All Judges Anti Trump Rullings Are Unconstitutional! Game Over!

James Coughlin, The World News Report, today, March 16th, 25. God bless you and yours, no matter where you are in the world. Please subscribe, give us a thumbs up, ring that bell for critical future updates. Representative Hagman is not putting up with the BS. These judges are all full of bull. They have no one to enforce any of these radical rulings. They should just, well. Mary, on down the road, because, hey, the Pam Bondi's Justice Department is not going to actually enforce anything they have to say. It's all illegal per the Constitution, and the FBI won't enforce anything they have to say. It's all illegal per the Constitution, period. Article 2 of the Constitution states that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. In other words, it is the president that defines the executive branch. When you read this language, it says that no court may take over that role. No court may define or limit the scope of the duties of an official of the executive office of the president. The people who work in the executive office. I think that what your amendment does is a violation of separation of powers, and it's a violation of Article 2 of the Constitution. Would you like me to yield? Yes, I will. It's always good when the constitutionalist specialist comes in. It helps us all. So what you're saying is that the bill codifies Article 2 for purposes of the court being reminded and instructed of their limitations, and the amendment would undo that. That's exactly right, because that would imply that a federal court could in fact define or limit the scope of the duties of those individuals who work within the executive office of the president, and that is not a federal court's role. That is for, under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, that power is vested in a president of the United States of America. So all their rulings are crap and we can ignore them and move on fixing America. Let's just all together try to impeach them tomorrow. But bye, Felicia's. Ha ha. No one's there for you. You're just a, well, someone that needs to be removed from the bench. Could the gentleman for me go for another question? Yes. Your understanding is, with the current president, or the last one, or the next one, if we don't do something like this, Realistically, the chief executive, while president, would continue to have to answer a myriad of claims in up to not just 50 states, but multiple places in 50 states. And if that tactic was used, even more so than it may have been used in the past, that you would have a president having to use non-official funds. To answer a series of cases alleged not to be that way. Is that true? That's the way that I read this, and I think that it's very clear, especially starting in 2017 when President Trump was sworn in the first time, that the courts have been used for nefarious purposes. And I think we can all say that louder in the back. Can you hear us in the back? These judges in their lawfare must stop. No one's going to enforce anything. Bye Felicia. Hopefully we're able to impeach them all this week and they don't get a pension. That would be my ultimate goal. Can we take their law licenses as well? That would be, well, what the Democrats did to you. God bless you and yours, folks. We're not going to take any of these rulings because the Constitution of the United States prohibits these district judges. Getting involved with executive decisions, period. Share, subscribe, and always remember, anything's possible in Bizarro World.