mark: hello america i am marco levin and this is "life, liberty & levin" sunday. former trump lawyer and are buddy pete has a fantastic new book the war on a warrior so irrelevant, so important in our national security the men and women who give their all for our country. but, before we get to them i've been doing a lot of thinking as most of you have as what took place in the courtroom last week. itits implications beyond gettig into the weeds of grand juries and jury instruction and collateral evidence and so forth and so on. because this is so much bigger so much bigger than the rules of evidence and so forth. what am i talking about? the democrat party. the democrat party is cheering what took place and surrogates are cheering what took place joe biden went to a microphone and lied about what took place and then sneered this is part and parcel of the war on the constitution almost from day o one. almost from day one. this is the party that supported nullification of slavery this is the party that supported separate but equal. this is segregation is the party that supported jim crow this is the party that supports embraces american marxism which rejects the constitution the founders and the framers. these the 14th amendment to try to prevent donald trump from running for president this is what they do. that is what happened in new york. let me put it to you bluntly. south carolina was the point in which the constitution came under attack, came to a head it resulted in the civil war. new york is the new south carolina. that is, the confederacy. what do i mean by that? i am not arguing here or there will be a violent civil war. i do not know what comes, nobody does fit what i'm arguing is the civil war was about slavery and about the attack on the constitution and the attack on the union, the nation. what took place in that courtroom the jury should never have been impaneled. eight soros prosecutor and abided judge in effect decided they were going to launch a war against our constitutional construct. how so? nullifying due process clause of the constitution of the fifth amendment nullifying the due process clause that applies to the states through one of the post- civil war amendments. the 14th amendment. and if this stands very dire for the constitution. let me put it to you this way. new process goes back to the magna carta of 1215. of the phrase it self appears and eight statute that was passed in britain to incorporate the magna carta in 1354. that was during the reign of king edward the third period and so we have a process where we have the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment and what do they say with respect to due process and equal protection? they say exactly the same thing in essence no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. the 14th amendment was adopted by congress in 1866 before it was an event with a proposed it to the states which then are ratified in 1868 the fifth amendment was added to the constitution is part of the bill of rights in 1791. this is ingrained in our country. ingrained in our country. what took place in the manhattan courtroom was the first massive assault, massive assault on the union, the due process, on equal protection since the civil war. there are bit individual cases but the impact of this, the presidential candidate the former president of the purpose of which is to influence a national election. we have never seen anything like this. any think like this it has now been resuscitated after without the soul civil war with nullification let me go further on this. our friends at the national constitution center, nullification is a constitutional theory the individual states could invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions they deem unconstitutional. i have been controversial american history the constitution does not provide for nullification per se. now, that said this is even worse than nullification that we have seen and the pastor. nullifying federal laws. this is eight nullification of two amendments the federal constitution. eight nullification to the federal constitution basically enshrined the entire belief system in the declaration of independence you are right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. james mattis is considered mr. constitution. this issue of nullification was raised with him by a former senator, edward everett. james mattis wrote a very long letter back to him in august 28, 1830. he said this in part thus being derived from the same source as the constitutions of the states, it has within each state this idea of nullification. the same authority as the constitution of the stage. it is as much a constitution in the strictest sense of the term within the prescribed sphere as the constitutions of the states are within their respective spheres. the obvious and essential difference being a compact among the states that is the constitution and their highest sovereign capacity the states adopted the amendments excuse me the constitution. and concentrating the people there of a one people for certain purposes you are a citizen of a state you are also a citizen of the united states under the federal constitution. it cannot be altered or an old at the will of the states individually as the constitution of the states may be at its individual will. another was a state constitution or a state legislature cannot nullify the nature of national citizenship that was adopted by states. bite states they use amendments later, we will get into it. it is worse in this case of manhattan because the state as an entity is an acting it is a piece of the states a small piece of the state. one judge one prosecutor so it is worse between these different constitutional governments the one operating on all of the states the others operating separately in each the aggregate powers of government divided between them it could not escape attention. the controversies wouldn't arise concerning the boundaries of the jurisdictions. some provision ought to be made for such appearances a political system does not provide for a peaceful and authoritative termination of current controversies would not be more than the shadow of a government. the object of a real government being the substitution of law and order for uncertainty and confusion and violence. which of course is exactly what bragg and mershon had done. and there courtroom. not the state legislature. not the governor, two people to people he goes on because the constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof all treaties made under the authority of the united states shall be the supreme law of the land that the judges of every state shall be bound there by, by anything in the constitution and laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. three, the judicial power of the united states shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. the laws of the united states and treaties made under the authority thereof. the issues that took place in that courtroom arise under the federal constitution which is why joe biden and all competitors who support racism and segregation of pros and brown versus board of education by opposing the integration of our public school systems. that is when he got up and said this is a state issue. no, and happen in a state court. that does not make it a state court issue. madison goes on he says with respect to the judicial power of the united states the authority of the supreme court in relation to the boundary of jurisdiction between the federal and state governments i may be permitted to refer to the 39th number of the federalist of the like of which it will be discarded by his writer, meaning him he wrote it at that. in the constitution was dependent it is believe the same was the prevailing view then taken of it. the same view has continued to prevail at does so at this time notwithstanding the imminent exceptions to it. he said there is no nullification right under the constitution. and what i am saying is what took place in that manhattan courtroom note of the of rights of the 14th amendment. for the civil war. finally he says in part, with the fate of the constitution of the united states would be if a small proportion of the states could expunge the parts of it. particularly valued by a large majority and have but one answer what he meant by, was a civil war. that is 18 to 30 and he could see it coming. in 1834 he wrote a long treatise on this. december about nullification and i'm not going to read it to you in full. i will read one section. it follows from no view of the subject the nullification of a law that u.s. 1 can, as is now contended. rightfully to a single state is one of the parties to the constitution. the state not ceasing to hear and see the constitution. at planar contradiction in terms or an inlet of anarchy cannot be imagined. we are the united states of america. signed onto the constitution cannot now say okay but as far as the due process rights go in modern times we are going to allow mr. bragg and mr. masson to have their way. they eviscerated, and nullify its application. in that courtroom were a presidential candidate and a former president. who wrote this 14th amendment? section one which is what we are focused on the main author it was a congressman from ohio a republican by the name of jon bingham. he went to the floor of the house when he was arguing for his amendment. and he said, among other things this is 1866 the amendment was ratified and adopted in 1868 in the honorable gentleman from vermont uttered words that ought to be considered and accepted by the gentleman of the house he said the action of this congress and its effect upon the future prosperity of the country will be felt by generations and after we shall all have paid the debt of nature i believe mr. speaker i have had occasion to say more than once the people of the united states have entrusted to the present congress in some sense the care of the republic not only for the present but for all here after. your committee, sir, would not assent to this house for its consideration this proposition this proposed amendment, the 14th. but for the conviction its adoption by congress and its ratification by the people of the united states is essential for the safety of all the people of every state. i repelled the suggested made here on the reconstruction any of its members favor the proposition seek in any form tomorrow the constitution of the country or take away from any state any right that belongs to or from any citizen of every state, any right that belongs to him under the constitution. proposition painted before the e house is simply a proposition to arm the congress of the united states by the consent of the people of the united states through the ratification process. the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the constitution today. half of that accent and no more he points out. he said gentleman the force of the provisions of the bill of rights the citizens of the united states shall be entitled to all privilege immunities citizens of the nine states into several states. that no person, known to be deprived of life, liberty property without due process of law but they say we are opposed to its enforcement by act of congress under an amended constitution as proposed. that is the sum and substance of all the argument we have heard on the subject. what are the gentleman opposed to the enforcement of the bill of rights as proposed? it would interfere with the rights of the states. who ever before heard any state had reserve to itself the rights under the constitution of the united states to withhold from any citizen of the united states within its limits, under any pretext, what ever put any pretext or privilege of the citizen of the united states. to impose upon him no matter from what state he may have come, any burden contrary to that provision of the constitution. which declares a citizen shall be entitled into several states. all of the immunities of a citizen of the united states. he ends, the question is simply whether you will give by this amendment to the people of the united states the power might legislative enactments. to punish officials of states for violation of the oats enjoined upon them by their constitution. that is the question and the whole question. the adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the states no rights that belong to the states but they elected their legislature the then ask their loss for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property but the event of the adoption of this amendment they conspired together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty or property that congress is thereby vested with the power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of the oath in the rights of their fellow man. why should it not be so? is the bill of rights here after is in the past five years with 11 states amiri dead letter? bear in ladies and judgment is the bottom line. wyatt joe with this case to get before the supreme court? if the opportunity whether the take it or not to give us her due process clause back. equal protection clause of backup. it is not up to a prosecutor and a judge. a rogue prosecutor edit rogue judge for that matter to destroy and nullify the due process clause of the fifth and 14th amendment. by the equal protection clause of the fifth and 14th amendment. with the same democrat party that rejected the constitution. the same democrat party that fought the due process clause that fought the equal protection clause the same democrat party that after the civil war, despite the fifth amendment despite the civil war amendment, the 14th amendment, still supported segregation. still supported new gen x, still supported and back to jim crow. nobody is a better figure, illustration of that than joe biden. now they do it for different reasons. and they do it in a different way. but it does not change who they are and what they are. they hate the constitution as they must. as they adopt increasingly aggressive marxist ideology for this party is an autocratic party an autocratic party at does not care how it gets power. what was done to donald trump and that courtroom in addition to everything you heard as an in attempt to nullify the federal constitution due process, equal protection. that is what took place for the democratic party is the new confederacy. that is right. it was the old confederacy now is the new confederacy. reverse federalism or a judge and a prosecutor steal the jurisdictional power of the federal government and all that applies. the constitution, federal election laws, these entire processes that is reverse federalism parent that is notification. that is the new confederacy. that is what joe biden the old confederate and that is what his marxist supporters now support. this needs to be fought.e da we will be right back. a "let's dig in" day... mm. ...a "chow down" day... a "take a big bite" day... a "perfectly delicious" day... - mm. [ chuckles ] - ...a "love my new teeth" day. because your clearchoice day is the day everything is back on the menu. a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪. mark: welcome back america. i've been very, very excited about talking to our friend pete hegseth and his fantastic new book the war on wars behind the betrayal of the men who keep us free. i just finished reading this book. let me tell you something ladies and gentlemen if we do not have a military that is in shape a military that knows its mission, a military this not being undermined from within then we do not have a country but it's one thing to talk about this theoretically. but pete hegseth has walked the walk. when you hear the talk its implication for this country come,this election and everythig going forward. pete hegseth congratulations on a fantastic book. the war on a warriors behind the betrayal of the men who keep us free. you can get this at amazon.com on tuesday, on tuesday go right ahead. why did you write this book? >> mark, thank you. thank you for your love of country, for your commitment to our constitution and its institutions. you have been talking at now cm about our justice system which has two tiers these day and it is very clear it's off the rails as being weaponize. the reason that is important this elite one justice system in america the issue of justice is different than education you can move somewhere else if you do not like the status of your income rate or your local school. the justice department is just like the defense department. we only have one the pentagon. will have one army, one marine corps won 101st airborne. if we lose those institutions, they are gone. just like a justice system which is a precious jewel of our nation's or the fighting men and women. mostly it men by the way this is very candid very clear this is not pussyfooting around using nuance language this is clear about how we fight and win wars. how we maintain a meritocracy but that is why the left hates it. you've studied the left more than anyone else the left hates the pentagon at the last vestige of a true meritocracy the best and the brightest were able to exact the most lethality on the enemy with the most latitude possible to win wars. and what happened in the story, when you go into this about 20 years ago as her under clinton a little bit. passport under obama in hyperspeed under biden is the left targeted this institution specifically to stay tuned no, no, no we do not want our focus on the highest standards and maximum accountability. we want a social experiment inside this institution. you're going to insert things like crt and dti. women in combat were going to weaponize lgbt issues were going to focus on climate change. mark, our military's pumping out electric tanks. china is building a military specifically designed to defeat us in our defense industry because of our generals is focus on climate change to our sons and daughters enter this military in the future they are questioning whether they want to and understandably so. recruitment is down for a reason. they see how adrift the pentagon is this is meant to call out the issues in a very blunt way. everyone -- but this is a acronyms and crazy in tight military speak. you will understand it, call it out and get it understanding of how to get past it. because we have to savor military. mark: your passion is on the pages of this book. even more than that, this is the greatest of evisceration of the war on the pentagon than i've ever read and i read a lot. it is also the greatest defense of our military and military personnel that i have ever read and it is extremely readable. you talk about dei taking place. you talk about woke us in taking place. talk about all of these things the cultural rot being projected onto the defense department. your point of the book is a sunset at the end is if you don't know what is going on you can't fix it, right? >> out is exactly right. if you don't fix it, we lose it is not just my story i tell a lot of my story i sure combat moments to share a moment i was deemed extremist, we can get into that in a moment if you and that's why left the militant this after 20 years of fighting extremists being part of the military, you are an extremist. it's not just about me it's a dozens and dozens of guys that i interviewed currently serving lower ranks, hirings all of which said the same thing. we are walking on eggshells. our standards are being lowered. because of the extra nonsense being pushed in we are not training on more important skill sets. the inmates are running the asylum because we have decided to say if you were white, if this is being taught and pushed into units. you're doing all the crt trading put what you are the oppressor at the you