Thanks for joining us so 1st I want to ask you about the person that you dedicate your book to Clark Stinson a person that you write about that makes this also I understand for you a deeply personal issue he was your best friend tell me a little bit about Clark what happened to him Clark was my best friend through junior high school and high school. And after we got out of school we we went up to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan together. With a couple of 12 foot tepees that we had bought through the Whole Earth Catalog and spent the whole summer in the middle of the Cherokee and it was a 3 day walk back there and all the. Trapper let us back in the middle of this very very dense forest in the upper peninsula and we put up our teepees and we spent 3 or 4 months there doing spiritual practice you know we'd be silent for days and we can you know we brought a bunch of books and you know 100 pounds of dried fruit and grains and that's what we hate and. You know Clark Clark. He and I just discovered so much of life together you know from things like that what I just described to you know experimenting with with psychedelic drugs and things he was just extraordinary guy and I kind of lost touch with him around the time that I was 18 or 19 and one day right around Christmas time he showed up at the house where I was staying and was just I hadn't seen him in maybe I don't know any half a year well or more than that and it was just totally depressed and what had happened was I mean this was. In 1969 or 970 s. So the Vietnam War was raging and he had a low draft number and so he enlisted to avoid getting drafted hoping that he could get a non. Combat job and he had just finished basic training and there was the Christmas break before he went out to be deployed and he was sure enough going to be deployed to to Vietnam and. You know we sat and talk together about it for a couple of hours and I really. Didn't know what to say I mean I just I listened I commiserated but I just I couldn't you know and a couple days later Clark's wife called me Colleen and just hysterical and said that she had just walked into his bedroom and he had bought a gun down the street apparently and put it in his mouth and on the back of his head all over the wall and. That that was my 1st real experience with. Our ubiquitous and easy guns are to get the United States in to use and and also you know the thing that most Americans don't know to really startling statistics one is roughly half of all gun deaths in America are suicides and when countries like Australia cut back on the number of guns available Well the 1st year after the Port Arthur massacre in 96 and 97 when they when they polled hundreds of thousands of guns out of circulation in that 1st year afterwards the suicide rate in Australia dropped by about a half successful suicides and it has stayed low like that ever since so guns provide people with that impulse you know. Or that impulsive moment. The opportunity presses and then the other statistic that's pretty shocking which I think reflects how guns and violence have permeated our culture so deeply it's such a deep level is that one out of 3 of Oct killings in the United States by strangers if somebody you know is killed by a stranger the odds are one out of 3 that the stranger who killed them was a police officer who of course are the armed people in our country and the whole history of policing in the United States particularly with its roots back in the slave patrols is also pretty shocking. So we are in a the moment here in the United States for maybe not a moment a trend that has reached a fever pitch where the right to bear arms has been sort of culturally equated with being American but it wasn't always that way was it what is it about this this moment that we're in where the gun rights activists have managed to capture the narrative. About the rules of gun in our society so much so that a state like Florida rather than banning guns in schools has decided to put more guns in schools by passing a law to arm to allow teachers to be armed yet which is which is crazy I mean assistant saying. The. The majority of people and states in the majority of both political parties and the politicians in both political parties right up through the 1970 s. Were in favor of reasonable control on guns the assault weapons ban was very popular when it was passed in the ninety's. During the Clinton ministration it didn't get renewed by the Bush administration tragically. But you know this is this this idea that you know yeah guns are part of American history a no. We use them for hunting we use them for sport reason for self-defense I mean the this is not controversy Ellen and if you. Step into the Wayback Machine the t.v. Wayback Machine go on Netflix and watch some of the old cop shows from the seventy's and eighty's you know McMillan and wife or Colombo or actually those have very few guns in them even the ones that had guns you know Rockford Files and things. The guns that they always used were revolvers they were 6 shot pistols where you have to you know re cockade every for every shot you didn't see semiautomatic weapons they were considered weapons of war and it wasn't until Reagan you know it was kind of this combination of things Reagan starting this program where the military was offloading surplus military goods including guns to police departments and then that program got so expanded today that it doesn't even need to go through the military the police departments can get stuff directly from defense contractors using federal funds so we've hyper militarized our police and at the same time the n.r.a. And in the in the late seventy's was especially taken over. By the gun manufacturers and converted from a sports. You know sports shooting organization into a lobbying organization on behalf of the gun manufacturers and you know some of the more bizarre. Theories about the history of guns in the United States for example there is that the founders wanted the 2nd Amendment so that we could protect ourselves if the government ever became tyrannical you know that was never a conversation you will not find a single word of that in James Madison's notes on the constitution you will find a single word about. You know trying to use guns to put down or oppressive government in any of the ratifying debates you know when the Constitution was being considered it was literally not part of the conversation of the 2nd Amendment itself was being debated in considered and and there is literally no time in American history with that argument is made until the mid seventy's when a teenage boy wrote an op ed for The Rifleman which was the n.r.a. Has magazine suggesting that this is why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment and it's pen top that is an article of faith by these hard core right wingers in the militia movement to the point that you know whenever I discuss guns on my program you know every 4th or 5th call is some variation on that you know well we've got to have the guns to keep the you know the you know overpowering government and like you're really you know you think with your radio even with your a r 15 you're going to take on a Black Hawk helicopter it's it's silly So what we've seen is a complete transition of the debate you come to combine that with the Heller decision where Scalia you know just lied and twisted facts and things to come up with this individual right to own guns again which was never asserted during the founding era and the whole gun dynamic in the United States since the early 1980 s. Has become radically different from what it was during the entire rest of the history United States and the Wild West you know Dodge City Wyatt Earp be required you know if you came into town with a gun to check in at the police station and leave it on on. Special wall that they had with eggs on it and they give you a claim check and you know you couldn't carry your gun in town when you wanted to leave town you come back and get your claim checked that was it so let's go a little bit into that history that you describe in your book that just isn't discussed very much today I'm one of the most from interesting aspects of it is that you point out that do you and while slavery was still an institution it was essentially slave and the those who claimed ownership over and slaved the people who owned the majority of guns and that you know after slavery ended you had gun ownership became very popular among the Klansman What is the history of how intertwined is the history of racism and slavery with that of gun ownership in America well they're very very tied together and they're in the reason why is because the the militia that is referred to in the in the cut in the 2nd Amendment. Had took 2 forms and they were quite different in the north and the south the militia in the north was basically the state militias what we call the National Guard now and the idea was that should the country ever be invaded each state would pull up a militia they would keep everybody you know so like they don't Switzerland or they have done Switzerland for hundreds of years there's no literally no standing army a number of the founders were very very worried about saying army they had seen through European history that over over over again standing armies during times of peace were what overthrow governments and so the original impetus for the 2nd amendment came from a letter from Jefferson to a 2 to Madison in December of 178787 right after the 1st draft of the Constitution was written in which Jefferson said that he would fight the Constitution of the. Madison did not include a provision in it that prevented there being a standing army during time of peace and and Madison actually put that in the Constitution it's Article one Section 8 it says that the Congress cannot appropriate any money at all for more than 2 years for the army the army ceases to exist every 2 years officially and has from the founding of the republic it's not sure the Navy but it is true the army and but then Jefferson wanted even more and so they they pushed that to the to an amendment as well to the 2nd Amendment but in the south. 4 of the Southern states Georgia South Carolina North Carolina and Virginia had slave patrols and then at the time of the founding eventually they did in Florida as well in Alabama and Mississippi and and the slave patrols were were basically the local militia you every every man between the ages of 17 and 47 who did not have a quote non-critical or who had a non-critical occupation which basically excluded doctors lawyers and legislators had to report every month for one day of service traveling around the region looking for runaway slaves and had to do a week or 2 of service every year learning how to use the weapons and and I mean if you're going to implode impose a an absolute military dictatorship a police state which is what the institution of slavery was it was a police state if you're going to impose a police state on people and keep them down particularly in states like Georgia and Virginia where you had particular Georgia and South Carolina where you had as much as half of the population being enslaved people then you had to use a hell of a lot of guns and you had to be good at those guns and you had to be very very knowledgeable about where they were and how they were used so guns were you know using to be ways at the beginning of the United States number one. We committed the largest genocide in the history of the world between 50 and 100000000 Native Americans were killed on this continent by Europeans probably about half of them there's a big debate you know between half between a 3rd and 2 thirds died from disease and the balance died Typically it at the end of a gun barrel and and then as as the institution of slavery took hold. Slavery of course was in force with guns and and again to the 2nd Amendment the fascinating part of it is you know when the 2nd amendment was proposed in the Virginia ratifying convention Pat Patrick Henry was the largest slave holder in the state and the original draft of the 2nd Amendment said for the protection of a free nation right or the security of the nation and the resists was all about again the militias rather than having a standing army. Patrick Kennedy got up and gave his speech in which he just he went nuts he said wait a minute he said in fact this is this is the an early draft the standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to liberty and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protections of the community will admit in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power but then you know Patrick Henry got up and gave his speech about he said let me call your attention to that part of the proposed constitution is Article one Section 8 which gives Congress the power to provide for organizing arming and discipline disciplining the militia and for governing them by this sir you see that their control over our last and best offense that the slave patrol in Virginia is unlimited If they neglect or refuse to discipline or are militia are militia will become useless the states can do night it is powers being exclusively given to Congress the power of appoint me officers over men not disciplined or armed as ridiculous as any and he goes on and he and George Mason basically said chain. Changed the language of the 2nd Amendment from for the protection of a free nation to the protection of a free state so that Virginia can control their slave patrols because if a anti-slavery president ever got into the White House they have the power to call up all the state militias and they could call up the state you know the slave patrol in Virginia specifically in this case and move them out of state and you would have you know your police state would fall apart and you have slave uprisings and it would be the end of. Peace and Harmony was the phrase that Patrick Henry use to enter it's ironic he's famous for saying Give me liberty or give me death but he was the largest slave holder in the state of Virginia and Madison called him paranoid said but you're paranoid and literally and Patrick Henry was like No I'm not and so of medicine change the 2nd Amendment to conform with what Patrick Henry what I want to fast forward to today and pick up on what you were saying earlier and also what you write in your book which is connecting the issue of gun privilege for a shine with gun deaths at the hands of police we don't hear that connection being made often enough in mainstream American society politicians on both sides of the aisle made to cry the results of gun violence the Democrats might even go as far as to talk about gun control but they don't necessarily link police violence and police killings to the broader issue of gun violence in America and I'm wondering why you think that is does that have something to do with these historical roots you were just discussing. I mean I'm not sure I know that there is a deep us authoritarian strain in American society culture and history we celebrate authoritarian people in positions in many cases you know now in the airport soldiers get to board the plane before you know pretty much anybody else. With regard to our police it's really weird if I'd say that this has particularly taken place since the 1950 s. With the advent of television and I think some of it has to do with all the cop shows that we've had on you know makes for great entertainment figuring out who killed somebody that kind of thing but it's pretty horrifying I mean. I had. Movies I both actually had surgery some years ago and so we were you know recovering laying in bed binge watching Netflix and we we watched the modern version of the Hawaii 50 which we watched as kids the old version and they were literally like shooting guns into the knees of people that they were holding in the basement of the of the whole why police department to interrogate as part of their interrogation I mean brutalizing people and I think that this and this president you know I've seen this in cop show after cop show after cop show where they with a wink and a nod they break the law in very often in very brutal ways and I think that a lot of police officers. Take that as training you know as as the as the norm and I and I think that that just had been going and getting more and more intense and particularly with the Reagan you know super arming our police and turning them into military forces in the eighty's and ninety's and then you know more and more cop shows to the 2000 and it really wasn't until this disruptive technology of everybody carrying a camera in their cell phone came along that suddenly we started to see the consequences of this hyper empowerment and a hyper militarization an army in of police officers in the United States you know we used to Americans always thought it was kind of eccentric that in in Great Britain the cops didn't carry guns and in Canada you know you couldn't carry a gun until you've been to police officer for a certain number of years we thought that was quaint but now that we're seeing all these you know poorly trained poorly paid and frankly shouldn't even be police people murdering largely on armed black men I think America's starting to wake up to this which is a good thing and so let's talk about what we're seeing today where very. Sort of a 2 no box of a situation where you have ongoing continued you know ongoing gun proliferation a president who has embraced the n.r.a. As a very critical part of his base and his whipping up of white supremacy in unleashing of white nationalism among a largely armed base of support that you know if you kind of follow that trajectory to a to an extreme place a we could see maybe armed rebellion from Trump supporters if he loses the election 2020 it's not out of the realm of possibility do you fear that what we have today is a toxic you know storm a perfect storm of potentially explosive violence. Yes I do I am concerned about the. I think the the the the violent explosion is less likely had been just. In the way I think this is likely to play out is less like you know said that you know the riots in the sixty's and seventy's where people were just like enough already. And probably more like the way the authoritarianism has risen in other countries we we saw this in Hungary with the rise of Viktor Orban we saw it in Turkey with the rise of I don't want. Most Americans are unaware of it though what they remember is the brownshirts in Germany in the thirty's in the early thirty's in the Blackshirts in Italy these were both entirely volunteer groups nobody was paid they did not have an official affiliation with the government but they came out in support of the rise of Hitler and Mussolini and mostly what they did was random acts of violence that go around it you know smashed our windows or beat up people. Who didn't look like them you know who they were opposed to and and frankly And you know and guns were not as widespread back then and there but but you know this this dog every is like a sudden you know we've seen this also now in Hungary and we see it Russia many of these authoritarian countries the Philippines and that's what that's my biggest concern although those thugs are well armed so it's a little it could be a little more deadly here but that's frankly what I'm expecting given the direction things are going I think that an actual Turner Diaries kind of armed rebellion is pretty unlikely although that's what all the right wingers lot. So we just want to mention to our audience that we're talking about your new book The Hidden History of guns and the 2nd amendment and they can actually check out where you're going to be speaking about that book on your Web site of Thom Hartmann dot com p h o m Hartman went to ends and there's an event in Los Angeles where I'm based and from stations based as well that will put information about on our website but let's let's also turn then to this issue of how those politicians because we want political change we want the guns in this country to stop being so prevalent and dangerous in our lives we absolutely need political change but the politicians either ignore the activism of survivors of gun violence or claim that they just can't stand up to the n.r.a. To gun rights folks there are some cracks However it seems in the facade at least of the n.r.a. As their recent annual conference showed they're in a battle with their major law with their major p.r. Firm there's a sense that they're losing money and may have to go bankrupt but I don't know if that's been too optimistic you lay out some pretty direct solutions in your book namely what other countries have carried out that shows that gun control really can work quite easily Right yeah there's a variety of ways with a grade of the n.r.a. I think that their days are limited you know in 1906 the most powerful lobby in Washington d.c. Was the tobacco lobby by 2000 they were in significant because of a series of lawsuits exposed how corrupt the Tobacco Institute their tobacco lobby rather was and its backer companies and I think the same the same kind of unmasking has happened with regard to the n.r.a. In the last year people are figuring out and particularly people who are entering members who throughout the Obama presidency were receiving on a. Weekly basis or on a regular basis e-mails and hysteria about how you know that wacko in the White House is going to take away your guns and in fact I open the book with a story of going to a shooting range and the guy who was selling me the ammunition went off on a rant about that black guy in the White House although he used far more obscene language. So you know I see that going down in terms of what's being done in other countries in Europe. Guns have been developed now that will not fire in unless they recognize your fingerprint or in less they recognize your grip or in less you're wearing a watch or a piece of jewelry that has a chip in it that the gun recognizes these safe guns this is brilliant technology that it has been aggressively fought in the United States. One of the proposals I have in the book is kind of an American solution but I think it's a solid one and and it's what you know it's largely what Australia has ended up with except for the 3rd party insurance part and that is that in the 1900 teens when cars were stiff so ubiquitous that they saw that they were starting to kill people in large numbers. You know by accident. We came up with a 3 part solution in addition to stop signs and things and standardize in the rules of the road the 1st one was every car from the time it's manufacture until the time is destroyed has to have a registration number and that registration number annually gets renewed and attached to an individual human being so you can have a chain of custody and responsibility number one number 2 you have to prove that you know how to drive as yet to prove proficiency and knowledge of the laws and number 3 you have to have liability insurance if we did the same thing for guns I think that that would be a just a tremendous thing and it's so common sense even people who own guns and are really into guns by and large and it won't rebut this I mean it for that matter if Republicans you can see. Well this of them by saying hey the insurance part is the ultimate free market solution if somebody goes to an insurance company and tries to get the liability insurance for their gun which might normally be 100 dollars a year but the insurance company looks into their record discovers they've got a domestic violence conviction suddenly that insurance is going to be $20000.00 a year or maybe they want to write a policy and so they can't get a gun so you know there's there's way and I think it's crazy that you know if the kids at Sandy Hook her or stone in Douglas High School had been killed by a crazed drunk driver maliciously or accidentally it wouldn't matter Geico would be writing $1000000.00 checks dollars families but because they were killed by guns they got nothing they don't even have burial expenses I mean it's just wrong so that's one of the simple solutions what about the fact that we also get the sense that there is this group of Americans that will never change its mind about guns I'm wondering what you've found through your research and writing about how we change culture among those 2nd Amendments rights activists or is that population's influence overblown and that actually those the gun rights people are more reasonable than we're led to believe in it's more the n.r.a. And the gun manufacturers kind of manufacturing their consent Yeah I you know I grew up in Michigan you know lower middle class blue collar neighborhood My dad worked in a tool and die shop was my friends worked at General Motors or Fisher Body and I'd say probably 4 fifths of the people that I grew up with had guns. Probably half of $100.00 every year I was just a ritual in Michigan. And and they weren't crazies I've known a few of the quote crazies people who have you know 304050 guns. And I think that that is a very very tiny minority of the guy. I don't mean population and I think that there is probably an associated mental illness with that you know it's like a hoarding complex sort of thing there's some deep insecurity or fear that's driving them. But I really think that that's a super minority Well Tom I want to thank you so much for joining us today and I want to wish you good luck with your book and your book tour thank you Sonali and thanks for having me on your program it's a real honor thank you my guest has been Thom Hartmann renowned progressive radio talk show host New York Times best selling author of 2 dozen books including his newest which we've just been discussing the he didn't history of guns on the 2nd Amendment you can find out more about his work his show his book and his book tour at Tom Hartman dot com That's t h o m h a r t m e n n dot com I'm still not equal have gone where online a rising up what's on Ali dot com where you can sign up for our daily newsletter subscribers or your podcast on i Tunes on our video channel on Vimeo. From p.b.s. Gay Pacifica Radio this is rising up it's on Ali and I'm your host Sonali Kolhatkar you can watch this program on free speech t.v. And listen to it on Pacifica Radio stations and affiliates new. And wide the United States Supreme Court has touched just about every aspect of Americans lives right now justices are hearing arguments in cases concerning the rights of l.g.b. T.q. Americans to have a discrimination free workplace although the court is meant to up hold the rights of individuals under the Constitution historically the body has a new Miss occasions violated its own principles in recent years the courts justices have taken it upon themselves to empower corporations to such an extent that our entire political system has been perverted to preserve and expand the power of corporate profiteers at the expense of people and the planet how did we get here and what can be done about it joining me to answer that question is Tom Hartman renowned progressive radio talk show host New York Times best selling author of 2 dozen books including The Hidden History of guns and the 2nd Amendment and he joins me to discuss his latest book The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the betrayal of America welcome back to the show Tom thank you for knowledge great to be here with you so we had talked to you last time about your book about the 2nd Amendment here you are writing a history about the Supreme Court but for those who don't really pay attention to the details of the rule that the Court plays in our political system can you give us that he brief history lesson about what it was that the Constitution's framers intended in the role in seeing the role of this court with the 9 justices making these very important decisions about our lives. Yeah well. The element issue is you know do we do we want a constitutional monarchy which is essentially what we have with the Supreme Court exercise he judicial review is rigorously as a does or do we want a constitutional democracy a democratic republic. The founders envisioned the Supreme Court as having 2 basic purposes the 1st was to be the primary court where disputes between the states and between the federal government the states would be adjudicated and among other states in other countries and some maritime law and then but the principle job of the court and probably 95 percent 99 percent of what the court does is be in a court of last appeals somebody says Somebody else may win and then that person Appeals and then they went on the other person appealed it goes back and forth there's got to be a place where the buck stops and that's the Supreme Court but starting at 1803 the court took out onto itself over the loud objections of President Jefferson at the time the right to not only decide who wins and loses the case but also to decide whether the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president matched the court's understanding of the Constitution and that's when according to Jefferson and many of the founders and Framers that was when we slid out of being a Democratic Republican into being a constitutional monarchy is so burned to the fingers of the court of John Marshall the chief justice in the blow back to that case that Marbury vs Madison case but he never did it again in it and he was on the bench longer than any other chief justice and the 2nd time was Dred Scott $85061.00 to Justice Roger Tony thought he would solve once and for all the slavery problem so basically the court acted as the court of final appeals threw out the 1st. 80 or 90 or a 100 years of. American history but in the 1880s as at least 3 of the justices on the court had were being bribed by Jay Gould in the railroad billionaires the court started striking down laws and changing laws and reinterpreting laws according to what they said the Constitution meant and now that's almost all that the court does it's really not the way it was in there and now you mentioned it judicial review what exactly is not. Judicial review is the ability of a court to say we are going to look at this law and determine whether it comports with the Constitution or not the rationale for that the John Marshall laid out 803 Marbury case was that's the these Constitution itself says that it is the supreme law of the land so it is the law and it is somebody has to decide what the Constitution means you know if somebody passes a law is unconstitutional but you know this is how the court was told this is from federalist number 81 by Alexander Hamilton there is not a syllable in the Constitution under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the was according to the spirit of the Constitution which gives them any greater latitude in this respect the may be claimed by the courts of every state so you know it was not it was not the way the court was sold and it's it's something that we really need to have a conversation about in this country. People say for example well what if one of Congress one of Congress passed a law saying that if you criticize the president you go to jail it's an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment and my response is Congress did pass that law and $1798.00 the Alien Sedition Act It was the break between Adams President Adams and Vice President Jefferson They didn't talk to each other for 2 years after that and the 1st thing Adams did was throw Ben Franklin's grandson in jail for calling him all day and querulous. You know and his paper the Aurora but that was solved not by the Supreme Court that was sought by the election of 1800 and that was what Jefferson said when when George Mason sent him a letter saying well the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide what the Constitution so who does and Jefferson said the people themselves this is why Congress is why the House of Representatives which is where all power begins whether it's taxing spending or war while the House of Representatives is entirely 100 percent reelected every 2 years. So So currently we are essentially told that the Supreme Court is part of that system of stuff checks and balances between the various branches of government and when the congressional branch or the executive branch gets too powerful or abuses its power too much the Supreme Court is there to step in is that a myth. No if if if there was a dispute between those 2 branches as we're starting to see right now on the same page many are and then the court plays a role in that dispute or an arbiter in that dispute that's a that's a different thing from judicial review where the court you know literally strikes down laws or even manufactures laws rights. You know comes up with opinions that where they have invented doctrines so you know what the court has what we have now I remember after Obamacare was passed everybody was like holding their breath you know as a core going to strike it down. The founders and Framers I think would be rolling over in their graves or something like that it what we have now is a constitutional monarchy where the monarchs are 9 on elected people with lifetime positions on the Supreme Court who have final say over literally everything and. We really need to have a conversation in this country about whether that's what we want so let's talk about how it is the the the the role of the court Pez played in a very critical aspect of our American political system which is a today we have a situation where corporations are considered people and money is considered free speech a concept that has ended up you know as allowing the wealthy to. Foist severe views their policies their politics on the entire country what role did the Supreme Court play in making that happen. Well these are both examples of judicial review and in the case of corporations becoming persons the court actually didn't rule in $886.00 and 1st Santa Clara County versus of the Pacific Railroad the corporations are persons but John Chandler Bancroft Davis the clerk of the court wrote it into the head notes that Morrison running away the chief justice had said that in the court but the court started rip referring to that head no which has no legal status and as soon as they quoted it suddenly it did have legal status so that's where we got that problem was you know the court quote interpret in the 14th Amendment part of the constitution and then in 1976 for the 1st time in the history of the United States money had always been viewed as a commodity that could be regulated in fact you could make an argument that most of the Constitution is about property rights unless the regulation of money in its various forms were things that could be bought with money but in 976 of the Buckley vs Vallejo case heavily influenced by Lewis Powell who just on the court for 5 years at that point the author of The Palm novel The court ruled that if a billionaire wants to own a politician or change public opinion you know with regard to things like ballot initiatives that's just fine that's that's considered free speech money is speech and then they double down on that 2 years later in the personal bank versus versus Frank bloddy decision where they said that this logic extends to corporations as well and then they trickle down on it and the 2010 in October 2010 with the Citizens United decision no legislature of any state and no federal legislature has ever ever said money is speech and corporations are people in fact they have repeatedly said the opposite no president or candidate for president has ever said that other than Mitt Romney and who knows how serious well whatever but as you know no sitting president has ever said that the good the corporations are people and money is speech this was entirely invented by. The Supreme Court at points out the danger of having essentially the Supreme Court as the monarchs of a constitutional monarchy rather than having a true democracy and so on that you mentioned very briefly Lewis Powell and the Powell memo this is something that is the basis off so much of the sort of corporate oligarchy that we're seeing played out in the country today the supremacy of quote unquote free enterprise and didn't he's Memel essentially give wind to the Koch brothers and their stranglehold over American politics. Yes in the during the the early years of the industrial revolution the the 18th seventy's eighty's ninety's as the steel oligarchy you know oligarchy on the and the real oligarchy rose up and they began to to to politicize the court and and Congress for that matter and there was a significant backlash to that that was Teddy Roosevelt administration and you know the trust busters and the passage of the Tillman Act And I just sat on that made a federal felony for a corporation to give money to politicians for federal office and so basically from from the from that era from the 1900 ots right up until the 1960 s. And seventy's corporations you know they got their fingers burned and they just stayed out of politics and in $171.00 Lewis Powell wrote the memo in which he pointed out that Ralph Nader and Rachel Carson many named them the bell had kicked off a consumer movement and an environmental movement respectively that that were placing the profits of corporations at risk and that big corporations and wealthy individuals needed to join forces and take over our courts take over our legislatures to go into our states take over our schools take over our colleges take over our media. And that led to the creation of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute the Competitive Enterprise Institute always a right wing organizations it led to the rise of the right wing media barons you know it and of course it led to the Federalist Society which is right now actively packing our federal court system. So since and of course Paul being on the court brought us Buckley and in fact was Paul authored the decision 2 years later and for social bank versus the law the. You know book you point out that there are so many issues that Americans majorities of Americans support such as taxing the ultra wealthy such as reproductive rights for women etc and yet we don't have some of these very vague hugely popular policies in place how much of a role has the Supreme Court played in essentially preventing that democratic exercise of power. It's huge it's absolutely huge because by in 76 and 78 by saying that billionaires and corporations can on politicians on virtually unlimited basis and then in 2010 was sitting on United making it practically you know for all practical purposes and on limited basis when the McCutcheon decision 3 years later which you know originally there was a limit to the number of politicians an individual billionaire could own and they said no there's not a limit you can you know it's not it's not $130.00 like it used to be it's whatever you want. What these decisions have done is they have taken the entire political process out of the hands of voters and average Americans and put them into the hands of a small group of the leet billionaires and big corporations Guillen's and Page a Columbia University did a study that was published back in I think 2015 maybe 2014 and which they found that nowadays unlike the 1950 s. In the 1000 fifty's and sixty's and 19 seventies and look at the accomplishments of the growth of the great society of Lyndon Johnson for example created Medicare and Medicaid always willing during that era what was generally politically popular among the majority of people was one got made into law but now today the probability is what the bottom 90 percent of Americans economically want to be made into law is absolutely equivalent to random chance so it's the equivalent of noise just you know mathematical noise in the system whereas the desires of the top 5 percent are frequently more you know well 'd over half the time and and when you get in the top one percent well over 2 thirds of the time and acted and a lot of so you know we have a system that has been badly corrupted by money and that was brought to you exclusively by the Supreme Court in fact when they did that in Buckley in $76.00 they struck down several of the laws that just the year before it had passed by Congress in the wake of the Nixon bribery scandals to get money out of politics clean the whole thing up so today we have a court. It is deeply polarized and you know really is extremely partisan we've seen so much. You know depending on who is nominating a Supreme Court justice to the court just those decisions are deeply political deeply partisan What is that is that new is that a new trend in the Supreme Court or has the Supreme Court essentially always been. And nominating justices has that practice always been a partisan issue depending upon the political party allegiance of the president making the nominations. It has to a certain extent throughout history been a political agency. You know that the times have been different and the issues have been different but the court from its founding has been basically an instrument that protected Well the privilege. Aggressively protected wonton privilege and continues to be so and this is where I think we need to democratize the court and there's a number of ways to deal with this court becoming so ideological and so you know hardcore right wing crazed as a result of Mitch McConnell basically violating his oath of office and not respecting the constitution you know refusing to allow Obama's nominees on the court for several years including our current and we could we could look at what Franklin Roosevelt nearly did in 37 core packing what actually was done by Congress when you enter Johnson became president they cut the size required to end 10 people out of 6 of them and her job to a not be able to put a body on the court and then right after Johnson got out of office and u.s. Grant was president they raised it raised a back up to 9 which is where it is now that could be done Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution so that Congress can find exceptions to things that the court can rule on so it is possible that Congress could pass a law saying money is no longer speech and corporations are no longer persons How can the Greeneville on a role on this have Congress have a Congress has there there has it's called core stripping or judicial heard or. By the Court struck in generally or and and it's happened in states in states a few times there have been there has been legislation that has had provisions saying that the Supreme Court may not review the laws but they have been non-controversial laws if that were to happen what I just described it would it would create a constitutional crisis something that would be open war between the Congress and the Supreme Court. But Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution is quite explicit the Supreme Court's operate under exceptions and regulations defined by car that's exactly what. I can't see how it can be attributed to being anything else. Right now we have a situation where the Supreme Court me play a role in an impeachment inquiry we have an impeachment inquiry underway where the House the House of Representatives as with such inquiries are our ticals begin and then if it does pass the House it goes to the Senate for a trial precisely to do over by the chief justice of that court in this case John Roberts what do you hope given where the court used today. The role that the court will play in what is definitely going to be a history making chapter in America. Yeah assuming that it gets to the south. And that Mitch McConnell allows that to be a trial which I think are both looking like better than 50 percent right now. John Roberts was William Rehnquist clerk during the impeachment of Bill Clinton so he is familiar with the process and and Rehnquist did a pretty good job a stand out of the way basically just being the the judge. It where it's going to get interesting and this did not happen in the case of the Clinton impeachment and it never got to the Senate so there was no discussion about it with the next impeachment hearings and Mr map and with the impeachment and or Johnson either what's going to be interesting is if the trumpet ministration continues to stonewall Congress they're doing it right now out of the House of Representatives the House may not have at the end of the day the power to force them to produce witnesses or papers or whatever even under subpoena and even with contempt citations but when it gets to the Senate that's an actual trial and in a trial you can be ordered to produce evidence and you may not refuse that order and that's going to be a real crisis for John Roberts if the trumpet astray she continues to sound a lot no I want to look a little bit more broadly around the Supreme Court and and especially a really important issue write about in your book The Hidden History of the Supreme Court in The Betrayal of America which is that while we are involved in the political circus that is playing out in Washington d.c. The planet a Russian saying the species our species is an x. Essential crisis we are seeing the warming of the planet in a very very serious way and you point out in your book of course that because corporations have. Used the Citizens United decision to flood our system with money essentially we are beholden our system is beholden to fossil fuel interests how critically important is the Supreme Court when it comes to the issue of climate change there are cases right now before the Supreme Court on the climate right. Well and there's there's one particular big case the Giuliani case which is working its way in the direction of the Supreme Court I believe it's still before the 9th Circuit right now and the problem that we have Sonali is that at the time that the Constitution was written 787 the hot new things that you know had just kind of come about in the last arguably 200 years prior to that from you know the 16th thirty's when when Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan and of the 1680 s. When when Thomas when John Locke wrote a 2nd treatise on government the hot new things were human rights which we saw built into the Bill of Rights our Constitution and property rights which is probably 80 percent of the Constitution and the idea that individual commoners or at least men and these white men could on property was a relatively new thing you know after a 1000 years to feudal history and Europe more than that and so the Constitution speaks eloquently to those 2 issues but the idea that the environment was important or even should have rights you know living things other than human danger never rights or even systems living systems rivers of air and things like that now I should have right was pretty much on imaginable at that time in the you know the cities and up there raised in the rivers that just seemed to vanish it seemed like the world was limitless resources were limitless and now we're confronted with a planet that is overcrowded by people over poisoned by the products of our of us we're consuming more than 50 percent of the world's fresh water we're consuming more than 50 percent of the world's photosynthesis the products of photosynthesis you know leaving all these other species to compete for the dregs at the same time that we're poisoning them and there's not really any place in the Constitution that addresses this it really needs to be done at the level of legislative the legislature although in a constitutional monarchy I suppose the monarchs could decide something they. Literally like they created out of thin air the doctrine of corporate personhood scrim court where they created out of thin air the doctrine that money is the same thing as free speech in the 1st Amendment they could create a doctrine I suppose that nature has rights and I frankly rather see it be done legislatively right and of course if they were to do that they would be betraying their allegiance to corporate America which unfortunately is highly unlikely I'll finally Tom You've written 2 hidden history books now the 1st one of the 2nd Amendment the son of the Supreme Court What's next are you going to continue the series. Yes there's one coming out in the spring as they had history of the war on boating who stole your boat how to get it back. That's already available for preorder and it's out there it will be shipping in March of next year and then one that will be coming out next fall which I'm still writing about a deadline the end of this month year to finish it is that we don't have a fully formed title but it's going to be some variation on they didn't history of monopoly and how monopoly has destroyed both capitalism and democracy while we're looking forward to it Tom Such a pleasure to have you on thanks as always for joining us hope to have you back with the next books Thank you Sonali It's great being on your program thank you so much Tom Hartman is a renowned progressive radio talk show host a New York Times best selling author of 2 dozen books including The Hidden History of guns on the 2nd Amendment and we've been discussing his latest book The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the betrayal of America I'm so not equal had to go online it rising up it's on on the dot com where you can sign up for id newsletter subscribers video channel on Vimeo and find out what are you a part cast on i Tunes and Spotify a. Rising up listen all these hosted written and executive produced by the higher on the bus is the producer technical director at Web and social media says the. Theme music is by Grammy Award winning best. Like us on Facebook dot com slash are you with Sinatra That's the letters are you with Sonali and follow us on Twitter dot com slash are you with us now our Web site is rising up with dot com where you can find all our programs are and where you can get direct war video audio. 91.3 k b c s. M Dr Anthony wise words this has Climate Connections. Athletes from around the world plan to play a hockey match in April they'll be surrounded not by bleachers of adoring fans but by a vast expanse of snow and ice and maybe a passing polar bear Cirque de rigueur cough is helping organize the event near the North Pole it's. The use of everyone all the comforts all the spokesman all the people together on one topic climate change global warming is rapidly melting Arctic sea ice so the event is being billed as the 1st and last hockey game to be played at the North Pole a slew of organizations and sports figures are involved the u.n. Environment program is helping lead the effort it was spearheaded by Slava Fetisov a legendary Russian hockey player Mike Richter formerly of The New York Rangers is on the roster as are players from Russia Canada Scandinavian countries and beyond repair cost says it provides an opportunity for each well known athlete to learn firsthand about melting Arctic ice then they can give interviews and share the information with others. In their own country both what is going on globally for this game the ultimate goal is to bring attention to the climate crisis. Climate Connections is produced by the Center for Environmental communication learn more connections. 913. This is now. 25 years old. And every year we have to keep the records. In temperature increase and. So something that's not working here but. Around the world is waking up. We are waking up from something. And the world climate crisis. Did so cross the flow of our walking out of classes today and another round of climate strikes a major March is set for hearing Madrid tonight the site of the un climate summit well speak to climate strikers from Uganda and Chile as well as one of the organizers of the alternative climate summit that opened Saturday here in Madrid it's cold cold grey so shallow that well look at how Spain's largest polluters are sponsoring the un climate. I think. These 2 big Spanish gas utilities have both paid $2000000.00 a year to the public or diamond sponsors of coke $25.00 But what's shocking is that the Spanish government in fact. These companies have them sponsor gave them a 90 percent tax break for their sponsorship and this allows these companies to hide the fact of their remissions a causing a runaway climate change. All that and more coming up. Live to Democracy Now Democracy Now dot org The War and Peace Report I'm Amy Goodman where bride can.