of the whole thing and cuts off USA to Ukraine. That would reward Putin's intransigent with an important diplomatic victory, a split between the US And Europe and a chance to make major advances against an increasingly hard pressed Ukraine. And the only reference really to Trump being tired of Putin and understanding that he's being played was that reference to Putin's tapping me along. But I mean to come out of the call yesterday and say, yeah, I think we made progress. I don't know what that is.

[Jack Armstrong]

Well, J.D. vance presented it as, as well, if you guys aren't interested, then hey, we're out. As if that is a, actually a neutral position. That is not a neutral position. That's a taking the side of Russian position. So I don't know if they're just trying, if they're trying to fool people by presenting it is like we're staying neutral on this or what. So the ball is first off I think in Trump's court, but then absolutely in Europe's court as they got to figure out what to do. So they had a big meeting over the weekend of European leaders with a couple of interesting things that came out of it. A big defense meeting of the Germany, the big people, Germany, Britain, France, Poland, a couple of things. They announced Germany is going to lift their prohibition on nuclear energy that they've had since World War II. So they are going to like France, start using nuclear energy so that they don't have to buy energy from Russia. So that's a pretty big deal economically for Russia.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

They also announced in that meeting that Russia will does not present NATO a dilemma in five years like had previously been thought. If the war were to end soon, but could within a year, like they could be back up to speed enough within a year to present NATO a real dilemma of what do we do now? If they move on Estonia, they would be strong enough. That's what the European countries announced over the weekend. And then I really liked this quote that came out of It, I think from the leader of Poland. Russia has been playing hockey for years. We are not going to figure skate our way out of this.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Oh, that's some good ice sport metaphor slinging there, sir.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, well done that went with also one of the leaders saying the years of 2% funding of our military are over. It's going to have to be more like 5%.

[Unnamed Contributor]

You know, there were days I wish we had unlimited time for this sort of thing because it's so interesting. I have all sorts of interesting. Well, I suppose you all will be the judge of that when I deliver it, but I found it really, really intriguing analysis of Europe and everything that's wrong with it. I think the Russia attack on Ukraine following the annexation of Crimea and the attack on Georgia and everything else has, has been.

[Jack Armstrong]

And Germany continuing to buy oil from Russia after that happened and all those kinds of things.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, right. I think it's finally gotten to the point that it's shaken the dopey, dopey Euros out of their torpor, their, their, their sleepiness, their fantasy land that they've been living in for the past bunch of years after, you know, the US security, security umbrella enabled them to invest vast sums of money into welfare states and socialism. And, and I would, I would like to issue a, a hammering indictment against them for all of that crap. But I think they're right about Russia and Ukraine.

[Jack Armstrong]

We're not going to figure skate our way out of this.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yeah, I love that. Here, here's the takeaway. And this was going to be the takeaway after I built a case over many, many minutes. But I'll give you the takeaway. We need to work every day as a country to not become Europe. And there are a couple of examples of it. Great piece by Walter Russell Mead about why democracy is in retreat. And he cites several cases in Europe about anybody who does not go along with the very, very mainstream view of who ought to get elected and what policies ought to be passed is decried as undemocratic and dangerous. Like the AfD party Germany. And I could go into detail on that. The more I learned, the more interested I get. But their definition of democracy is the results I want. And anything that challenges that is swept aside like the AfD ought to be in an alliance with the party that won the most seats. It's obvious the efforts to keep them out because of a few crackpots and being a little soft on Russia or whatever is just, it's twisting the German political system into knots. Well, haven't they been Obsessed with it.

[Jack Armstrong]

They've been declared a terrorist organization or whatever. So people can listen to their phone calls and read their emails.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, yes, but actually, as long as we're talking about this. Let me click over. I think it's right there. Yeah. So last week the German government officially designated the opposition party AfD as a confirmed extremist organization. The announcement came from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, their domestic intelligence agency, blah, blah, blah. Then on Wednesday they abruptly withdrew the extremist label. They will now monitor the party only as a suspected case, which still allows some surveillance in a way Americans would find repugnant, but under much stricter judicial oversight. And somebody leaked the report. And it reveals that the evidence against the AfD consisted not of plans for violence or insurrection, but just controversial rhetoric and deeply nationalist views, none of which should have triggered that designation. So it was the quote unquote mainstream powers that be trying to label as extremist anybody who dared shake their hold on power. Which is exactly what I was driving at. Their definition of democracy is democracy with the right results. And that's, that's terrible. The other thing I really wanted to talk about is the Wall Street Journal had a great piece about how huge tech is in the world economy right now, technology in general and how tiny Europe's share of it is. The EU rivals, I mean it's, it's in the same weight class, more or less. If you take it as a whole. The US economy and the Chinese economy, it's a juggernaut. But you want to talk tech. Oh, it's sad. It's pathetic. Apple's market value is bigger than the entire German stock market, for instance. There's no Google, there's no Amazon, there's no Meta in Europe. There's nothing even slightly close. And this Journal article goes into depth and has a bunch of different examples of native born tech people, German tech people who brought what they learned back from Silicon Valley to Europe and were immediately crushed by strict labor laws. A risk averse business culture, suffocating regulations, smaller pool of venture capital, lackluster economic growth, no demographic growth and said no. And back to California they went. Or other places. Yeah. And so. And you know that list. I'm going to hit it one more time. And we free marketers sold all Dragon fans. I know we're sad and we ought to have industrial planning and tariffs and the rest of it. But Europe is crushed by a timid and risk averse business culture, strict labor laws, suffocating regulations, smaller pool of venture capital and lackluster economic growth don't become Europe. That's what we as a country need to repeat to ourselves every morning. You got to make your bed. It's a small act of discipline and positive something or other. I believe in it very much and say, let's not become Europe today.

[Jack Armstrong]

So like when you get up in the morning, I'm going to be a good person today. Or, or whatever your mantra is, right? I'm going to kindness, whatever, do God's will today.

[Unnamed Contributor]

And let's stay positive.

[Jack Armstrong]

Let's not become Europe today.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yes, we're going to build a utopia through a million regulations. Yes.

[Jack Armstrong]

Hour two I'll get into a little of what I pulled out of the first part of Jake Tapper's book that I started reading last night when I was in bed. Again, unintentionally hilarious, along with some interesting nuggets about what was going on there. It's the biggest failure of media in our nation's history and it should not just disappear as a minor thing. Luckily, it has not been for at least the last couple of weeks.

[Joe Getty]

Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty the Armstrong and Getty Show. The Armstrong and Getty Show.

[Jack Armstrong]

So I watched the Minecraft movie over the weekend with my son Henry and I was about to talk about it and I thought I should look up a little of how successful this movie was to back up my premise. And I googled it first. Then I remembered what you keep saying. No, you got to use the chat GPT. I'm trying to get out of the habit of googling and go to chat GPT. The answer I got on chat GPT about I just asked chat GPT was the Minecraft movie a financial success? Its answer? So much better and thorough than Googling it. I mean, not even close. So I got to get out of the habit of googling. Anyway, a Minecraft movie has made almost a billion dollars worldwide after a budget to make it of only $150 million, which I gotta believe all of the filming of the acting of that movie could have been done in an afternoon probably. I mean there wasn't much to it and it was all so much was green screen. It was all CGI stuff and everything like that. And like I mentioned, Jack Black, what an interesting dude. I don't know is he married or not. I've seen him in various interviews. He's certainly not trying to impress chicks. He wears ill fitting clothes, he doesn't wash his face or comb his hair. He rolls in, does his lines brilliantly because he's really good. And then collects his money and goes home. What. What an interesting thing that is.

[Unnamed Contributor]

I'm told he's married.

[Jack Armstrong]

What movie star has never wanted to care how they look like Jack Black. He keeps getting fatter and greasier anyway. I mean, you can be fat if you want. Maybe you think that's part of your appeal. You can wash your face. Anywho, the Minecraft movie, first of all, way better than I expected it to be. I thought it was. It was only an hour 45, but I thought. I thought this is gonna be kind of tough to sit through. And it was quite entertaining. Pretty dang funny by the end. It had. It reminded me of like all your Lord of the Rings movies. Okay. Another giant fight sequence. I just. I can't do fight sequences like a lot of people can, apparently endlessly. I get it. But my main takeaway was and if I was rich, I would start if like really like Elon rich. I would come up with this idea today. It was basically a series of popular memes that young people get strung together so that everybody could laugh together about. Hey, I get this meme and feel part of something. That's what it seemed like to me. And I'll bet you could put one of those out once a month of just whatever the most recent hot memes were.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Right.

[Jack Armstrong]

Make it like 90 minutes long. It's just a series of meme jokes that every teenager gets and thinks is hilarious. And it would be super popular because that's basically what the Minecraft movie was.

[Unnamed Contributor]

So just a recognition slash belonging festival.

Yeah.

[Jack Armstrong]

Because other things aren't really working. But partially because this is a reason to be together in the theater. It's fun to recognize the memes together. It was clear from my older son when he went and saw it in the theater that that was a lot of the appeal was all these inside jokes that they get and laugh at and it's fun to see them in a group. I think this is a way to rescue movies. It's. It's going to kill old time movies. But like just, I don't know, the most popular memes put together 90 minutes with a loose script. I think that would work. Somebody steal that idea and make it work.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, it's either like irony or a perpetual motion machine or something that online memes. The enjoyment of online memes together.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah.

[Unnamed Contributor]

In a room might convince kids. Hey, this is really fun.

[Jack Armstrong]

Wow. Good point.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Hello.

[Jack Armstrong]

But my constantly. My son was saying, I know you don't get that, but to various things that were Happening characters and lines and stuff like that because they're here today. I mean you could have had a movie where the hawk to a girl was, you know, a co star there for a cup of coffee.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Oh, please don't.

[Jack Armstrong]

And people would have guffawed with laughter.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Though, you know, they studios. Yes.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, yes.

[Unnamed Contributor]

No, you got to start producing these. This is your 10 million dollar idea. It's fine. I thought I'll get another co host.

[Jack Armstrong]

I thought of Friday night. I thought this is actual brilliant idea. It would just take a lot of money to get it going.

[Unnamed Contributor]

You know, you'd have to pay for rights, but you'd have lawyers to do that. That'd be easy. Yeah. Wow, that's a great idea. Just your monthly meme cinema.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. Yeah. And all the teenagers get together and feel cooler and smarter than the rest.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Of us because they get all the jokes right.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. We bought it though. Cost 20 bucks. So Minecraft's available at home now for streaming, but it was 20 bucks to run it.

[Unnamed Contributor]

I think it's got about a six month run. Your idea.

[Jack Armstrong]

Oh, really?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Don't like, don't invest too heavily thinking next year will be even bigger. Trust me.

[Joe Getty]

Armstrong and Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.

[Jack Armstrong]

My president decides to do something with an executive order or whatever often that they promised on the campaign trail. Their voters get all excited, yay, they did it day one like they promised. And then, then I get an alert on my phone. Some judge somewhere I've never heard of has said, no, you can't do that. And then it stops and everybody's like, groans like, oh, they can do that. And it keeps happening over and over again. And do we want that system to continue that way or not? Is part of what the Supreme Court was arguing about yesterday. And as one of the justices said, there are 600 some federal judges. And while I do not question their motives, sometimes there are. They are wrong. So do we want them to be able to hold up the whole country?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandifer, Vice President for Legal affairs at the Goldwater Institute. Among other auspicious titles. Author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's How Isabel Patterson, Rose Wilder and Ayn Rand Found Liberty in Age of Darkness. I've recommended it many times. It's terrific. Tim, how are you, sir?

Just great. Thanks for having me back, guys.

[Jack Armstrong]

Published poet. Gotta throw that in there.

[Unnamed Contributor]

True. Yes, A polymath, as they say. Anyway, Tim, so ostensibly everybody's talking about that we were gonna discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court. And that did come up. But would you agree that the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual federal judges?

Oh, yes, absolutely. That was the focus of the argument, and it was a very interesting argument, but I don't think that it's a hard question. I think the answer is, obviously, nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of doing business in the courts, and people who complain about them either don't understand the system or are trying to get away with something illegal.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, I don't. I don't always like that it happened, but I can't see what the alternative would be, as somebody pointed out. So you're gonna let. I guess it was you that pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that. So every time a president does something, it's got to work its way all the way through the courts up to the Supreme Court. And then a decision by the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court might say, sometimes nine. Nothing. You can't do that.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Oh, wait a minute.

And during that whole period of time, the government is still doing the illegal thing, Right?

[Jack Armstrong]

Right.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Wow. So clearly it's 2 to 1 for a judicial takeover of the government, But I will stand up for liberty. Is there no middle ground? It's got to be three judge panel and not a single yahoo in rural Tennessee.

Yeah, I think having a single yahoo in rural Tennessee is perfectly fine because that's what the appellate process is for. That's why you appeal cases. And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing yahoos to the federal bench. You might mention that, too. The argument against nationwide injunctions always seems to boil down to, well, this is a democracy, and the majority should always get what it wants. And the answer to that is no. What happened to all of my friends who used to say, this is a republic, not a democracy? The whole point of our system is that the majority has to act lawfully. And if it acts unlawfully, I can go in front of a judge and get an order from that judge prohibiting the government from violating my rights. And the idea that this. That we should do this piecemeal, that only a judge down here, that his order only applies there, meanwhile, the government can do illegal things to everybody else in the country until the case reaches the US Supreme Court, makes no sense at all.

The underlying theme here being, folks, that what we really need to fear is the power of the government in this country. That's kind of the idea of forming it. So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively or practically completely unknown for 150 years. Then there were a handful of them and the number of them is now skyrocketing every day.

[Jack Armstrong]

It seems like on my phone I see a judge jumped in somewhere.

[Unnamed Contributor]

I actually don't think that that's true. I think that what happened was we just started calling them by a different name. There have been injunctions against unconstitutional government action since before there was a Constitution. One of the points that was brought up during the arguments was British judges used to do this before the American Revolution. And that was considered perfectly legitimate. It's just that nowadays we call them nationwide injunctions, or we have some judges who write sloppily and don't explain what they're actually saying or something. Okay, that's a problem, I suppose. But the idea that you should limit the injunction power of federal courts is what that is, is that's open door to the majority violating individual rights on a scale that, I mean, they already do it. But you can imagine what it would be if we took away one of the most important protection, individual rights in this country, which is getting an injunction from our federal court to protect your freedom. That's insane.

[Jack Armstrong]

So I didn't want to get to this part too fast because you're a lawyer and this part can't be fixed with the law. It seems to me that we've got a cultural problem in that presidents are way more likely than they used to be to want to challenge the Supreme Court either to, like, legitimately, they don't think the law is correct, or they don't care if they're wrong. They just want to get the political credit for trying. And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like a likely response. The 600 some federal judges out there, there's a lot more of them who are willing to let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and jump in and stop somebody they hate.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yes, you're absolutely right about that. And especially the thing about the president and Congress being willing to do things that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the judges are gonna strike it down. And they can blame the judges and say all those evil activist judges, or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So it's win win if you wanna do something unconstitutional. And honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously Franklin Roosevelt did this a lot. But the one that always sticks in my memory is George W. Bush when he signed the McCain Feingold campaign finance law and said when he signed it that he thought it was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to the courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if you're the president, you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And if you ignore that oath and sign something that you know is unconstitutional just because you think the courts will clean up your mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah. Well, a lot of the pieces I've read that have been following the growth of this use that is kind of like the patient zero because he said it out loud and then other presidents thought, hey, I can do that. I just won't say it out loud. And Obama did it and Biden did it and Trump did it in whichever order and then Trump again. And. And it's. I don't. How so how do we fix this?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, there's a long answer and a short answer. The short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is that we have to restore respect for the Constitution in this country. I think it's the long term damage that's been done to Americans. Understanding and appreciation of the Constitution is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a law professor at Georgetown Law School a few years ago published an article in the Washington Post saying the Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well, you're a teacher of constitutional law, for crying out loud. And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it. It cannot protect us. The Constitution is just a promise. And if we don't honor that promise, then it's not worth the paper it's written on.

We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail, in my opinion. Tim Sandifer is on the line from the Goldwater Institute. Little constitutional humor.

[Jack Armstrong]

Exactly.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Designed for punish one man.

[Jack Armstrong]

That's a good idea.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Yeah, let's do it. So, you know, blah, blah, blah, disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of the oral arguments, blah, blah, blah. Did it strike you that the justices, the sane ones that we like, were leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions, judges, etc. That, that we've been discussing?

Some of the judges have made clear for a long time that they're against these, what they call nationwide injunctions. Justice Thomas in particular, some of the others are a little harder to read. Justice Barrett, for example, and Justice Roberts, who have become really the swing judges on this issue. I thought the most interesting judge, if you want, if anybody wants to go and listen to the argument online, I thought Justice Jackson was the one who was the most interesting. She clearly understands how this area of the law works, and she rightly says there's no there there. Nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate. They always have been, and there's no problem. So she'd be the one that I find most interesting. But how to predict. I think you're gonna get. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are gonna side with the liberals and say we don't have a problem per se with nationwide injunctions, but maybe some of them aren't very good, but as a blanket matter, they're okay. And then they're going to want to hear the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which obviously is a huge deal.

[Jack Armstrong]

That sounds about right to me.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Is it even worth getting into what happened on that topic yesterday, or do you think it's.

Well, they really just talk about whether or not they have a legitimate case in the first place, and they haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's important because in order to get an injunction, you kind of have to first show that you have even an arguable point to make, and that was what they were arguing about. And I will say, I know this is talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we clearly have the right answer on everything. I think the birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. Hard question. I don't think it's an easy question on either side.

[Jack Armstrong]

Let's talk about that when we come back from the break. I want to hear. I want to hear the arguments on both sides of that. That's interesting. And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown of who speaks the most words. The chicks talk too much. Is that a given?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, Justice Sotomayor does love cutting off lawyers and not letting them answer her questions.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, the chicks talk too much. I think that's.

[Unnamed Contributor]

And the new gal talks more than anybody. That shouldn't happen in any organization.

[Jack Armstrong]

Armstrong and Gifty. The reality is, this is fabulous.

[Unnamed Contributor]

I thank you.

That's enough of that.

[Jack Armstrong]

This is all crazy. It's just the way it is. Yep, but damn it, we weren't allowed to ask about the Big Guy. This is the United States of America. God's sake, let's not play games.

[Joe Getty]

This is the Armstrong and Getty Show. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Discussing the oral architect before the Supreme Court yesterday with Tim Sandifer, Vice President for Legal affairs at the Goldwater Institute. It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing or discussion. It really was much more a discussion of individual federal judges and nationwide injunctions and that sort of thing. But to the question of the 14th amendment, Tim, you said before the break that it's not an easy call. I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing. What should we know about the 14th amendment, even come to a semi intelligent opinion on this?

Well, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are US Citizens. And all of this case, all of these arguments turn on that phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean? It's really tough because the word jurisdiction is one of those words that can mean all sorts of different things. It basically means power, but there's all sorts of different kinds of power. And so that's what the argument turns on because some people think that it means you have to follow the law. If you're born here and you have to follow the law, then you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof and then that means you're a citizen. But that doesn't really make a lot of sense because even foreign tourists who come here for a vacation have to follow the law. I mean, they have to stop at red lights and they can't steal things. So that can't be what that means. Right. Instead, the other side argues jurisdiction thereof means some kind of loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction as opposed to follow the law jurisdiction. And that difference, you can see that difference, for example, in this. If you're a foreign spy and you sneak into the country and you spy for some foreign country and you get arrested, you can be prosecuted for espionage, but you cannot be prosecuted for treason. Why? Because you're not a US Citizen and you don't owe loyalty to the US So you cannot commit treason against the US and so there's two different kinds of jurisdiction is the argument. And so those who are against birthright citizenship, say subject to the jurisdiction thereof, means that your parents owed loyalty to the United States as opposed to some foreign country. And that would mean that illegal aliens, if they have a child here, that child is not a citizen of the United States. Now that's also there's a problem with that. There's a couple problems. That one of the problems with that argument is that nobody has ever said that that's what it means. In the 150 years since this has been in the Constitution, everybody has acted like if you're born here, you're a citizen all of that time. And so suddenly Discovering that it turns out that we've been misreading the Constitution for 150 years would be a huge, enormously radical transformation in how our system works. That would cause tremendous disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem. But all of this. The real problem here in answering this question is that when the amendment was adopted, there were no things as illegal aliens because there were no laws against immigration. And that means that if you're an originalist and you think the Constitution should be understood the way it was originally intended, the framers didn't ever think about this because it wasn't against the law back then. So we don't know what they would have thought about this question.

[Jack Armstrong]

Right, Right.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive precedent is overturned, that's when you tag me in, Tim. And I come in and explain to the good folks that, look, the nature of global transportation, the move of people or peoples from one place to another, has changed so vastly.

[Jack Armstrong]

Joe's a living Constitution guy. You can hear it coming out of it.

[Unnamed Contributor]

What?

No.

Don't you dare know that the very nature of comings and goings from countries has been so radically transformed. A Chinese national with not the slightest notion of making life in the United States can. Can depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China, all in the span of 72 hours. I'm inducing labor in this case, or getting very lucky. And that child had citizenship. That's eventuality unimaginable back in the day, as the kids say.

I think that's sort of true. But on the other hand, the Chinese question came up back then because there were so many Chinese in California in the 1860s. And senators were asked, well, isn't this gonna make the children of the Chinese immigrants who. Who back then did not intend to stay in the United States, they intended to go back to China. The senators were asked, does this make their kids US Senator, US Citizens? And the senator from California said, yes, and then he was immediately thrown out of office. So what does that mean? And nobody knows what that means.

A single case from 1898? Or is there more precedent?

Really, there really isn't. There's really just a handful of precedents, and no Supreme Court case has ever said that birthright citizenship is in the. Is in the Constitution. There have been some that have kind of mentioned it or kind of assumed it, but none has said so outright.

[Jack Armstrong]

I am surprised. The polling shows that only about a third of Americans want to do away with the way we do it. Now. I'm surprised by That I do want to get to this. This is a journalistic question, but I think it has an effect on people's respect for the law. It has come up recently. It has become a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge, they mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's a good idea or not?

[Unnamed Contributor]

They didn't just barely got a minute.

I think, I think it's fine. I think people should know where these, for instance, I think it would help. A lot of judges, you know, a lot of Republican appointed judges have been ruling against the Trump administration. And I think it would be helpful for people to know that these questions are not things where it's all partisan. The law is not just partisan politics. It's something much more profound and much more important than that.

[Jack Armstrong]

Yeah, well, I agree, but it implies that judge. I don't know. I didn't used to think, I didn't used to think about it ever. If a judge ruled, I just thought, well, that's interesting. Now it's all who appointed him? Oh, of course he said that.

[Unnamed Contributor]

That is true. That is a risk. But I, I think we should err on the side of informing people as opposed to keeping people in the dark. So I. That's always true.

Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute on the line. Tim, final question. I've called for a monarchy. You in favor of it, yes or no? No.

I'm against the monarchy. I'm for the Constitution.

[Jack Armstrong]

Joe, one more question. As a published poet, I was thinking about this yesterday. He won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan, good poet or not?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Lousy poet. No. Read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.

How about Ringo Star, Octopus's Garden? That was creative, Tim. It's always great and enlightening. Thanks a million for the time. Let's talk again soon.

Thanks, guys.

All right.

[Jack Armstrong]

I was actually thinking about this, listening to Dylan lyrics. Why do they stick in everybody's head so much? Why do people keep going back to them if it's just gobbledygook like a lot of real poets claim it can't be. It wouldn't lodge. It wouldn't. It wouldn't make the market made, would it?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Well, right. He was famously moody about his career and his music in his life's philosophy. I think some of his stuff is absolutely brilliant and I think some of it's gobbledygook.

Huh.

[Jack Armstrong]

Maybe. Maybe more on that another day or maybe not. We got plenty stuff to tell you. I hope you can stick around. If you missed a segment. I thought that Tim thing was really really good and you want to listen to it again, get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty on Demand.

[Joe Getty]

Armstrong and Getty?

[Unnamed Contributor]

Why should you listen to Armstrong and Getty on Demand?

[Jack Armstrong]

We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and.

[Unnamed Contributor]

Tedious and depressing and makes you angry. You don't want to live your life like that.

[Joe Getty]

The Armstrong and Getty Show.

[Jack Armstrong]

You're listening to an I Heart podcast.