Has The Supreme Court Over Stepped Their Bounds? YES!

James Kaufman, The World News Report, today. Today is March 5th, 2025. 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. We had a huge setback. We had the Supreme Court today, ladies and gentlemen. They decided that we had to send all the USAID funds to all these foreign non-profits. Even the conservative judges jumped on board. I don't know if they're on that list or what is going on. It was the craziest decision. No one could have foreseen this. Now, what's going on in Congress now is they don't believe that the Supreme Court or any district court has the right to force Americans' tax dollars into... Foreign countries for wild-ass ----, as we've been telling y'all how wild it is. The Supreme Court, in a ruling of five to four, it's a conservative court, said that we had to start sending the money immediately, $1.9 billion a month, to Uganda and all these other shitholes. How are they going to enforce it, right? If we really control the FBI, we really control the DOJ, the Supreme Court is useless. We don't, there's not one American taxpayer that wants their money going into any of these programs in Africa, any of these programs in Afghanistan, Europe, and even most of the programs that USAID was funding here in the U.S. as far as the non-profits. Now, we have a vote. It's a Supreme Court vote. There's nowhere else to go. Yet, they have voted in a manner that no one thought would be possible, even possible. What we're going to have to do is we're going to have to hold the judges accountable. Now, I'm going to let y'all see, and they're still in session tonight at 9 p.m., 10 o'clock p.m. their time. They're serious. They're not going to let it happen. Let's listen. Thank you. 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. Gentleman, may I yield? I agree. It's always good when the constitutionalist specialist comes in and 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 then it 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. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that power is vested in a president of the United States of America. The gentleman, yield for another question. Yes. If your understanding is... But the current president, or the last one, or the next one, if we don't... She's a constitutional lawyer, and she just knocked it out of the park. The Supreme Court is overstepping their bounds, period, right? I think I'm in love with Ms. Hagman. 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? Oh, the court has overstepped their bounds. Although we all knew they had. 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 on a variety of issues. In fact, yesterday we had a hearing in our constitutional subcommittee about lawfare and how lawfare had been weaponized against President Trump, both while he was president as well as after his presidency. So, again, the... I guess that I'm very skeptical of the idea that people are not willing to use lawfare to go after a current or former president. We've seen it over the last nine years in many different instances. But the president is the one who gets to define the limit and scope of the duties of the personnel within his office. That is very clear from Article 2 of the Constitution. Gotta love Ms. Agnew. With that said, that means the, well, Supreme Court ruling that we have to send $1.9 billion to foreign countries that we don't want to send any money to, and every other ruling these non-profits getting their money would be null and void. And she is a constitutional lawyer. And what you think in the comments below, I know that this is going to. Well, it's already gone to the Supreme Court, and it can't go any further. So now it's a matter of what we the people decide. Enforcement. And there will be no enforcement. Y'all can't take our money and send it to African nations in the Middle East for crap. It's not going to be allowed, not to the smallest extent. Thank God we have one person from, well, Wyoming, believe it or not, that knows who crapped. God bless you and yours. Please share, subscribe. I want you to always remember, anything's possible in Bizarro World.