September 3rd, 2026

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811.  877-381-3811. I want to get into something that’s a little different and then we’ll pick up some of the other areas. But first and foremost, as I listen to the Democratic Socialists of America, the Marxists, I listen to Islamists. They condemn our country, of course. They condemn our founding, of course. And they condemn our constitution. Islamists. Talk about adhering to Sharia law, not the Constitution. And Marxists talk about dismantling the Constitution. And I notice they never talk about the benefit of an amendment to the Constitution because they could never get two thirds of both houses and three fourths. With the state legislatures. Now let’s put a marker down. I’ve talked about this before, but you’re going to hear when I talk about these things, as I’ve discussed with you before, the echo chamber, as Rush called it, it’ll all be picked up and regurgitated and people will say, I told you when in fact, they haven’t said a damn thing. But I want to say it right now. Fact we’re going to post it. But first, let me explain it. You cannot become a member of the House of Representatives. You cannot become a senator. If you do not take an oath requiring that you uphold the Constitution of the United States. And I want to start a movement right here and now. And I want to make clear to our Republican friends in Congress that any Democratic candidate, DSA candidates in particular, who stated they cannot abide the Constitution or seek to fundamentally alter it without amending it must not be seated in the next Congress. And this position is compelled by the Constitution itself. You’re going to know more now and you’re going to learn things that nobody else does. Article six, clause three of your United States Constitution. I repeat Article six, clause three states the following, and I quote. The senators and representatives before mentioned. And the members of the several state legislatures and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states. Shall be bound by alter affirmation to support this constitution. Got that. But no religious test shall ever be required and so forth. That’s not relevant here. Shallbe bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution. They cannot be seated. Until they take an oath. To support the Constitution of the United States. This isn’t some ceremonial acted as a requirement of serving in Congress. The oath for would be House members states as follows And I quote. Implementing Article six, clause three of the Constitution. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Got that. Foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I’m about to enter. So help me God. Could it be any clearer, Mr. Producer? Now people are going to take an oath that they have no intention of adhering to. But how do you know, Mark? Because they’ve said so. They’ve said their views on the Constitution. About the Constitution, I should say. Now, the oath for would be senators states as follows. I do solemnly swear or affirm. It’s very similar that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I’m about to enter. So help me God. Sounds identical. But you get the drift. You get the drift. How can we possibly allow individuals who have campaigned on destroying the Constitution? Who have campaigned on rejecting the Constitution. To serve in the House or the Senate when it’s clear the language is indisputable. That they are incapable of taking an oath. To support and defend the Constitution of the United States because they are an enemy, a domestic enemy. And they are to take this obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So you can’t just take the oath. And say, okay, I took the oath, now we can get going here. No, it’s not a. A ceremonial act. That is the real deal. It’s in Article six, clause three. It’s not even an amendment to the Constitution. It’s written in the body of the Constitution. And this is something the framers of the Constitution gave a lot of thought to. They wanted people who supported our country, who supported our founding, who supported our declaration, who swore, swore to uphold and support and defend our Constitution. They didn’t want a bunch of people elected to Congress who use that forum, that platform to destroy our country from within. There’s simply no way. There’s simply no way. Now. Are you with me, folks? The next time you see your representative or senator, or you can affirmatively contact them and say, wait a minute, Mark Levin talked about Article six, clause three. And if we have individuals. Individuals. We’ve made clear that they reject the Constitution. Then they cannot be sworn in. They cannot be sworn in. Because it is nothing more than what, an invasion. Or if they have a mental reservation. Man where our frame is brilliant or what? Yes, because the Supreme Court can be very stupid. But weren’t they brilliant? I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Joseph Story, ladies and gentlemen, in his own right, was a great associate justice of the Supreme Court. But he was more than that. Was a brilliant scholar of the law, a historian of the law of our law, the Constitution. They wrote a very significant treatise on this that is to this day referenced and referenced in court filings and referenced by the Supreme Court. Here’s what he said about the requirement of this oath. Under Article six, clause three of the United States Constitution. He said that all those who are entrusted with the execution of the powers of the national government should be bound by some solemn obligation to the due execution of the trust reposed in them and to support the Constitution. What seemed to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it. It results from the plain right of society to require some guarantee from every officer that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty. Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those who feel a deep sense of accountability to a supreme being. They would be guard, of course, if in the ordinary administration of justice, in cases of private rights, private rights or personal claims also required of those who try, as well as those who give testimony to guard against malice and falsehood and evasion, surely like guards ought to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community. What do you think of that, Mr. Producer? Spot on. Again, this is not some. Just an informal process. You go through it and all is well and well and good now. Now they purposely talk about there being no mental reservation or purpose of evasion. No rental mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And I do not see how if in the case of most of these DSA types. Or in the case of potentially an Omar Talib. That they can that they can adhere to this. It’s certainly something that needs to be debated on the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate. Look, I know it’s uncomfortable, but I don’t give a damn. That’s our Constitution. That’s what it says. Now. I love it when people try to read their policy preferences and do it. That’s what the Constitution says. So given the size of this audience, the number of listeners and people who listen in, who have their own radio shows and TV shows and podcasts and are on the Internet, you will soon to see this. You will soon see this pop up. You will soon see this pop up. You will soon see legal scholars discuss it. But being. One myself. We will lead the charge. And you being the great patriots that you are, Mr. and Mrs. America, we will lead this charge. I want to know how it’s possible. But many of these people will be able to take the oath. I do. I want to know how it’s possible. Given that the broadsides, their open broadsides against our Constitution. I mean, we’ve talked about it at length that we know while so they as it turns out. So they. And I think it’s very important that this issue be. Laid out, and I’m going to make sure it is. Joseph story. You know, you can use your AI backed up by data centers. To look more deeply into this. I see a little bit of change going on in some of these politicians, conservatives who are turning into pseudo conservatives and they seem to be making their way back. On these data centers. Now it’s more local control. We’ll leave it to the local governments and zoning boards to make these decisions. Really? Well, isn’t that nice? When they were out there just a week ago, before I did my Sunday show on Fox and before I did this show last week. Pointing out how outrageous this is. The Luddites. And the radical leftists basically serving the interests of the Communist Chinese, but certainly not serving our interests, even if their intentions are good. When you consider. All the areas that artificial intelligence is involved in and we want it involved in. And we wanted involved in. And all the great things that will come of it. Well, what come of it? Enormous wealth. For a community. That can be used for very positive things without raising taxes or in fact, lowering taxes. If properly done, they will not drive up the cost of electricity. You know, it drives up the cost of electricity. Democrats. Not data centers. Democrats. And they ought to take a bow. They ought to take a credit because they’ve been very successful in driving up the cost of energy over the years. They’ve said that’s what they’re going to do. And then when it happens, they go, Oh, I see. Now it’s, you know, capitalism, data centers. The lies about water. Same lies that were used in fracking. As a matter of fact, I went back and looked. Flat out lies. These. These facilities are relatively self-contained. And the amount of water they use that is fresh water, at least an initial stages is very limited. They’ve given the example of an 18 hole golf course and now that example is has gone viral. But it’s true. Stick with me, folks. I know what I’m talking about. I really do, because I do the work that others don’t do, that the plagiarists don’t do that. The whisper down the lane people don’t do. Whether it’s the law and the Constitution, whether it’s capitalist issues and so forth. And whether it’s the war in Iran. I think you and I had been proven right about that, too. And there are things that need to be done. Steps that need to be taken. They really. And we can. Not just put an end to it, but to ensure that when or at least if this regime collapses. There are people who are. Friends of ours. We have a Western mentality. That they are there. To take the reins of the government. No, we’re not establishing a democracy. That’s not what I said. We have a lot of allies that aren’t even democracies. I don’t have a problem with it at all. Well, people can decide as long as we arm the resistance and the opposition, people keep saying, why aren’t they rising up? Why is that complicating the imams and the rise up? And I’ll be right back.

Segment 3
So notice that the oath itself warns against deceit by those who might take the oath but not seriously believe. What? They’re actually swearing. Without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. It’s difficult to see how those who’ve publicly condemned the Constitution and reject it can take the oath and actually mean it. Now, this is not to say, for those of you sharpshooters out there, very smart. Their proposals for amending the Constitution should be treated as a bar to serve. There are two processes for you know, for amending the Constitution as we know. Right. But we are not talking about. A wholesale condemnation and rejection of the Constitution. Looking for ways to improve it. You’re talking about eliminating the presidency, eliminating the Supreme Court, doing all these sorts of things. That’s quite different in both form and kind. And it is a process that you would go through two thirds of both houses, as we talked about, and three fourths of the state legislatures or conventions in the States. As we’ve also talked about. So that’s all legitimate. That’s a process that’s there for a reason. That’s not what I’m talking about. We hear what they say. We hear the context in which they say these things. And that is totally different. Totally different than. Look at my book, The Liberty Amendments. It’s not an attack on the Constitution. In fact, it’s trying to uphold those aspects of the Constitution that have been violated. Or rewritten, if you will. But regardless, the intent there and clearly the purpose of the entire enterprise is not to destroy the Constitution, but to strengthen it. And the language I use in describing each one of these amendments. The language I use in talking to you. Isn’t intended to do damage to the Constitution and therefore the Republic. In fact, what do I call us? But do I call us constitutional conservatives? There’s no such thing as a constitutional communist. Very constitutional Islamists who if the Islamists adheres to Sharia law. As we’ve talked about before, they’re utterly incompatible. But if we can get to the point where even debating these issues in the broader. Public and certainly in Congress, that we’ve made a lot of progress. Because this is something that nobody else is thinking about except me. Others will demonstrate how brilliant they are soon enough. Now. Steve Gold. Can you believe this guy’s Jewish juicer trap door for Saeed Al Saeed? Co-Founder of that group. In an internal campaign video, he laments that Alcibiades believes he laments his beliefs about Israel. So here’s a guy who’s a public face. Jewish. Who’s out there? Jews for Abdul. Doesn’t that sound interesting to you, Mr. Reducer? Almost bizarre. Jews for Abdel. Especially when Abdullah’s outside. Anyway, let’s take a listen. This campaign video, this internal campaign video. Somehow got out, got one go. I think that those three issues, the outdoor has been less and active in communicating and that he can do without changing his policies and dealings he could do a better job on. One is the Israel’s right to exist. Question which I think needs to be answered. Yes, full stop and then go on to explain the nuances and the whatever. The second thing is his insistence on using the word genocide. With good reason is is is something that makes some Jews just sob as though he is denigrating the significance and importance of the Holocaust, which of course, he is not just talking about problems and not talking about whether they’re right or wrong or anything. And I know that in our campaign we don’t talk about the morals and principled stuff. Go ahead. Is his statement that all aid to Israel, including things like Iron Dome, should be cut off? Again, not saying that it’s right or wrong. Well, I think that yet he loses it. People stopped listening when they say Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself. So I think those are the three issues that that I will be trying to contain. The right to this question, the genocide question and the defensive support question. And I think that those are the three things that turn off a lot of Jews in the battle and did a better job in talking about them. It would help. Yes, that’s my that’s my thought. Really. So he just needs to do a better job lying to us. You see? Spewing propaganda. He could just do a better job concealing his true feelings. And I’m not taking a side on this. I’m not taking your side on the morality or principle of that. I’m just saying he could do a better job because he’s scaring people, you know? Well, here’s how said May 2023. This guy all over the map. So we have to follow him all over the map. Got to go. Contrary to what we’re taught, that we are the land of opportunity where anyone with a dollar and a dream can make it. In fact, too few people have that first dollar. Economic data shows us that if you want to achieve the American dream, well, you should move to Canada because it’s twice as likely they’re here. Where you start predicts where you end. You know, you wonder. Right. This guy, I think, is Egyptian. His family’s Egyptian. Come into this country like this. When you when you think about what goes on in these these Islamic countries where you start determines where you are. And that is a fact. In America, it’s irrelevant. But look how they reject upon us. These these viewpoints, these attitudes look how they undermine the spirit of this great nation and so much that we’ve done in this country. Look at this guy. He’s a nobody. Absolute. Nobody assumes parents or nobody is, in fact, his father. Is a big deal worth I think it was care of the Muslim Brotherhood or both. There’s not really a difference other than, you know, which club you belong to. I’m just sick of these people lecturing us, Marxists and Islamists, telling us how bad we are, are telling us how we need to improve when in fact they’re not promoting any form of improvement. They’re promoting ideologies that would destroy this nation and everything it stands for. That’s the truth. Now. Trainer Tucker Carlson has come out and essentially endorsed this man for the Senate. He’s endorsed him just like he was behind Plattner. Just like he was behind. What was that guy’s name? Fish head or whatever his name is. Fisherman in Florida. In other words, he will back the neo-Nazis, he will back the Marxists, he will back the Islamists. Hope that people who hate America, this is who. Traitor. Tucker Carlson is It’s not America first. If he is, then it means nothing. Is a diabolical Neanderthal, evil, nasty, hateful. That’s what he is. And stupid as hell. And so he’s basically endorsed our side. He’s been trashing our president. Has Qatar chosen? He said he should be impeached and removed. Then he went further. He said he should be removed. I guess he means by any means necessary. I seem to recall one point he talked about the 25th Amendment. How is it that we have a so-called White House war room that does. Condemn him. Who’s running the White House war room? And the veep today, and we’ll play this later. He said, Look, I had my disagreements with Carlson. But he’s a friend and we don’t want a situation now in our country where you’re going to be disloyal to a friend and so forth. Well, my answer to that is really quite simple. I would not have that individual, my friend. The antisemitism he spews. The hatred he spews. The rewriting of the Holocaust and the Third Reich. The idea that World War Two is mostly Churchill’s fault as a mouthpiece for Qatar and really Hamas in promoting this lie about the IDF and genocide in Gaza, which has been disproven now almost every other day for the last month. And the list goes on. The beat goes on. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would like to advise JD in a friendly way. That his friend is trashing my president. Our president? And it seems to me loyalty runs that way, too. And that if Qatar listeners continue to do what he does, he keeps ramping it up. That’s some friend. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
Here we are. Let’s do this. Let’s continue a little. There are two processes, as we said, for amending the Constitution, both of which require supermajorities of the state legislatures to approve the constitutional changes. The problem for Marxists and Islamists is that their ideologies are in fact incompatible with our Constitution and the entire American Express. An experiment is if I explained for years. The fact is that winning an election for Congress is the first of two steps, not the first and final step for actually serving. If you cannot legitimately take the oath, then you cannot serve in Congress. Whether voters in a federal district or a state supported your candidacy or not. People will say that’s about disenfranchisement. No, there could be other elections held. But. These particular individuals do not get to serve in the national legislature. And that’s whether the left likes it or not. I hope this is clear as a clear ridge as I’m explaining it. This happens to be one of the reasons I love this format. We’ve got two more hours left now for four people who’ve tried talk radio and haven’t succeeded or don’t much like it, and they sort of muscled through. I love it. Because it gives me the opportunity to really bob and weave and sometimes really dig in on some of these subjects and explain them and have time to go through them thoroughly like we are right now. Like we are right now. So. I think it’s a big deal and you’re going to hear a little bit of a treat. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach at a hearing yesterday on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. So I would say today is like 70%, 65% Constitution Day on the Mark Levin show. And I hope you’re enjoying it every time I do a book signing. Mr. Producers there. What people like most about this program is when I discuss history or philosophy or the Constitution. Now we can’t do it all the time, but we can do it a lot of the time, and that’s what I’m doing. We have a system set up. Our constitution is so brilliant. The framers were so brilliant. A system set up to protect us. From ourselves. Or at least some of us. Or some of them. You see my point? And so they said, Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You can elect people. That’s a good thing. But there’s an oath. You got to be able to uphold the Constitution. And then a statute was passed. And the House and the Senate. They said, okay, not only that, we don’t want any Decepticons out there. And this this oath with minor changes has been taking place for. A very, very long time. So don’t play games with mental reservations or purpose of evasions and all the rest of it. Now who gets to decide? Well, the majority gets to decide. The speaker gets to decide. Now, you might say, well, the Democrats will control the process, so I don’t care. Then the Republicans need to get up and fight us as the minority in the House and in the Senate and do what’s right. You don’t win every time. I’m worried about this election and we’re going to fight, like I said, victory. There’s a lot of debate online and on cable about Ken Paxton. The establishment hates Ken Paxton because Ken Paxton beat John Cornyn. They have their boy, Karl Rove, out there sort of pouring water on the situation and so forth. I don’t know if Ken Paxton will win or lose, but what did I say yesterday? We fight to win. Not only to relitigate the primary that took place, Paxton won. The voters made their decision. If Cornyn, one of the voters, had decided that way, I’d tell you backed Cornyn. I’m telling you now, I would back Paxton. The we can’t trust this. Look, this election is different than any election in my lifetime, in probably years. Everything’s at stake. Everything’s on the table. The Trump presidency. The Constitution. Citizenship in the border. Whether we support terror loving organizations and groups or Israel. And I could go on and on and on. Socialism versus capitalism. Every damn thing is on the table. I don’t want to hear. While I don’t know about Paxton and I don’t know about Susan Collins. Are you kidding me? I’d rather have a cucumber sitting in these seats that one of these Democrats. And I’m talking to you as. Yes, Mark Levin for 25 years. Where we have attacked the Republican establishment and correctly so from a constitutional conservative perspective. Now everything has shifted. We need to defend our country. I’ll be right back.