May 29th, 2025

On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, the U.S. Constitution and historical documents like the Federalist Papers do not grant the judiciary, including lower federal courts like the U.S. Court on Trade, the final authority in disputes. Congress, as the representative body, holds the ultimate decision-making power, particularly in matters of national policy. The judiciary’s self-assumed power, stems from cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), asserts that the framers intended the courts to act as “traffic cops” ensuring other branches stay within their constitutional lanes, not to usurp their authority. Congress, not the courts, should have the final say, aligning with the republican structure of the government. If the Supreme Court does not stop what these lower courts are doing, and quickly, Mark is going to lead a movement to pressure Congress to remake the lower courts. And under the Constitution, we have every right as the people of this country to press our elected representatives to uphold the Constitution and give us our republic back. The lower courts are violating separation of powers, seizing authority they do not have, and have become populated with rogue lawyers/activists. The Constitution empowers we, the people, and through us, our representatives, to fix this. Also, the Civil War, with over 700,000 casualties in a nation of 24 million, was worth the cost to end slavery and preserve the Union. Similarly, Israel’s ongoing conflicts justify decisive action to destroy Hamas and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite repeated ceasefires and attacks from groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Israel’s fight is for survival, akin to the Civil War’s existential stakes. Critics who label this a “forever war” or warmongering are dismissed, as some causes, like survival, demand fighting to the death. Later, Iran is actively advancing its nuclear weapons program. They are developing a sophisticated nuclear program and possesses a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long distances.

X
I’m in Europe— and if you thought US coverage of the Israel v Hamas terrorists war is one-sided… you ain’t seen nothing yet! Coverage here, generally terms it as a “genocide” by Israel with US help.

Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Welcome, America. Good to have you back today. In what feels like a Friday to me, hasn’t it? To you, Mr. Producer? Or Monday. And of course, Mondays and Fridays. Nothing to do with each other. But that’s neither here nor there. I want to talk about the judiciary. I want to really lay into this. Because we actually have some libertarians and unfortunately some conservatives who have the mindset that what this court did. This United States court on trade in New York, which is a legitimate court to federal courts created by Congress. It has nine members. I looked into it. They’re appointed for life. Life. I don’t know why they’re appointed for life on that court, but they are. But they have a tremendous amount of authority. But the president gets his authority from the Constitution. They do not. This goes to the heart of the matter. This goes to the heart of the matter that we’ve been talking about with the judiciary. My new book on Power goes to the heart of the Matter. Who has the final say? If there’s a dispute. Now we’ve been brainwashed to believe every law student is brainwashed to believe, and hence virtually every lawyer, whether they’re TV lawyers or practicing lawyers, whatever kind of lawyers they are, has been taught to believe that the court has the final say. In the Supreme Court has the final of. Our final thanks. That’s not what your Constitution says. In fact, your Constitution doesn’t say anything about. That’s not what the Federalist Papers say. The Federalist Papers say really the opposite. The weakest branch, Hamilton said. They won’t have a military. Like the executive branch, and they won’t have the power to tax the legislative branch. And so basically. It’s the good faith of the other branches and the American people. The basis for the power of the courts, the chief justice of the United States. And that’s the official title in the Constitution, the chief Justice of the United States and the Supreme Court. Said something extraordinary the other day. When he said the court has the final say. Now, again, if you go to law school, you’ll hear that. If you’re listening to these slip and fall lawyers, some of whom are former federal prosecutors, some of whom were professors, they’ll say exactly the same thing. Some of our friends will say exactly the same thing. That’s not what the Constitution says. In 1803, the Marbury versus Madison decision. Where Chief Justice Marshall seized power that was not granted to the court in the Constitution. I’ve told you many times about a man who I’ve had. Tremendous. I’m trying to find it here. Hold on now. Tremendous respect for. There’s not a lot. There’s people I appreciate who I like. And a tremendous respect for his intellect, for his scholarship. For his objectivity and honesty. And that was the late Professor Raul Berger. This man was a genius. He was never a lawyer, by the way, but he was a constitutionalist. He was friends with Bob Bork. Among others. But he wasn’t much interested in Supreme Court precedent. He was more interested in the Constitution. Each and every framer. What they said during the Constitutional Convention. He was much more interested in the state ratification conventions and the leaders in those various state conventions and what they had to say. And there are writings available just like Madison’s notes. Not all of them, but nine of the conventions kept pretty good notes. How do I know? Because I read them. There’s not another talk show host in America that’s read those. But I read them. There’s probably another not another talk show host in America that read the Anti-Federalist Papers, which are very persuasive, by the way. In no case. Did anybody say the court would have the final say, let alone lower courts that they weren’t even thinking about because they hadn’t been created? In fact, in the. Anti-Federalist Papers. One of the most prominent anti-federalists. Turn out to be the governor in New York. He was worried about the courts. He said, I’m very worried about this. There’s really no description about the Supreme Court. I mean, outside of a very, very bare. Bear details, if you can call them details at all, the kind of power this court’s going to have. So it will create its own power base. Again, you’ll read about this in my new book. But that said, I want to deal with it now. Turned out he was right. So just use common sense, folks. This is a great country because it’s a republic. Not because we have lifetime appointed judges, but because it’s a republic. It’s a whole mosaic. At the top of the mosaic of the three branches of government, but below these three branches of the federal government, you have all the state governments and you have legislatures and governors and judges within the state governments. Then you have townships and cities and villages and they have their own governments. And so it’s a mosaic. Now there’s 677 federal district judges. As of today, any single one of these judges, anyone? Any one can rule against this president and put in place a national ban overturning his policy decisions. Anyone? Now that would have been viewed as absolutely unacceptable to the framers of your Constitution and to the ratifies in every single state. Why? Because it’s tyranny, that’s why. You voted in November. You voted for president of the United States. He gets to make those kinds of decisions. Without courts looking over his shoulder. The courts have one job, according to Berger, according to them at the time, one job. One job. And that job is to make sure their traffic cops. The Congress is in its lane, the president in its lane. It’s not to usurp powers and to take them for yourself and substitute your decisions for them. Under no definition is that a Republican form of government? None. Under no definition. Is that a constitutional system? None. None. My first book was Men in Black about the Supreme Court and the abuses of the judiciary. Look, we come full circle. My latest book on Power gets into this. I’m telling you right now. So we’re here. We have this this trade court. That is ruled because it was five petitioners, all with the same ideology, some of them supported by radical libertarians other than were business groups. They didn’t want the tariffs. And so they said this president doesn’t have the power to issue tariffs the way he’s issuing tariffs. Under federal law that was passed in 1977. I went back and I looked at that act, see what I’ll do for you. But I’m also curious on my own. Seriously. Certain emergency powers, but they say they’ve never been used this way before by a president. Well, the nature of emergency powers is that they’re not used very often, are they? No. There’s nothing that prevents this. But let’s say there is. Or better. More to the point, let’s say you think there is. Who gets to decide? Well, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Producer. Is Congress in session? Yes, Congress is in session. We still have a Congress, right? So Congress has the power then. Because it wrote the law in the first place. To change the law and say that’s not what we meant. He’s taken too much power and they haven’t even taken it up. So why is this trade court saying you violated this statute, Mr. President, you don’t have this power? And the president says, not only do I have the emergency power under the statute, I have those powers, period, as the president of the United States under Article two. Now, you may disagree with them. So Congress is the place to resolve it. That’s some trade court. Or any court for that matter. Now, to her credit, and I don’t normally watch these this Caroline Levitt, she is a smart young lady. Smart. Because she mentioned. She mentioned that Congress, the play here is in Congress. Congress. If they have a problem with what’s happening to their statute. Congress is the one to address. Not the judiciary, not the trade court. And she’s 100% correct. So for those who go online and say, Jeez, I thought you were a constitutionalist. Gee, I thought you were against tariffs. It’s not whether I’m for against tariffs. We’re talking about who gets to make the final decision. Now, if you listen to John Roberts, he does. The problem with his position is it’s not based on any constitutional language, any statement from any framer, any statement from any state legislature that ratified the convention. The court grabbed power for itself. And John Roberts is not is not willing to give it up. But the proper place for this is Congress. Congress is there. Well, they don’t have the votes. So what if they don’t have the votes? They don’t get to change it. That’s the way it works. If the court doesn’t have the votes on an issue that belongs in the court, they don’t get to change it either. If it’s not result oriented. Where does the decision belong? With Congress. Yes. I told you about the treaty clause. Congress. Now Congress exercises a lot of power it doesn’t have. Again. You’ll find this in my new book. But Congress exercises a lot of power. It doesn’t have to. Congress is it’s supposed to be a national legislature that legislates on anything that comes to somebody’s mind. You know, we need to fix this. We need a law for this. I don’t need to. That was never the intent. The state legislatures, that’s where the action was. Congress has a lane to the president as a lane to. They all have a lane when it applies to the federal government. They have a lot of power. But when it comes to society, generally, they’re not supposed to. Congress is only supposed to pass laws. At exit, execute or institute or address matters that are purely federal. And if there’s a. Dispute between a state and federal law. The federal law trumps because there can be an overlap. The line of demarcation may not be that clear. But for instance, nationalizing health care. Health care is a private matter. It’s mostly a state matter. Really, under our Constitution, they don’t have the power to do that. Now, don’t get me wrong, there’s not a court in the world that will agree with me. Why? Because we’re too far gone. I’m just being honest. That’s why when America’s governor, Ron DeSantis, was on this program earlier this week. He talked about convention of states. You know, that’s close to my heart. Mark Meckler in the guys and his wonderful wife Convention of states, that’s the only way we’re going to be able to fix this as a fundamental matter, as a constitutional matter. That’s it. There’s no other way because Congress isn’t going to fix itself. The Supreme Court’s not going to fix itself. But if I were writing my book again, the Liberty Amendments, I would add one more and would be with the courts. And I already had one in there with the courts, but I’d add another one. They’re basically roping the courts off from the sort of things they’re doing today. Now there is an appellate court. That stayed held in place. The tariffs. While this Matters litigated an appeals court, federal appeals court, which was a great move by them. While the matter is being decided through the judicial system. So the tariffs remain in place. The ultimate judicial decision. Of course, we don’t have yet. This is a time when we need serious men and women on the Supreme Court, and I fear we only have about four. We’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Now, unlike Israel, like frankly in the European countries, there’s something we can actually do fundamentally about our courts. We, the people through our representatives, create these courts other than the Supreme Court, the Supreme Courts created by the Constitution. But every one of these lower federal courts and appellate courts and this trade court are created by Congress. And despite what the media say, are you telling us, Mr. Speaker, that you put this language in a bill? It isn’t. They’re stupid. The media, they’re against us. They don’t matter, you know, out of the way. I am telling you, if the if the Congress tomorrow wanted to abolish every single federal district court and create something else, they’re free to do it. There’s always the filibuster issue, which is why I’ve said attach it to these budget and spending bills, because in reconciliation, that’s what they call it. They can’t use the filibuster. It’s exactly what the speaker and the Republicans did in the House on some of these issues. It can be done again. And if the courts keep this up, stealing our vote, stealing our power, it needs to be done.

Segment 3
And likewise I professional helps Mr. produce. If I turn the microphone on as loud as I am, that’s not going to work. I’d want you to step back and think about this a little bit, America. President Trump’s first term. We went through to agonizingly and outrageously. Launched impeachments. A bogus criminal investigation based on Russia collusion, a phony document. So they tried to destroy him right out of the box. As soon as the Democrats took the House, they said they were going to impeach him. What is it about this man that they fear? He’s not a dictator. It’s clearly not a dictator. He’s got all these court orders. He’s dealing with them. They’re the dictators, but that for another day. Then we have this election. And I sit here and I look back on that election. In 2020. And I asked myself, what happened to 10 million votes? You know what I’m talking about, Mr. Producer. 10 million. You know, I’m skeptical, though. 10 million? What the hell happened to all those votes? They disappeared. Now, that’s not normal, is it? America. And then he challenges the election. He chose it at the local level, the state level, the congressional level. And they indict him for it. The indictment for challenging the election. That’s what it was. America. The Washington phony statutory statutes they used. Then they try and take him out on a documents issue. That is so ridiculous. But that was coordination between the Biden counsel’s office. And Merrick Garland. That guy, that guy needs to be held to account. And the attorney general with the National Archives. Then we have the phony case in Georgia and the phony case in Manhattan. Then we have. The tuchus. What’s your name? Leticia. They took us. We have her. While she’s committing apparently tax fraud through her mortgages and so forth. That’s the allegation. Looks pretty strong to me. A phony statute that’s never been used. And I don’t know, you know, the history. Then the man announces he’s going to run again and we go through it again. And they try and take him out. They try and bankrupt him and so forth and so on. And he prevails. Well, he was found guilty and I said he prevails. That case in New York. Is it illegitimate case? That’s it. Case closed. Now, here he is. He’s president of the United States. And keep in mind, I’ve talked to you about the the the simultaneous, greatest, greatest scandals in American political history, trying to destroy Donald Trump, keep them off the ballot. Propping up Biden, knowing that he’s incapacitated. Both things were going on at the same time hatched out of the Department of Justice in the White House. Both of them because Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice had that audio. They refused to make it public. They came up with a phony a phony privilege that never existed. And so they knew he was incapacitated. They knew that Robert her was right. It didn’t matter. Okay. Now he wins in a landslide. Now, you might say, well, Reagan had a bigger landslide. It’s a different time. The demographics are different. He won all seven or seven of the competitive states, all seven. So-called battleground states. He swept them. He got a bigger vote in the vast majority of the counties in this country, Republican and Democrat, than he had before in almost every one of them. And he had a bigger vote from every demographic in the country. Black, white, Hispanic women didn’t matter. He won the popular vote, which is almost impossible for a Republican to do these days, given given what’s taken place with immigration. But that, again, for another day. And so what are they doing? They don’t have the house. They don’t have the Senate. They don’t have the presidency. But they had the courts and you don’t even have to have a majority of these judges. Now because it’s not majority decisions being made. It’s one out of 677 judges over here, another one over there, another one over here. There was an entire legal strategy developed for this. And just Schumer was in on it and the Democrats ran on it. That’s why Schumer said, we appointed 250 progressive judges to thwart Trump. That’s what he said. And now they’re doing it. Here we are sitting around waiting for John Roberts to wake up one day and grow a pair and do something about it. And Barrett. Who’s so in love with herself. So in love with her press, so in love with, well, poking conservatives in the eye, which is why she’s on the court thanks to conservatives. And this is why we’re going to have to take matters into our own hands. No, no, no, no. We’re not Democrats, not violence. Let me underscore that. I’m talking about the constitutional system, that Constitution America belongs to you and me. It belongs to us. It doesn’t belong to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t belong to the executive branch or the legislative branch. It doesn’t belong to the media. It doesn’t belong to these people who hate it. It belongs to you. That Constitution is yours. And if we have to start a massive movement here and I start a lot of them, as you know, the ones that matter, if we have to start a massive movement here to try and drive the House Republicans in the Senate Republicans. To fundamentally. Alter the nature in which these lower court judges. Rule. I don’t mean ends justify the means. I don’t mean that we only want judges that agree with us. Although we would. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about no judge should have the kind of power that these judges are exercising of our national security over immigration, over the border, over the executive branch’s ministerial tasks, over the data, over a firing and hiring over. You know, combining programs to make things more efficient. We cannot allow an elected left wing slip and fall ambulance chasing Democrat lawyers dressed up as judges to do this. Even if some of our friends agree with the outcomes, I’m not talking about the outcomes. Tierney. Tierney You can have Tierney and the president. She can have Tierney in the legislature and have cheering in the courts. And that’s where we have the ladder right now. And when you read on power. Yes, of course I’m going to talk about it. It. I’m not talking about these issues because I address them and the philosophy and the fundamentals and the Constitution in the book. I’m talking about the book because it happens to address what’s happening today, and that’s why I write them. They have lasting power long after I’m dead. Lasting power because of the way it addresses these matters. And I’m giving you your history. Your founders, your framers of the Constitution. What did they say? What did they want? What did they create? I’m not giving you what the media say, what the judges say about themselves. What former federal prosecutors have. I don’t care what they say. Apparently they don’t know their own history, that they don’t care. The idea that you would defy a court order, according to Justice Barrett. The whole country defied. Now, Dred Scott decision had a damn civil war over the whole thing. By the way, while I’m on that subject, I was thinking about this. You ready for this one, Mr. Producer? Over 700,000 casualties in the Civil War. Was it worth it? Over 700,000 casualties in the Civil War. The most. In all of our wars. Was it worth it to end slavery and keep the country together? Was it worth it? I think we would all say yes, wouldn’t we? Yes, it was worth. Okay. You know, a little country of Israel. You’ve had ceasefires with Hamas repeatedly. And they keep trying to kill you and your people. Hezbollah, Iran with the nukes. The Houthis today firing missiles in Israel right on Fox. They were running it with the sirens and everything else. Is it worth it for them to destroy Hamas and destroy Iran? It was worth us to put everything on the line. Over 700,000 casualties in a nation with a population of about 24 million people. There wasn’t a single family unaffected. Not one. And so the nation of Israel is made up of. Well, they have a permanent army, but the vast majority of their soldiers. Our reservists. They come out of the cafes they come out of. The universities. They’re plumbers, electricians. They’re truck drivers. All kinds of backgrounds that I discussed yesterday. And they want to destroy Hamas because Hamas is slaughtering their people and they want to prevent Iran. They want to attack Iran and prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And I have to hear commentators. Most of whom are morons, of course. That’s a forever war. You’re a warmonger. You’re just the Jew trying to drag us into a war. Sick, sick, sick. Let’s debate the substance. So the answer is yes for the Israelis. They need to destroy Hamas. They need to stop Iran. There are certain things you fight to the death for. There are certain things you fight for the death for. Like your survival. The Civil War was about a survival of a nation and the elimination of slavery. The war, as it is from having to fight defensive wars and other on the offensive, is for their very survival as a people. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
The next massive political movement. If the Supreme Court does not stop with, these lower courts are doing it quickly. I’m going to lead a movement to pressure Congress to make the lower courts to remake them, to remake them. It’ll take time, but it must be done. And under our Constitution, which any critic who will write about this now does not comprehend. We have every right, as the people of this country, to press our elected representatives to uphold the Constitution and give us our republic back. The lower courts are violating separation of powers, seizing authority they do not have and have become populated with rogue lawyers, activists. The Constitution empowers we, the people and through us, our representatives to fix this. Now we help launch the Convention of States movement right here. We will bring millions together to address this. Again, it won’t happen overnight. Hold on. I’m writing. I’m going to post this. But if this continues, it will happen. After all, it it really isn’t about our president, right? It is about our republic and our Constitution. And that’s the truth. I’m going to post this. It’s not a threat. I mean this with every fiber of my body. Look. We’ve been responsible for a lot of actions here at the convention of states. Mark Meckler and I. No question about it. The Tea Party movement. Spontaneous. Plus on this radio show, honestly, the opposition to so-called immigration reform under George Bush, we led that charge right here behind this microphone. We laid that charge right here. Our involvement in. And crucial primaries, not just for president, but Senate and House. We have pretty good record. We can’t win them all, but we want a lot of them. Ask Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio, ask Mike Lee with his convention. Even asked Rand Paul. Unfortunately. But nonetheless. And there are others. We win some, We lose some. We win more than we lose. But I cannot sit here as somebody who has studied the Constitution literally since I’m 13, 14 years old, used to go to the Independence Hall. With the first and second Continental Congress met the second Continental Congress. Wrote the Declaration of Independence worthy. Constitutional Convention was in that very hot, humid summer in Philadelphia. My buddy Eric Christiansen and I used to walk there, study there. Even question the question. The Rangers there who are like, amazed. How much do you know? For years. I had an original copy of the of a book of the Federalist Papers that were put together. Paid for by Hamilton, and he almost went broke. There were 500 of them. He spread about 125 of them in Virginia because Virginia was a close call and the rest are used in New York. And I used to keep it on my desk. And then one day I said, you know, it’s not really fair. It sits here. And I look at and the family looks at it. So I donated it to Hillsdale College in Washington. This is in my blood. This is who I am. Some people are great surgeons. Some people are. There are great beauticians. Some people are great plumbers. This is what I do. This is who I am. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit here and watch some. Some judge, some nameless, faceless judge who happened to work their way through the Senate. Run this country. I’m not kidding. There’s a legitimate role for the judiciary. There’s no question about it. This is not that. This is not that. And so we will leave in a moment here. I’m going to watch we’re going to watch the Supreme Court over the course of the next few weeks as their term ends and into next year. We’re going to watch and we’re going to put pressure on on the House controlled by the Republicans, the Senate controlled by Republicans, because this cannot stand America. This just cannot stand.