Constitutional Scholar Lauren Bowbert, she decided to go on twitter and
educate as many people as possible when she tweeted this.
The Constitution is not evolving to say that spits in the face of every
single one of our founders.
Founding Fathers.
That is so we're spitting in the face of Founding Fathers by.
Adding amendments to the Constitution.
That was obviously put into perspective by many people who responded to her.
There one being Eric Swalwell, he said that this was true,
she wouldn't be able to vote.
I don't think she thought about that Eric I think that slipped through her mind.
There was lots of time and
lots of space also Khary Penebaker said 3/5ths of me has questions.
[LAUGH] Truth.
Also this other user, GretaGrace 20 says Lauren, the U.S.
Constitution has 27 Amendments.
It is evolving.
You're not glad I could help clear that up for you.
The problem is Greta, she didn't clear up for her at all.
Also one of the users said the congress shall propose amendments to this
Constitution which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of this Constitution.
Article V, US Constitution.
Quite a little bar to ask GOP Reps to actually read the Constitution before
commenting on it.
But here we are she mentioned the founders.
I was just talking about us current people who don't understand what the founders did
or said Thomas Jefferson.
He tweeted this.
[LAUGH] He would have some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious
reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant too sacred to be touched.
But I know also that laws and
institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened as new discoveries are made,
new truths disclosed and manners and
opinions change with the change of circumstances.
Institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times Thomas, Jefferson
speaking as many things that he was part of putting into that Constitution.
So, it's cool.
So this comes from the party that likes to talk about.
If you don't understand what you're talking about,
you have no right to talk about it at all.
That's specifically when it comes to guns.
So if you don't know how to dismantle and reassemble an AK 47 or
if you call it a machine gun when it's actually something else, technically.
Then you don't get to even talk about how much those machines kill people.
So what if you don't know anything about the Constitution?
What if you know the most basic thing about the constitution?
Should she shut up about it.
Should she never mentioned it again.
Should she leave and say you know what,
I think I'm gonna go back to running my restaurant, because that's all I know.
>> Jr good news, you don't have to worry about that because there is
no Second Amendment because the Constitution can't evolve, and
the Second Amendment is an Amendment.
We are amending this document meaning changing it,
I literally have to explain that because some right wingers can't understand it.
So by the way, who did the bill of rights, the 1st ten amendments?
The Founding Fathers.
So not only did they say in the Constitution that you can amend this
Constitution, and then they wrote in their papers
as Jr just read to you should amend this Constitution.
They then amended it themselves.
So it doesn't get any more involving than that.
But wait, there's more so that part is obvious to anyone that isn't brain dead.
But some other folks on twitter made some good points
that I hadn't thought of, which is unusual.
Okay, so seriously, for example, someone pointed out in
the Eighth Amendment, it has a clause against excessive fines.
Well, almost any fine today, even traffic if you're on a red light in some places,
it costs you $500, right.
Well $500 would have bankrupted almost
anyone in the country back when they wrote the 8th amendment.
And it would have certainly been considered an excessive fine, but
they didn't amend the Eighth Amendment.
They left that language in there and it hasn't been interpreted as based on
current times, by the way, like Jefferson told you to.
So every word in there is supposed to be interpreted based on current times,
in fact, even the right wing to some degree agrees with that.
Because back when they did the revolution, they only had muskets but
now they said, no, no, of course they meant semi automatics and
they met this and they met my rocket launcher etcetera.
But we didn't say that right.
No, no, it's evolving what I wanted to be.
I see like most things.
>> There was a time in my career when people said that I tweeted things that
were, I don't know, mildly offensive or
that I should have somebody check my tweets and that was good advice.
Of course I didn't follow it, but in any case I'm not a member of Congress.
And what's so remarkable is when you talk to Republicans in Congress about whether
it's Marjorie, Taylor Greene or, Matt Gates or Lauren Gilbert.
They keep saying, look, we're not surprised that they're stupid,
we're not surprised that they are idiots.
We are surprised that they don't have anybody on their staff checking this stuff
before it goes out fine if it goes out of their own mouth and live testimony or
life here and we can't do anything about that.
But your twitter feed, come on, have somebody on your staff check your social
media before you hit, send on that thing.
>> Yeah, no, but David with Trump of course, as you remember,
it got funnier because his staff couldn't control him, he'd send out weirdo things
were totally misspelled weird capitalization, we all knew that.
And then of course the legendary covfefe tweet.
And then, but so the part where it got weirder is that they were like, no,
he meant it, everybody knows that that needs to know, knows what covfefe means.
And then they would try to copy his tweeting style, but they couldn't do it.
So they'd write like a halfway rational tweet, right.
And then they would capitalize random words were like,
we know that's not Trump, that has like an SAT.
Word in it, It's inconceivable that it's him, it makes some degree of coherent
sense, even though we don't agree with it, right, and you're not doing it right.
So, David, they're actually actively trying to write stupid tweets to
copy there's, whether it's a congressman or the president in their case.
But there's a very serious point in here to look and so
it's easy to make fun of Lauren Boebert, but both the Republican and
Democratic establishment are against amending the Constitution.
So you might think, no, that can't be true, no, it's a totally 100% true.
I've lived it for the last ten years.
Wolfpack is trying to amend the Constitution to get money out of politics.
And in that case it used to be the Republicans that used to fight us
the most, I remember in New Jersey,
the Koch brothers sent their lobbyists to fight against Wolfpack and they lost.
But now it's the Democratic leadership that is most against amending
the Constitution.
So the resolution that Wolfpack tries to pass is a convention where
the states can go around Washington, DC.
If you get two thirds of states to call for a convention,
they could propose amendments.
Three quarters of the states still have to ratify.
So getting an amendment passes difficult.
There's no question about it has those two different layers.
But Washington's never congress is never ever going to propose
an amendment to get money out of politics and have two thirds sign it.
We can't get 57 senators, let alone two thirds.
So Wolfpack very logically so said, good news.
The Founding Fathers were in this case geniuses,
they built political revolution into the document, those are called amendments and
they knew that Washington would get to corrupt.
So we needed the states to have an avenue to propose an amendment and
Nancy Pelosi and the entire rest of the Democratic Party say hell no,
there's no way we would ever allow convention.
In fact, it got so bad,
New Jersey repealed the Wolfpack amendment because corporate Democrats told them to.
So we beat the Koch brothers, but we couldn't beat Nancy Pelosi.
So as we make fun of Lauren Boebert which she richly deserves.
Understand the actual person most against an evolving Constitution and
amendments is actually Nancy Pelosi.
>> That's because they benefit from it, this is their job.
I always say this politicians job is to get into office and
once they're in office to get reelected because it's like you re up your
job application every few years, right.
Depending on position, right.
So you're trying to get back into office and
if this is the way that you exclusively keep your job or
keep it minimized to a certain number of people that can even run for your job.
Why wouldn't you with any other job if you like your job?
So your accountant, you make tons of money and
you actually enjoy doing the boring things accountants do.
And then there's tons of accounts like I can do that better.
You guys want to give me a chance to do that.
And he has to actually let me talk to you every all of your clients about it,
which you could of course.
But in this case they get a chance to put up walls around who can get in because
there's certain folks that are controlling them with so much money to prop them up.
So you can see their face all the time around their ads all the time,
hire the best writers, speech writers and hire the best staff to promote them all.
This comes from these sources of income that are actually running their jobs and
telling them what to do.
So why would they ever change the rules to make it harder for
them to keep their jobs, that they would stay in for 50, 60 years.
So defile Bow Bert and Pelosi and the Koch brothers and join Wolf pack.
Wolf dash pack dot com.
Why do you think they're against the convention?
Because it's the only thing that can work and
the very last thing that anybody in Washington wants is a real change.
So don't believe their lies.
Go and amend the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers would be proud of you.
That's exactly what the Constitution calls for.
It says how they used to have those that things steal this book from the old days,
right.
It literally says amend this document in the Constitution.
So go do it.
Wolf dash pack dot com.
And don't ever listen to a politician telling you shouldn't on twitter.
>> Well and also never listen to the mainstream media when it comes to campaign
financing and fundraising and
you'll never hear the mainstream media talk about Wolfpack.
Because the people who want to keep the current system the most, never mind.
The politicians are the mainstream media, the networks that make so much money from
advertising from political ads, they're never going to want to cut that off.
You can't even have this conversation if you're at a CNN or MSNBC or Fox or
the networks because it's not allowed.
This is their cash cow.
>> No, by the way, Rick Sanchez had a conversation about money in politics.
We ran it and said, he's in a lot of trouble.
He was fired within weeks.
They said it was a different reason, but we literally said on air,
you can't say that on CNN, they'll fire you.
And a couple of weeks later he was fired.
So, and what David's saying is no joke.
The last election cycle,
there was at least $6 billion spent in political advertising.
If you think a multi billion dollar cooperation is not interested in $6
billion in revenue, you don't know a thing about capitalism.