The Listening Tube with Bob Woodley--The Constitution and Government Overreach

SPEAKER_01 0:00

This is The Listening Tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. This is not only the first episode of season 14, but it's also the fourth anniversary of the listening tube. Thank you for being here. Let's get on with year five. On this episode, we'll hear about some constitutional amendments, and I'll have a conversation with constitutional advocate Jen Brown.

SPEAKER_01 0:40

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:47

Part of the federal government of the United States is in shutdown mode once again because funding is being withheld by obstruction in Congress. You can blame the Republicans if you want, but this is the second time in a year that Democrats and socialists have voted to prevent the government from operating at full capacity. But this time, the obstructionism runs deeper than the funding, as the target of the obstructionists, ICE and CBP, is fully funded, while other unrelated functions, TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, are adversely affected. Now, you might be thinking, Bob, this is supposed to be not the headlines. And you would be correct. While the more immediate damage to our institutions and their missions may be obvious, there's a long-term effect of obstructionism that's been building for quite some time. When Congress fails to make progress, which it is somewhat designed to do, a void can sometimes appear when decisions need to be made more quickly than Congress can act. For those of you who remember the 1970s after school television cartoon that explained how a bill becomes a law, you probably already get it. For many younger people, after school became 420. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but now they have to look up how a bill becomes a law on their phone. And they don't. So they don't even notice that the legislative branch of the United States government has slowly eroded its own power by its inability to work together. Part of the problem is that many of our legislators don't understand their rights and responsibilities as representatives of their constituents. More on that when we hear from my guest this week, Jen Brown. But the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government has practically relinquished many of its powers simply by letting other parts of the government make decisions that they should be making or should have made. While the American voter delegates its authority to their representative, their representative is delegating that authority to some other entity. That's not how it's supposed to work. So while the executive branch pushes the boundaries of its powers, and the judicial branch becomes activist or inactivist, depending on your point of view, the legislative branch has stood on the sidelines trying to make up its mind. The obstructionism in Congress and the inability of Congress to act in the best interest of the American people in a timely manner has opened up a hula hoop convention of loopholes for all kinds of abominations of civil law and society by non-government parties like corporations, nonprofit groups, and even terrorists. All of this Democrat versus Republican bickering has brought stagnation to the legislative branch, and it's becoming more obvious why the bickering continues. One party claims they're trying to save democracy, and one party claims they're trying to save the United States. Let's face it, the Democrats and Socialists are only interested in saving democracy because they've figured out ways to try to control it. Like millions of illegal immigrants tipping the numbers on the census to favor democratic districts. They're only interested in saving the mechanisms, not the American way of life. The Republicans, and if I may lump them together for this, libertarians, as well as most independents, understand that the United States isn't a democracy, and instead strive to save the American culture and the melting pot that created it. If you look at the reasons for the current government shutdown, it's because the Democrats are trying to do anything they can to prevent our immigration laws from being enforced, especially in the blue cities and states. They claim they're just trying to rein in ice and border patrol, but their demands are obviously meant to prevent enforcement at all. And just like the last shutdown, the Democrats will not gain much, if anything, while stifling the government from doing its job. All the while whittling away the power of the body. Because if the legislature won't do it, the executive steps in and tries. Then the judicial gets a complaint and puts a stop to it because the legislature didn't agree to it. But the legislature is too busy battling obstructionists on the left who are grasping at anything they can find to try to stay relevant. And all they seem to do is distance themselves more and more from the people they claim to represent. Seventy percent of Democrats agree that voter ID is a good idea, yet Democrat politicians fight against it. That's not representing your constituents. That's representing an agenda that's detrimental to the benefit of the entire country. Just like the obstructionism that weakens the very legislative body that's supposed to represent the people. Prior to 1911, state legislatures were tasked with assigning two citizens to represent each state in the U.S. Senate for four-year terms. As you probably predicted, the practice led to appointments based solely on each state's legislature's political bent and not necessarily in alignment with the will of the people. The Senate wanted to keep the status quo and voted to keep it that way. However, in April of that year, the House of Representatives voted for the opposing view, which would allow the direct election of senators. Well, something had to give, and as you know, we now elect our senators through a popular vote. That's because on June 12th, 1911, the Senate capitulated and voted for the constitutional amendment, providing the popular election of U.S. senators for six-year terms, allowing the people to vote for a senator from any political party. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified a little more than two years later, April 8, 1913. This week in 1951, the 22nd amendment to the United States Constitution, limiting presidents to two terms, is ratified. But is that really what it says? There's been a lot of talk about President Trump trying to stay in the White House for another term after his current term expires. And according to the amendment, no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice. It also says that no person who has held the office for more than two years of someone else's term may be elected again to be president more than once. So can Donald Trump be president of the United States for more than two terms? Well, yes, according to the 22nd Amendment. Although he cannot be elected to the presidency again, there is a way he could serve an unlimited amount of terms. All he has to do is find someone who will run for president and let him be the vice president. Once inaugurated, the new president could simply resign and the vice president would become president. Sure, everyone would see it coming. But stopping it would be nearly impossible.

SPEAKER_01 9:54

Send email to thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 10:00

Follow the listening tube at thelisteningtube.com. My guest today is an advocate for the Constitution of the United States of America. Jen Brown and I talk about the Constitution, government overreach, and what the Constitution is really telling us. She spoke with me from her home in Utah. How's the weather there right now?

SPEAKER_02 10:25

Do you know what we've had a really unusual winter because it's almost like winter didn't come. We just have had very little snow. And so I we're a little bit worried if we're gonna have enough water for the summer, but the winter has been very mild.

SPEAKER_00 10:41

I've been reading about that. There may not be enough snowpacked. People are a little bit worried about that. And I'll be I'll be hoping for the best for you there.

SPEAKER_02 10:50

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 10:52

And um now you are a constitutional advocate. Is that a fair description?

SPEAKER_02 11:00

Yes, so am I.

SPEAKER_00 11:02

I I have a copy of it right here on my desk. I bought it at a museum in Pittsburgh, and you know, I think the probably the part that people love the most about the constitution is the Bill of Rights, because that's the part that we the people have, you know, to back us up. But what else is it about the Constitution of the United States of America that makes it special?

SPEAKER_02 11:29

It's absolutely the fragmentation of power, and the heart of the Constitution is found in the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. People need to be more familiar with those. Those are the jurisdictions given to the federal government, and that's what the genius of the Constitution is.

SPEAKER_00 11:49

What does that passage tell us?

SPEAKER_02 11:52

It tells what the federal government can and can't do. Right. If if it weren't for this part, then the constitution wouldn't mean anything because it's the limitation of government that's the genius of the Constitution. We know it's the conglomeration of power that always leads to a suppression of unalienable rights. And the founders knew that. And so they took great care to prevent this conglomeration of power within the federal government. So, and the enumerated powers are not nearly talked about enough. I would like to be hearing more politicians referring to the enumerated powers as well as our president, the federal government. But if you want to think about enumerated powers, it's what does the federal government need to do? What needs to be uniform for all 50 states? What kind of jurisdictions would it not be practical for the states to manage individually? And so some examples of those are standardized weights and measurements. So obviously, we couldn't have states that were not, you know, working within the same weights and measurement system. They can establish a postal system. They can establish bankruptcy laws as well as rules for citizenship. So everything that has to do with citizenship, the constitution gives the federal government that jurisdiction. Then there's things that are like declare war and raise up and finance armed forces. So, you know, those kinds of things that's appropriate for the federal government to be managing. Another example is copyright laws and patent laws. So those are some examples of the enumerated powers. And again, I'll repeat that they're in Article I, Section Eight of the Constitution. So let me tell you a few things that are not enumerated powers. For example, education. That is a state jurisdiction, which that is something that's been talked about a fair amount as the president has tried to close the federal department of education. And he has said on several occasions that he would like that that power needs to go back to the states. And he is following the constitution by doing that. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be directing education. That was to be done by the states individually. And there's certainly no prohibition for the states to work with each other. The states can work together. There can be as many of them working together as they would like to. But the key is that the federal government stays out. Because, again, as I said, as the federal government grows, history proves over and over again unalienable rights suffer from that. Another example of something that the federal government shouldn't be doing is welfare. And we know that for decades, the federal government has been involved in this. But if we're following the constitution, welfare should be done with each state. Each state should be managing its own poor, its own people that are having a problem taking care of themselves. But it shouldn't have been done by the federal government. And part of that reason also is as power conglomerates, fraud is more likely to take place. It's harder to undo fraud. So if each state were managing its own smaller welfare system, each state would have more of an ability to police its system, to make sure it's working efficiently, to be looking over fraud and making sure that that money is being used appropriately for that state and the specific needs of that state.

SPEAKER_00 16:22

Well, now, Jen, if I may, if I may interject, if if the federal government is supplying the money for the welfare, shouldn't they have a say-so in how it's managed?

SPEAKER_02 16:36

So, Bob, that's exactly you, you hit right on the problem. The money should be staying within the states. It should never be going to the federal government. If we're following the constitution appropriately, the federal government does not have authority to work within welfare, poor, disabled. Those were all meant to be state jurisdictions. There should be no money being taken from the states. And it's important to just recognize that the federal government, the money that it has, it's taking it, you know, from the states. So in in many cases, the money is coming from the states, then they're sending it back to the states with strings attached, with regulations and with saying this is how you're going to use it. So exactly, you hit it right on the head. That process should not be in place. The states should be managing their own systems and the money should be staying in there. And so that's how it should be for education as well. The money should be staying within the states, and they are directly managing their own education system, their own welfare, and their own welfare system as well as other things.

SPEAKER_00 18:03

I'll tell you, Jed, I am very happy that I graduated from high school the year before the Department of Education became an entity because I'm seeing our education system do nothing but go downhill ever since 1980, basically, is when that happens.

SPEAKER_02 18:23

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 18:24

Now here's what I love about the Constitution. It's written in such a way as to cover a wide variety of scenarios and possibilities, but each individual word was put in place very deliberately, especially, you know, uh among the the original part of the constitution before the amendments came along, and probably including the the first ten amendments. So while it's meant to be taken very literally, it's malleable enough to keep up with change. Is that malleability that makes it vulnerable to abuse, or is it just being abused verbatim?

SPEAKER_02 19:11

Do you know what definitely, like you said, there, you know, as it is timeless because the principles are timeless, but I would say that the enumerated powers are they're very specific, and they knew that they had to be. That they said, how do we prevent our government from doing what Britain has done, where we didn't have freedom, we didn't have liberty under Britain, and we don't want that to happen again. So they made it very specific in the constitution what the federal government could do. And I think the answer to your question then is it is just downright not being followed because you know it's very clear that some of these things they aren't in the constitution to give them that authority. And so it it's really a time where we need to have just a movement to teach the enumerated powers again. And what's interesting is in the state of Utah, I was involved with the passage of HB 488, which was a couple years ago. And one of the things that that bill did was it is putting together information curriculum to teach the state legislators in Utah what the enumerated powers are and all about our constitutional form of government. Because we talked a lot about the fact if you're elected to the legislature in Utah, you don't have any review or courses on the constitution, the Utah Constitution, nothing at all. And so I'm also part of the Federalism uh commission here in the state of Utah. Ken Ivory is the chair of that, and he's mentioned this so many times saying, why shouldn't there be some basic training as well as some every year, and a little refresher course on our constitutional form of government, the fragmentation of power, and what are the state and the federal jurisdictions? So we believe we're the first state to pass a bill like this. And we are working with uh Utah Valley University. They have a center there for constitutional studies. They are writing the curriculum that will be used to train our state legislators, and we're hoping that. But then we will be able to spread this to other states and how beneficial that could be for them to really have a better understanding of their jurisdictions.

SPEAKER_00 22:10

I think that's brilliant, Jen. Remedial constitution classes for politicians. It's probably long overdue.

SPEAKER_02 22:19

Oh, and guess what else is in the bill, Bob? It's teaching to the state employees these these things and saying, hey, did you know Utah has jurisdiction over this issue? And I actually was part of a group that met with several different state executive agencies. We talked about the constitution. We talked about do they feel that their authority is sometimes hampered because of the overreach of the federal government? So it's been really interesting to be a part of that. And it's also very valuable that we can talk to them about our form of government and do some training and instruction there too. And that is part of the bill as well. So it's it's been, I think, wonderful that Representative Ivory was able to pass this bill. And like we said, we hope that it can be a model for many other states.

SPEAKER_00 23:23

Certainly, there are many ways government overreach can affect us at the street level. But as you rise through the ranks of government hierarchy, I've noticed a lot of accusations of government overreach among the branches of government. President Trump is often accused of acting outside his authority by those in the legislature and the judiciary. Are we experiencing a realignment of the responsibilities of the branches of government? And do you anticipate any constitutional amendments as a result?

SPEAKER_02 24:02

So do you know what we I mean the constitution is not changing about the enumerated powers, but definitely the executive branch, if we talk about the federal level, the executive branch has continually been getting stronger. And that that is a concern because the legislative branch should be stronger than it is uh federally, especially if we're focusing on that level. What has happened in the past decades is that the executive agencies have started essentially legislating by passing rules. So when they pass rules, it's really seen almost like that is law, even though they don't have the authority to pass laws. And of course, that's only the legislative branch that can do that. So what uh has happened is these executive agencies have become so powerful, they are really taking a lot of authority from uh from Congress. But we are grateful that a couple years ago, Chevron Deference was a Supreme Court case passed, it was overturned. And what it said originally was if it's not clear if there's ambiguity, this the agencies can make the decision. So this was one of the problems of how the agencies have gained power in the past decades. So, two years ago, this uh Supreme Court case was overturned. That is very positive because it has again put more limitations on these executive agencies that if it's not clear what Congress has said, then it goes back to Congress for clarification that they have to pass a law then to make that clear. The agencies cannot interpret that on their own. And so we see that the there is an a reigning in of these executive branches that has happened within the past couple of years and is continuing to happen. President Trump is definitely seeking to limit some of the things that are that are going on in these agencies, some of the autonomy they feel that they had, almost as if they didn't answer to anybody. And so it's a very interesting time right now as we are watching this dynamic, but the legislative branch needs to be stronger on the federal level. The executive branch has gotten too powerful. And unfortunately, if they're not able to agree and pass forward legislation, then it can't be done by the executive agencies, and it certainly also cannot be done from the judicial branch through judicial activism. And so you bring up a very interesting point, Bob, of how some of these lines have been blurred over uh legis the passage of legislation. And so I'm very much hoping that as we move forward, there is going to be a continually be a narrowing of what the executive branch can do, and that the legislative branch will be stronger and do what it's meant to do, which is to truly decide on all the policy decisions need to need to be done by our representatives in Congress.

SPEAKER_00 27:53

In Utah, you're involved in a lawsuit brought by a company called Rubicon Contracting against the former attorney general and others. What what what is your role in in that process?

SPEAKER_02 28:08

So I'm not directly part of that company, but yes, I'm I'm part of it in that I am seeking to help share their story because it was the absolute overreach of government here on the state level, very concerning what took place with Rubicon.

SPEAKER_00 28:28

Now, from what I've read, Rubicon is a building maintenance company that was accused by the Attorney General of some serious charges in order to keep funding flowing for one of his pet projects. Does that sound about right to you?

SPEAKER_02 28:47

Rubicon does snow removal in the winter, and then their primary job is that they do they are a landscape company.

SPEAKER_00 28:58

Okay. And what did the attorney general accuse them of doing?

SPEAKER_02 29:02

So the attorney general came in when they were just having a normal business day. They barged in to press charges against them. They allowed some media to come in and to be videoing as this was taking place, and they said that Rubicon was guilty of human trafficking.

SPEAKER_00 29:27

But what we now, what we know Well, wait, wait, the attorney general just came out and said they were guilty of it without a trial, without any due process.

SPEAKER_02 29:39

Well, those were the charges that were pressed against that it was human trafficking charges.

SPEAKER_00 29:45

Now, ultimately, those cases were dismissed. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_02 29:51

That is correct. Yes.

SPEAKER_00 29:52

And now Rubicon, as a form of of even uh clearing their name or regaining their reputation, has filed a lawsuit against the former attorney general. Now, just two days ago, the attorney general claimed that he has absolute immunity uh in this lawsuit. Have you seen that claim? And do you have a reaction to it?

SPEAKER_02 30:20

Well, you know what, it it is just so outrageous what happened. And just to give to give the listeners just a little bit more of an idea, uh, is what we have found out is that they had a financial incentive to press these charges against Rubicon because they were hoping to get a large grant from the federal government, but they had, in order to receive it, they had to have a certain number of charges against human trafficking. They had to show that they had active cases against human trafficking. And so what has come to light is that they looked, they were where they were a landscaping business and they employed uh several workers that they were a really good target for that. And so they they came in, pressed those charges. It was on Thanksgiving weekend when this happened in 2023. There were members of that company that spent Thanksgiving in jail until the bell could be made, but there were several that literally spent Thanksgiving in jail. All the charges ended up getting dropped because there was nothing to them.

SPEAKER_00 31:52

Was the actions of the attorney general government overreach, or was it just a violation of the law?

SPEAKER_02 32:01

Oh, do you know what? It it was absolutely both, but government overreach. I mean, think of what it did to these families that were the owners of this company, that were working so hard, contributing to society, to the community, paying their taxes, uh, doing everything that they should be doing. And think of what that did to them to come in with these baseless charges, what it did to their reputation. They lost several contracts that they had in place because of the charges coming out. Even though they ended up being completely unsubstantiated, just knowing that somebody was charged with that, there were a lot of contracts that broke that and said, you know, we just we don't want to be associated while this gets worked out. I mean, no American should be allowed to go through this kind of pain and suffering. There was nothing that they did that was that broke the law or that did not follow the rules that were in place. And it's just one of the most shocking things that we've heard happen in the state of Utah. And so we just want to get this story out because we have got to protect people from this federal overreach. We don't want, or excuse me, from this overreach of the state government in this case. We don't want other people to be going through something like this.

SPEAKER_00 33:46

As I had mentioned, the the former attorney general has recently requested that the case against him and others be dismissed. And a story about the dismissal in the Deseret News quotes the lawsuit. And it specifically addresses an assistant A.G. when it says the complaint does its best to smear Prosecutor Beckett, I'm sure you're familiar who prosecutor Beckett is, and demonize her actions in the state criminal case against plaintiffs. But even if that extreme rhetoric is assumed to be true at this stage of the proceedings, all claims alleged against her fail as a matter of law under the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity. Now my question is, is prosecutorial immunity a violation of the constitutional rights of the people in the Rubicon lawsuit because they were not presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Attorney General of Utah.

SPEAKER_02 35:00

Absolutely, Bob. You couldn't have worded that better. That the fact that they're saying that they have immunity, that that hampers the rights of the people because a very important part of we the people and the power that we have is that we can hold elected officials accountable if they break the law as they did, and to be able to sue them and to receive damages for what people were put through. So Bob, I'll just I wonder on that. See, I didn't know if I didn't know if the AG was claiming that they had total immunity and if that's if that's really true or not.

SPEAKER_00 35:56

Because that's I wonder if I it was in the Deseret News just a few days ago.

SPEAKER_02 36:01

Right.

SPEAKER_00 36:01

So oh yes, I'm just saying if if they really do have immunity or if they're you know saying that they do, but that's that's what they're claiming, but that would seem like it may be a constitutional a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

SPEAKER_02 36:16

It exactly, it it absolutely is because how how how convenient for them if they give themselves immunity so they can do what they want, and then there's no way to prosecute. So that is that is a big problem, and that's something that needs to be looked at in every state, because I I do know that different states have uh different laws that have been passed on that, but elected officials should not have full immunity because there's got to be a way for the people to hold them accountable.

SPEAKER_00 36:56

I got one more question for you. What should people do to maintain their constitutional rights, or how do we defend them from those who might try to violate them?

SPEAKER_02 37:10

Well, what I would recommend to people is get involved on the state level. There's a lot that we can do on the state level, and everything that happens there trickles up to the federal government. But a lot of people bypass that state level and just try to, you know, work at the federal level. There is so much we can do in Utah. I have been involved in my organization with the passage of mini bills as well as the changing of mini-bills or even the stopping of bills. And so the best way to secure our rights is to work at closer to home, to work at the state level, where if the states are having these proper balance, if good laws are enacted at the state level, if we're watching our the protection of our unalienable rights at the state level, that will all trickle up to the federal level. But that is what I'd really recommend to people is, you know, get involved and see what's happening, see what's what's being passed. And just as I helped pass HB 488 here, there's many things that other citizens can do in their states.

SPEAKER_00 38:37

And where can people go to learn more about what you do and what your mission is at utahconstitution.com. And what will we find there?

SPEAKER_02 38:51

So you can find the way that I'm organizing citizens to get involved. And again, we hope that that could be a template for other states. So what I've done is I've taken every legislative district in the state of Utah, which there are 75 of them, and I have created a text group in each of those districts. And the objective is for them to be texting their state legislators directly.

SPEAKER_00 39:20

Thank you, Jen. I really appreciate our conversation today. I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

SPEAKER_02 39:26

Thank you, Bob, for having me on. It was wonderful.

SPEAKER_00 39:30

You can get involved too. Jen Brown has laid the blueprint for how citizens can improve our government and educate our elected officials, even if it's something they should already know. Like the Constitution. Many thanks to Jen Brown for spending some time with me in the listening tube. That website again is UtahConstitution.com. The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly, copyright 2026. Shout out to some new places checking in Houston, Texas, Toronto, Ontario, San Mateo, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Follow the listening tube at thelistening tube dot com. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Thou Ad Infinitum.