Judging Freedom - Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) : Congress and Free Speech

Episode Date: May 2, 2024

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) : Congress and Free SpeechSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, May 2nd, 2024. Congressman Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona, joins us now. Congressman Biggs, welcome here. It's always a pleasure, my dear friend. You're welcome. For those of you who may not be familiar with Congressman Biggs, he is part of a small, regrettably small group of members of the House of Representatives that believes that the Constitution means what it says when it comes to limited government, balanced budgets, maximum individual liberty and restraint on the government. Unfortunately, the rest of Congress doesn't seem to agree with you. Congressman Viggs, does the House of Representatives believe that it can abridge,

tamper with, or chill the freedom of speech? They certainly must because they give lip service to the Constitution, but they forget what it says in the Constitution. Judge, just how this whole thing sprang up on us pretty quickly is pretty amazing. I just have to share with you one thing. I was having a meeting with several members yesterday, not about what you and I are going to be talking about, but I think it's indicative to answering the question you have. Sure. I said to them, their proposal was for some action on the part of Congress and the federal government. And I said, well, can you give me the Article 1, Section 8 authority for us to act in that

way? And Judge, it was total stone cold silence because there was no article on Section 8 authority for us to go forward with that. And actually, to clarify, I believe I was in a committee hearing when I asked that question and nobody, none of the panelists, none of my colleagues, none of them could answer that question because what the idea of what they wanted to accomplish had nothing, it was so far outside the constitutional boundaries that none of them could justify it with the constitution. So that the viewers know, article one is the article in the constitution that creates the legislative branch of the

federal government, otherwise known as the Congress. Section 8 lists the 17 unique, discrete, they're actually 16, but the 17th is sort of a catch-all that allows them to legislate in support of the first 16 unique, discrete powers given to Congress and thus to the federal government. These are the only areas of governmental behavior and human behavior over which the Congress can legislate. So when Congressman Biggs, maybe you and Tom Massey are the only ones who ask this question, where does this authority come from? And they can't answer. It's very telling. But in addition to the narrowness of those 16 authorities, there are the prohibitions in other parts of the Constitution, the most fundamental of which is in the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. How do they square that with what they did yesterday? And maybe first give us a background with what happened yesterday. So the summary of this bill, they're calling it an anti-Semitism bill. It's written poorly. It's

a piece of legislation that actually tries to define anti-Semitism, and it actually just refers to, believe it or not, to a website of an international club that defined anti-Semitism. But what they're doing is they're attacking, Judge, in there, your ability to speak. And quite frankly, if you speak in favor of the regime, any regime, authoritarian regime, they're going to recognize that you have the right to say that. But when you speak against a regime, or you say unpopular speech, that's when Article I, excuse me, the First Amendment actually steps in and actually begins to protect that fundamental right to speech, which we believe is God-given and inherent, right? So they were trying to constrain this, and they brought this up, obviously, because

of the things that are happening in our country and around the world. But it was pernicious, and I could go into the process where we actually met with the speaker and encouraged him to change it. And he because he was a constitutional lawyer and he brought cases to defend free speech. And he knew that this would be an expansion. And we discussed that with him. And he said he would he was we were supportive. He offered to make some changes. And then in the end, he didn't make those changes, Judge, obviously. And so this ended up going to the floor. And I mean, we could talk about this bill. I mean, one of the worst, most pernicious parts of it is, is that they're going to adjudicate whether you are anti-Semitic based on the perception, the perception that someone gets

from an overt act or speech that is given. It isn't really whether somebody actually is anti-Semitic. I mean, we're not anti-Semitic. We don't support anti-Semitism because that's the other part of the First Amendment is the exercise of religion, right? So Congress is not supposed to establish religion. But the bottom line is, they were not even trying to adjudicate between these. And quite frankly, this bill actually had no business being brought forward. I mean, because it was so antithetical to the Constitution. But I mean, some of the things that we could talk about within that bill, just absolutely so far outside the bounds of American traditions and norms.

Does it stand a chance in the Senate of becoming law? Well, I was just talking. We're trying to get some of our Senate friends to put a hold on it and slow it down. And they are. Some of them are going to work to put a hold on it and slow it down. They recognize it as bad. But the question is, can you get 40 people to say no to this? And I simply don't know. My guess is- What happens if someone says something, if this thing becomes law, and in my opinion, it's a chilling of free speech because it makes you think twice before you say

something for fear that you might commit a federal offense. But this is not a criminal statute. Is it? What would happen if someone said something that was perceived as anti-Semitic? What are the consequences? In this particular bill, the consequences, their defense is they claim it's narrow because this applies to the Department of Education. But it would mean, let's say that you're Grand Canyon University, and you have something on there that's related to it, they could actually fine you and actually perhaps shut down your ability to continue on because already the IRS is, excuse me, the Department of Education is going after the Grand Canyon University. And so it actually is going to have this chilling effect

and make a rather one-sided impact using the Department of Education under Title VI. And so that's where they're aiming this right now. Why is the Congress interested in cleansing the marketplace of ideas with words and ideas that a majority of the Congress, with which a majority of the Congress disagrees? It's a political calculus, Judge. I work in a political place. It's very political. These people, they look at it and they say, well, what's happening on the university campuses? So you've gone from, you know, free speech protests to taking over buildings and and and in some cases some violence has taken place and this for whatever reason in an becomes an election year type thing for them is all I can that's all I can surmise I'm just I'm just guessing with that because the the people that I talked to on the floor yesterday, they understood my position,

they understood our position, but they went ahead with their own personal calculus and voted for this in spite of that. So suppose I were a member of Congress from New Jersey, an unlikely probability, but suppose I were were my voting record would be nearly identical to yours and Thomas Massey's. And I said on the floor of the House, from the river to the sea, people shall be free. Do I get in trouble for that? If this passes, well, if you say it on the floor of the House, you do have the speech and debate clause. Okay, so I say it outside the Capitol building. You're right.

I would have the speech and debate clause. They would want to get me in trouble, but the speech and debate clause would protect me. But suppose I said it in New Jersey at a Republican political rally. From the river to the sea, all people shall be free. Yeah. They, you would perhaps run it. They would try to get you under this. They could try to get you under this judge, this, this provision. I, because you are, you, as a member of Congress, I tell you where I think that they'd really hone in on you. We, because we see this constantly, they would file an ethics complaint against you. That's what they would do. And they would try to bankrupt you and take away all your campaign donations because you'd have to

defend that ethics complaint. So that's one way they get at you. The other way is, let's say that you were a university or a high school or some other place that's receiving some kind of federal dollars, they would take those dollars away. Wow. That's what they'd try to do. Suppose I run a Catholic university. Well, I'm a graduate of one of the largest and oldest Catholic universities in the country,

the University of Notre Dame. And suppose the theology department teaches that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and is the fulfillment of the Old Testament and that those who reject it are wrong and those who accept it can be saved. That's traditional Catholic teaching. Does that run afoul of this legislation? It does. It does, Judge. And in fact, one of the most pernicious things about this is the guy who actually created these definitions just about a month ago or so had an article in the New Yorker magazine where he did not ever intend for his definition, which is from something called the International Holocaust Remembrance Association,

I think is the name of it. He said it was meant to be discussion only. It was to become law. But now you're taking what was meant to be a discussion document, you're turning it into law. And in there, you have the definitions, but you also have examples of what he believes might or might not be considered anti-Semitism. And one of them is, if you were to say, well, the Jews crucified

Jesus, and that's kind of along the lines of what you just said, they said that would be anti-Semitic. So the reason that we say this is so potentially chilling is that there are a lot of people that believe certain things, and we've not really found a way around the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a sticky amendment. It applies, you know, and we found ways to get around it. Like if it's a moral hazard, like shouting fire in the theater, crowded theater, they said that's not First Amendment protected. We even I could even say defamation, libel, slander laws, those are not protected speech, right? But this goes beyond all of those more narrowly constructed exceptions to the First Amendment right than we've seen, you know, attempted in a long time. And that's part of the problem with this. Your battles for the Constitution have been

gallant in the past couple of weeks, but the Constitution has suffered some terrific setbacks. You orchestrated the efforts to require the FBI and other law enforcement to have a search warrant before they can obtain data that has been acquired warrantlessly by the American intelligence community. You would think that that would be pretty basic because that's what the Fourth Amendment says. That vote was a 212 to 212 tie. Speaker Johnson broke the tie against it. You obviously voted against the extension of FISA, which is far more pernicious than the original FISA before they even added this spying on Americans without search warrants. You voted against the provision that allowed the legislation to come to the floor, known

as the rule, for the legislation to come to the floor, known as the rule, for the latest wasteful spending. You voted against the $61 billion to Ukraine. You voted against the $21 billion to Israel. You voted against the $5 billion to Taiwan. Do you take this in stride, or do you feel like you're banging your head against a wall? Oh, Judge, well, I'm looking and you can see the dark circles under my eyes. I should have put makeup on, but the reality is it's tough. I mean, it's tough. We are facing, these are the Republicans, the people that I normally would say they're with us, right? And they haven't been with us on anything that you just talked about.

So when you start talking about things like the First Amendment, an attack on the First Amendment, is there any reason that you brought it up in this way, in this time, other than a political reason. And there's no calculus other than a political calculus. How about the spending bills? I actually was talking earlier today to someone, there's a candidate who's claiming that they're fiscally responsible and fiscally concerned, and yet they continue to vote for these massive spending bills. You know what the number one threat to our nation, well, there's a lot of threats right now, but we're going to go bankrupt. I mean, the two things that you see take down great powers is a loss of geographical integrity and a loss of currency

integrity. Well, we're there. We're there on those. And then you throw in all the other attacks on the on the Constitution, which is designed to protect not not the government, not it's designed to protect the people who are to become the government. They're they're the ones who are supposed to instruct. They're the ones give them right to free speech. We not give them is to recognize that that's a God given inherent right, right to assemble, right, right to worship, right to hold a weapon. You know, these things and they're all under attack. Everyone. Yes. There was a time when Republicans resisted this. I don't know what the Republican Party stands for at all. We'll get to Speaker Johnson in a minute. I have to ask sort of a personal question. You have received campaign contributions from AIPAC. Will you suffer now because of your vote against the aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel? I believe so, yes. Let me just tell you, before I took the vote on the aid, I had a donor who's a friend, and he's a donor. He called, and he was bent out of shape. And so

we do, we all face that. I mean, this is the reality. We face that. This is a money business. This is a money town. This is a company town. This is a cartel in Washington, D.C. And when you step outside of the cartel and you try and, which is, by the way, that's what largely with the Freedom Caucus, it's largely what Thomas wants to do. So many of us step outside of that cartel to try to restore what we think are the proper bounds of government, which is the Constitution. You suffer a price. We've got people who joined me who are now facing people that have been promised $3 million to run campaigns against them.

I've seen the ad buys that have come out against some of my colleagues who have taken these stands with me. Does the Jewish lobby control Congress? No, I don't. You know who I think controls Congress? I think the Big Pharma lobby controls Congress, if you want the truth, Judge. Big Pharma is really the biggest lobbyist in this town. I'm going to play a clip.

This will bring back memories. It's President Nixon, shortly after he left office, talking about what he believed is the proper relationship between Israel and the United States. Let me explain something about what is called the Jewish lobby in this country. In the first place, Jews, understandably in the United States, because of what happened in World War II, because of the Holocaust, are going to put first priority on the survival of Israel. Now, as good Americans as they are, they believe that America's survival and security is directly related to Israel's. In other words, their belief is that being for Israel first means that that does not mean you're putting America second because they think it goes together.

An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way, in my opinion. He's got always to think first of what is best for America. And that's true whether it has to do with the Israelis or whether it has to do with the Irish or the Germans or what have you or the Poles, etc. Usually what is best for America is also best for Israel and vice versa. But on occasions, for example, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check. And one example of that is a decision that I made.

I decided early on in our administration that we were going to seek good relations with Egypt and others of Israel's neighbors. Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they wanted a special relationship with Israel and Israel only. But I have always said that Israel's interests are better served to have the United States a said that Israel's interests are better served to have the United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies than to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill. Does Joe Biden and does the majority of both houses of Congress give Israel a blank check? I don't know. I don't know, Judge. I think that they get concerned about that. When I listen to Richard Nixon, I always remember his China policy. Okay, so that's where I defaulted

first when you put that up. Oh, yeah, because that's part of the reason we have the difficulties with China that we have. I don't think they give to give Israel a blank check, but they want to be supportive of Israel. I mean, and I think Nixon was probably Trump encouraged the the the the accords of Abraham accords that were put in place, which actually were good for the US, but they were good for the Israel as well. And why is that? Because they created stability in the region, which allowed us to continue to see that stability, which benefits us as well. But I mean, if you are an American president, if you're an American leader, America has to come first. And our allies are benefited when you have a strong America that is that way. Right now, I don't know what the policy is of Joe Biden, to be frank with you. I mean, so you asked me, is that their policy? I have no idea what his

foreign policy is. To me, it's been one of the most mishmashy type of foreign policy. The money that you just voted against, that combined package, it's somewhere in the 90 billions. That's not sitting around in the treasury. They had to go out and borrow that, right? Exactly right. They're borrowing. And that's part and parcel of the whole thing as well. Everything that we spend that's not in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is borrowed. So when you say, well, let's give Israel $20 billion. Let's give Hamas nine of that $25 billion. So let's fund both sides there. How crazy is that?

We're borrowing that money. We're borrowing that money. And it's going to lead to default on our debts. And if we default on our debts, that will create an international vacuum, and America will fail. And if you don't have a strong America that recognizes constitutional rights and freedoms, if you don't have that city, that lamp, that light on the hill, it will be dark, as Ronald Reagan used to prophesy, for you may not ever get it back if we lose that light on the hill. Congressman Nibbigs, thank you very much. Thanks for your time and thanks for your candor. But

most importantly, from me and from the many thousands watching you, thank you for continuing to defend the Constitution as lonely. And I know some of your colleagues are friends of mine also, but as lonely as that fight may be, thank you for waging it. Oh, last question. Will Mike Johnson be removed as Speaker? I knew you were going to ask that. Everybody's asking me that

these days. I don't know. To be frank with you, I'm going to be perfectly candid with you and your audience. There's probably nobody who's more disgusted and dissatisfied. Let's put it that way. I am totally dissatisfied with what I've seen. The performance has been very poor. But frankly, if it's not Mike Johnson, who is it? And does it get any better or does it get worse? And I can tell you, there are people who would try to step in there as bad as this has been. And it has been horrible. I know there are people within my own party who would be even worse, Judge. Well, I'm not a fan of Kevin McCarthy, but I don't think he was this bad. Johnson, to me, is utterly naive.

The things he said on Columbia University to make things worse, the things he said on CNN were myths about what was happening. It's just not right. But, Congressman, thank you very much. Thanks for coming on the show. Thanks for what you do. We'll have you again soon. Yeah, thanks, Judge. Take care. Of course. Coming up at 3.15 this afternoon to talk about all of this, Professor John Mearsheimer, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.