we are going to get to marbury v.got some actual news from this century to get to first. the first federal judge decides that it is okay for the trump white house to deny the associated press access to the president and other special events. what did you make of that ruling? >> what i made is that is an initial ruling. what the judge said is "i'm not going to grant you, the associated press, a temporary restraining order." i think the judge was giving credence to the trump administration's argument here that there is not a constitutional right to be in every place in the white house at every time. the trump administration had argued that the associated press for years has actually received i think what they termed "extra special access." what the judge, i think, was saying -- at least at this point -- is that the associated press can do their job, they can report, they can inform the public, but it is early in the case and there could be a different decision later on. >> john: that special access, at least among other

stefon marbury. of the building, and established our foundational separation of powers. >> vice president j.d. vance, he had some interesting words about the separation of power in government. >> jon: he's for it? >> if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. >> jon: ah! of course they're allowed to adjudicate the boundaries of that power! that is the whole [bleep] point of the judiciary! to interpret whether it is legitimate! you went to law school, [bleep]! [applause] the only alternative is that the executive determines for himself what is constitutional, at which point, there would be no guardrails against... oh. hey, congress? hey, buddy! we got a little separation of powers problem. i was wondering, any chance you might be reasserting your authority? opposition pa

supreme court decision in marbury versus madison.mean, what we're facing right now is the beginning of a constitutional crisis. um, and this isn't the first time. i mean, jd's tweet wasn't surprising to me. he said that previously, you know, kind of admiring this. andrew jackson will let them come. let's come see them enforce it style. and it's incredibly dangerous. it's a thing of authoritarians. ignoring the courts is something authoritarians do. and we've already seen hints of it. i know a rhode island judge, um, has been questioning whether the trump administration has been complying with its court orders to release certain federal funds that congress appropriated. >> so, you know, in all of this, you know, i talk about that tweet from jd vance, and, you know, he's getting a lot of or we let our show today with his comments out of the munich security conference. but overall, sophia, elon musk has overshadowed vance in public in these first weeks at least of the new administration. tonight, actually appearing in a joint interview

so i quoted marbury versus madison. you tell me. yeah, you tell me, what do you make of this idea that the the trump administration is saying the courts don't have a role here? >> well, they're wrong for sure. i mean, let me get sort of two areas here that are out of bounds. it is not a constitutional crisis for a new president to come in and issue a spate of executive orders, even if liberals hate those executive orders, that's not a constitutional crisis. also, not a constitutional crisis for scores of federal judges to block some or all of those. again, that's the way our system is supposed to work. i try to keep this phrase constitutional crisis behind heavy glass, and i only use it when the question, what happens next when we don't have an answer to that? we are not at that point yet. donald trump and his administration have gotten a whole slew of really bad rulings that they really hate, and they're making a lot of noises about defying them, but they have not done that yet. their next step, which they are doing, is appealing.

judges rarely talk that bluntly except in the landmark case: "marbury v.ta be yankin' my chain!" coughenour raged, "i've been on the bench for over four decades. i can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one." and he wondered where the white house lawyers were when the order was drafted, adding, it "boggled" his mind that a member of the bar would claim the order was constitutional. to be fair, your honor, some of trump's lawyers are members of a slightly different bar. over on capitol hill yesterday, speaker mike johnson announced that he will establish a new select subcommittee that will probe the january 6th capitol riot. the new subcommittee will be led by georgia representative barry loudermilk. also known as [loudly] milk! i'm surprised that republicans. [clapping] no, no, no. i'm surprised that republicans want to re-litigate january 6th because when it comes to trump's pardoning of the rioters, they've all been saing this. >> we're not looking backwards. we're looking forwards. >> i'm willing to look forward in

it was decided by the supreme court that the supreme court will make decisions in a case called marburys madison. so in all of this in the constitution we have congress and we have a president bring the president is in charge of the executive branch. or is he? congress appropriates funds but that power has limits. you believe it if you listen to the propaganda in their certain limits on congress' power to appropriate. the judiciary the power to run the federal government? and the various agencies, hr and all the rest? no it does not. it is called separation of powers congress has a lane, the judiciary has a lane. the executive has a lien for the executive branch. who is the executive branch? what is it? it's the president of the united states. he and his advice at present are the only people elected by the entire body politics through the electoral college. judges are unelected members of congress and the districts are from their states he is it. this executive branch belongs the president of the united states. really. we are being told today that he cannot act without congressional app

we have something called marbury versus madison, which the judge certainly knows, but since the courtsght to determine the constitutionality of laws and statutes. no one has said that the president can't go forward and say zero these things out. i think democrats -- very clumsy, i would agree, i don't know why have to sing, please stop singing if you are opposing what he is doing and just say you oppose it and these are the reasons we oppose it. i differ with democrat to oppose him because he is trying to reform it. i agree with them when they say he can't go backwards or retrospectively try to do this. finally, to mr. musk, i've got a lot of thoughts, we've got a couple more segments here. if we are going to find ways in which to balance the budget, let's look for some big items. denying nutrition programs for people in rural america, that is not big. trying to cancel or minimize alzheimer's and cancer research, come on, give me a break. and finally, where a blazer when you go into the white house and the oval office. i'm a big believer, i told john fetterman to put a suit on when you

. >> harold: do you want to hear me talk about marbury v madison again?h this segment. did i hurt your feelings? >> harold: i agree with the judge. this is what administrations do and they are going to sue, see what happens if they are going to win. >> jesse: agreeable harold. >> jesse: ahead, transgender activists are stealing sanctuary cities from the illegals. we will explain next. ♪ ♪ sheldon: restoration is more than walls. it's more than paint. it's more than cleaning. that's the thing we'll never forget. for belfor, it's your memories. it's your life's passion. it's your home. belfor, restoring more than property. i hear it all the time. people tell me they'd love to buy gold. but because it's gold, they think it must be complicated. it isn't. not with rosland capital. with rosland... the entire process from start to finish is built on one concept. one... keep...it...simple. rosland capital a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your

. >> harold: do you want to hear me talk about marbury v madison again?feelings? >> harold: i agree with the judge. this is what administrations do and they are going to sue, see what happens if they are going to win. >> jesse: agreeable harold. >> jesse: ahead, transgender activists are stealing sanctuary cities from the illegals. we will explain next. ♪ ♪ dear doctor k, i used to think i was never meant to be beautiful. i was teased because of my teeth. i didn't like the person looking back at me in the mirror. i never thought i could afford dental implants. you and your team work within my budget and helped me feel confident in the plan we made together. i love my new smile. thank you. congratulations. you have a beautiful soul, cynthia. finance the smile you want for as low as one forty eight a month per arch. schedule a free consultation. join thousands of advertisers who have built their businesses, reaching america's most influential audience. need creative? we can help. fox news media impact starts here. advertise with us today. i love my brand ne

. >> by the court in one of its foundational cases, marbury versus madison, we learned that in the first week of constitutional law at yale law school, where i also am a graduate, the power goes to the court to determine what the law is. the executive's function is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. so i would respectfully submit that vice president vance might forget some of his foundational constitutional law, at least in terms of what powers are accorded to each of two coordinate branches of government. honore. >> i do want to play the sound bite which we now have cued up. please. >> i disagree with it 100%. i think it's crazy. no judge should be. no judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision. it's a disgrace. >> we're seeing a lot of judges rule in a way that is not favorable at this point to the trump administration. but, ken, dozens of lawsuits for all kinds of different moves isn't stopping this administration. it's, at this point been effective in halting agencies to access the treasury department system, the big federal buyout offer, all of t

marbury v madison decided that hundreds of years ago. review what the president and what the administration, what the executive branch does. they can deem it unconstitutional. that's not a crisis. the crisis comes when the constitution simply has no answer. and that might be if an executive simply ignored a supreme court or any court order, which, by the way, has kind of happened in the past. >> and danny, just looking in history is such an important thing. i'm glad you do that all the time. it's what makes you unique and wonderful. >> why thank you jose. >> thanks, danny and garrett. hey, thank you as well. really appreciate it. senate, meanwhile, is voting to confirm tulsi gabbard to be the new director of national intelligence. i want to bring back vaughn hillyard. so, vaughn, it looks like the vote is going on. it's, you know, in these monitors, you just see the thing. it's just like so slow, but it's happening, right? >> the votes are open. and so every senator here at this point is coming down with either a thumbs up or a thumbs do

you know, going back to 1803, in the famous case of marbury versus madison, the supreme court said that it's the courts that ultimately decide that have the last word on what is constitutional and what not. it's not up to the executive. it's not up to congress. it's up to the courts. >> which is not what jd vance is. >> saying, which is exactly what he is not saying, which is saying that, you know, the the risk here is that the executive can just do do what he wants without regard to, to, to the constitution. and that is a situation we've never been in. i think you mentioned earlier, you know, when when the supreme court told richard nixon in 1974 to turn over the white house tapes, he didn't want to do it, but he did it because the supreme court told him to. the trump administration is appealing this order, which is certainly they have every right to do. but if the order stands and they defy it, we're in an area that we have literally never been in before. >> is there an enforcement mechanism in that case? >> you know, i'm going to give you a ringing answer of, i don't know, because, y

go back to the very early years of the republic, one of the most famous early supreme court cases, marburysus madison, was a question about the the appointments that john adams was making in the final days of his presidency. this whole notion of the spoils system to the victors, the spoils, comes from andrew jackson, one of president trump's presidential heroes, who, when he came into the white house, he sacked about 10% of the federal workforce, including hundreds and hundreds of post office officers, because they weren't democrats. so there is a long tradition of that. but the difference today is the federal government does so much more than it used to in the 19th century that its policy scope is so much broader. and so this isn't just a question of, you know, you know, who's running a particular post office in a particular county in kentucky. you know, this, this, this has implications for people's lives. people are depending both in the united states and around the world on these federal programs. and actually, i think there is a lot of damage that the president can do to these agencie

because in 1803, chief justice marshall said on marbury versus madison, the judge decides what the law means. so the judge is doing his or her job. a case is brought in, the judge doesn't bring the case. somebody brings the case to the judge. judge listens to both sides. judge makes judge makes a decision, follows the law as he or she sees it. so in no way do do i think they're causing a constitutional crisis or acting like a masquerading as a judge. >> you know, in fairness, i do think it's fully appropriate to criticize federal judges. i mean, the press secretary, like everyone else, has a first amendment right. the claim of judicial activism is something that is raised all the time against judges, against judges on both sides. so i don't think we should, you know, be too fastidious about saying, you know, the press secretary is challenging the the independence of the judiciary. not that you said that. you didn't. >> say that. i have no problem with that. but the question i was asked, are they causing a constitutional crisis? no, i don't think judges are causing a constitutional cris

. >> and this is further spelled out in marbury versus madison. the principle of separation of powers. and the point is that when a court says. this is the law. >> then all. >> of us, including the executive branch, are bound by it. but how is it enforced? if a federal court orders a private citizen or a company or a state entity to do something and they fail to do it, a contempt order is issued. in extreme cases, federal marshals, people with guns. will come out. they will show up to enforce the order. if the judge authorizes. >> it, they can. >> even put people in prison in. really dramatic instances. for example, in the 1950s in arkansas, federal troops were sent in to enforce court orders. but if it's the president, the problem is the federal marshals are part of the department of justice. they answer to pam bondi and federal troops and the national guard, if federalized, answer to the president, commander in chief. >> so the. >> executive branch. amazingly enough, is ultimately in charge of enforcing court orders. and it's everybody's favorit

. >> marbury versus. >> madison in the. founding era of. >> our country. >> it has been the. courts to. >> interpret the law. >> a president can do many, many things and. >> has great. >> powers, but. >> a. >> president cannot violate statutes or. >> the constitution. >> and so that's what these lawsuits are arguing. it isn't. >> so much what. >> donald trump wants to do, but how he is. >> doing it in. >> violation of constitutional rights and federal statutes. and that's where this comment becomes so concerning, because what jd vance said in that clip is that if the courts stop donald. >> trump. >> well, what are you going to do about it if we just do it anyway? of course, the answer is that a president who acts in violation of the law is subject to impeachment, but that relies on a congress that is willing to hold him accountable and to do their duty in that part of the separation of powers. >> ashley, you covered president trump in his first term. how much of a change is this when it comes to his attitude towards the courts? do you see the, you know, potential defiance her

that's been the rule in marbury versus madison.in 1803, the supreme court decided that it's actually judges who make the final decision in our in our country about whether something is constitutional or not. so that's the rule we are talking about here, that elon musk apparently either doesn't know about or doesn't like. and that's what's at stake in all of these controversies, which is who decides what's constitutional and what's lawful. and so far, quite a few district judges have decided that how the trump administration is proceeding is not lawful. now, those cases are going to be appealed. they will go up to the supreme court. but the principle that judges decide what's constitutional is a very important one. >> yeah. look, i would like to offer a high school u.s. history class. to my friend elon musk because i think it's extremely important. i mean, this is basic stuff about how our system works. but on the fox guarding the hen house aspect of this, of donald trump saying he is going to be the one to decide if elon has any co

marbury versus madison. established judicial review for the courts. and so unless you don't believe in checks and balances and the separation of powers, the courts have a role and they will decide what is and is not legitimate constitutionally. >> and earlier last week, as you say, a federal judge appointed by the republican president, ronald reagan, in another case to deal with the trump agenda, issued a national injunction over trump's efforts to overturn birthright citizenship because the judge said it was unconstitutional to begin with. and he added this it has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. the rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain. and with that in mind, i want you to listen to the republican congressman, jim jordan, arguing why president trump has every right to do what he's doing here. he is. >> this is a fundamental difference we have with the left. the left thinks, oh, it's the

of course under our constitutions, marbury v madison, the court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or what is not. my colleagues, my view of this is that the administration is showing maximum contempt for core constitutional values including most importantly the separation of powers. we have a dilemma here. there are many in this committee that are fully in support of the policies that president trump is pursuing. that is, of course, your and his right. but the unique responsibility each of us as a united states senator has is to guarantee that in pursuit of those policies, it is done within the constitutional boundaries. this is not tell a talk -- just a talk about civic aspiration, it is a recognition that the separation of powers, that the system of checks and balances, that the concept that ambition in the executive should be matched with ambition in the legislature has held this country together for 250 years. we have fierce debates about important public policy matters. but what allows us to resolve those despite disagreements, intense disagreements, is the pushing and shovin

of course, under our constitution, since marbury v. madison, the court is -- the court is the final arbiter of what is legitimate or what is not. in the executive branch -- the executive branch must enforce the laws, as interpreted by the coequal branch of government. mr. president, it is my view that this administration is showing maximum contempt for core constitutional values, including, most importantly, the separation of powers. this is not about what the president's agenda is. this is about his disregard about the limits that apply to each branch of government. and we have a dilemma. there are many in congress that are fully in support of president trump's policies. that's his right to pursue them, any member's right to support them. but it has to be that we accept our unique responsibility -- each of the 100 u.s. senators -- that we have to guarantee that in pursuit of those policies, it is done within constitutional boundaries. that is the glue that has held this country together for thick and thin for nearly 250 years. you kno

what the judiciary -- recognize the judiciary and what the judiciary has been allowed to do since marbury vs. madison. that president would mechanic, mr. speaker, in the only a person who is above the law, that president will become the law if we allow a president to defy court orders. so what must we do to prevent this? we can prevent a president from defying court orders with impeachment. impeachment in two senses of the word. two senses. one it can act as a deterrent. the other is, it can act as a means of removal. if a president defies a court order, we can remove him. but let's not go there just now. let's talk about deterrence. i learned from the last time i engaged in this impeachment process of the value of deterrence. the impeachment as a deterrent. and here's how it works. if a president believes that he will be impeached for defying a court order, because he will in effect become the lew of the land, will no longer be a land of -- where laws govern. but a land where a man governs or a woman governs, a person governs. and we are a land of laws. we want to remain such. so if a pr

. >> since marbury versus. >> madison in 1803. and if that is. >> where we are going. >> that is a.t will what i that's the sort of ultimate where the rubber meets the road. like what happens if we go there? i'm sort of scared to jump ahead of the story here, but since it's been alluded to, what are the guardrails? >> well. >> the guardrails are going to have to be from within the. republican party. i hear a lot of democrats in washington. i hear, what are you doing? >> what are you going to do? >> right. >> well, the reality is, you know, we have some measures that we can take. we have some strategies. >> there are some things we can do. but the republicans are in the majority. >> in the senate. >> and the house. >> they control what legislation is. >> on the floor. >> they control subpoena power. they control oversight and investigations. ultimately, if. our democracy is going to stand. >> up for and beyond donald trump, it. >> is going to have to come from within the. >> republican party. and people. >> are going to have to say that donald. trump is a. >> billionaire who is. >> e