Phil Labonte

Because because you're so you're saying, oh, well, they could do this.

Yeah, but we've changed.

But then but then when you go, the way that it works, though, is you're assumed to be free to be able to do what you want.

The original intent doesn't specify anything.

So you have to go to the Supreme Court and say, hey, this is this is actually a violation of the court.

Was it brought before the Supreme Court and then they reversed it?

Or were you just saying that those laws were passed?

Because the way that it works is you're assumed to be free.

Yeah, but the point that I'm making is

So you're assumed to be free and do whatever you want.

Things that are in the Constitution are specifically protected.

You're assumed to be free by the Ninth Amendment.

And then states will go ahead and pass laws and they'll try to infringe on your rights.

And then if you go and you petition the government, you say, look, this is actually protected.

Then the Supreme Court will say, OK, actually, yes or no, that I'm not following.

But if you do want – but if you have a law, if there's a law that you believe infringes on your rights or you believe that is in conflict with the Constitution, you petition the government, you go to the courts.

I agree.

It's not about arguing to the liberals.

You don't know Baba Vanga?

I do not know Baba Vanga.