Sen. Mike Lee: Progressives are completely circumventing the Constitution

April 07, 2015

Writer

There are days where you wake with just a mild irritation with the news out of Washington, and then there are days where you have “blood shooting out of my eyes” pain over what is happening on Capitol Hill. Have our elected officials completely lost their way? Thankfully, there are still a few out there looking out for the people who elected them. Sen. Mike Lee is one of the good guys. He’s managed to hold onto his soul, and on radio this morning Sen. Lee explained the ways in which the Obama administration and the progressives are disregarding the Constitution in order to push their agenda.

Related: Purchase Mike Lee's new book Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Tons to cover today. I want to start right out of the chute with a guy I really respect. A guy who I honestly said the other take, if there was ever a problem in the world and I couldn't go on, I would feel so comfortable with this man, I would leave him my children. And, in fact, I would like to leave him my children now, just in case. Mike Lee is here. Senator from Washington, DC. Hello, Mike.

MIKE: Hello, Glenn. It's good to be with you. And I suppose I would like to get to know your kids if you're going to --

GLENN: No. It's an emergency, Mike. There's no time. Just take my children. I can't go on.

MIKE: My wife Sharon is here with me, and she's saying, yes, absolutely.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Sharon, I'll deliver them in a box by the end of the show. So, Mike be with I have your new book "Our Lost Constitution". Where is it hiding? Where did it go? Who stole it?

MIKE: Well, you know, it's hiding in plain sight. And I'm not sure there's any one person who has caused it to be hidden, but this is the net result of the American people not reading it, not being aware of its provisions. Not being aware of the stories behind its most important features, and not understanding its most important function is to limit the power of government, both along the horizontal axis, to make sure nobody within the federal government gets too much power, and along the vertical axis, making sure that the federal government itself has powers that Madison described as few and defined, and that most of the powers would remain with the states.

GLENN: But we're here at a time where -- the founders never saw this coming. They never saw a time when people in Congress would gladly give their power up. You guys aren't even defending it.

MIKE: Yes. I think that's an important feature. This is something I discuss in the book. One of the things that they may not have ever expected was that members of Congress wouldn't defend their own power. Rather than increase their own power by making sure that they and only they would write the law, they would delegate it to someone else to make it easier to stay in office.

I explain in my book. It just makes it easier to stay in office forever by delegating the power. They pass a law that says basically, we shall have good laws regarding X. And then they'll say, we hereby delegate that power to make good laws to Agency Y to make sure we have good laws in the area of X. And then it's done. We don't see anything else.

GLENN: Then they can blame it on the EPA or they can say, we'll get down to the bottom of this. And they never do. But there's other things. For instance, you talk about the clause in the Constitution. All bills that raise taxes have to originate in the House. But Obamacare didn't originate in the House, and it didn't matter.

MIKE: That's right. It didn't matter at the end of the day. Because even though the origination clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, members of Congress have found ways to circumvent that. The law we now call Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it essentially originated in the Senate. That's where the language from this bill first got put into it. This shell, if you will, that started in the House of Representatives. But the real language came in from the Senate. It should never have happened that way. But members of Congress chose to circumvent this. And I don't think the law would have ever passed. It certainly would have had a much more difficult time passing, had it really started in the House of Representatives where it was supposed to start.

PAT: Mike, we go through kind of waves here of absolute despair and then hopefulness and then absolute despair again.

GLENN: I say absolute despair and suicidal thoughts back to absolute despair.

STU: But occasional normal despair.

GLENN: You're right. Occasional profound sadness.

PAT: Last week was absolute despair when I heard Josh Earnest answer a question from I think Shannon Bream from Fox News. She asked him, hey, with this executive order, President Obama is planning on climate change, isn't that something that should go through Congress? And Josh Earnest said, look, these are people that don't even believe that man caused global warming is really a thing. So we can't really give them the opportunity to have any impact on this. To me, that was one of the most outrageous things ever spoken by an administration official, that just because Congress disagrees with you on an issue, you don't have to go through Congress and abide by the Constitution and our system of government.

GLENN: And we didn't hear a peep from Congress.

PAT: Nothing. So how do we fix that?

GLENN: Bring us to a level to where we're just profoundly sad.

MIKE: Okay. I like that standard.

[laughter]

I think I can match that.

GLENN: All right.

MIKE: So here's the thing. What they're saying is that we can't trust -- we can't trust the unwashed masses to choose representatives who will do the right thing. Therefore, we the all powerful, all knowing administration will have to take matters into our own hands and either ignore or outright contravene the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. That's exactly what they're saying. And that, by the way, is exactly the rationale used by kings over the course of centuries and millennia, to ignore the people and to impose their own will on that of the people.

PAT: Because they know better.

MIKE: This is what despots do. And we have to call this for what it is, which is a form of despotism. It may be despotism with a smiley face on it, but it's despotism nonetheless. And we have to call it as such, we have to resist it, and we have to neutralize it by invoking the Constitution every single time it arises.

GLENN: My uncle Leo is from Italy. And he came before the Second World War. He saw the war was breaking out. And the family decided, we don't know how this will end up. So we'll send Leo who was born in the United States -- and, you know, on a trip and went back to Italy. He came to the United States, and he served honorably in our military. But he was not a guy who was against Mussolini. I said to him one time at dinner, I said, you know, what was it like with Mussolini? And he said, Mussolini was a good man. I said, Uncle Leo, that's inside voice. You should leave that as your inside voice. And he said, the country was falling apart and Mussolini got things done. He wasn't talking about the later Mussolini. He was talking about getting things done. And I honestly think that the American people are to a point where everything is just so screwed up. They'll get to this place where they're going to be like, somebody has got to do something. And that's when they welcome a despot.

MIKE: That's exactly right. And if all you want in a government, if all you expect out of your government is something -- someone to get something done, then you'll end up with a form of despotism. But if instead what you want is a government that works for you, is responsive to you and to your fellow citizens, then you want to follow the Constitution. And that's why I wrote my book. That's why my book really outlines what we can to do restore our lost constitution and protect ourselves against this accumulation of power in the hands of the few, that leads ultimately to a form of despotism. You have to understand the text, the language in the Constitution, and just as importantly, the stories behind it. And that's what I do in this book.

GLENN: All right. Let me play some audio here from Patrick Kennedy and get your thoughts on it.

PATRICK: My dad was always an optimist. I mean, having overcome so many of his personal challenges and political challenges, I mean, this was a guy that everyone loved. Why?

PAT: Not everyone.

PATRICK: Because he persevered. And what does the Senate need to do, but persevere and become the place that my dad wanted always for it to be, and that's a place where major conflicts were resolved for the national interests. Not for either party's interest, but for the national interest.

VOICE: What is it that current senators now should learn from your dad about how you it is you can work across the aisle?

PATRICK: Well, I think the personal etiquette of trying to make an effort to understand what's going on in the other person's life, personally, because you're working with them.

VOICE: Because that's how he did it. He forged these personal bonds. Him and Orrin Hatch. You know, Orrin Hatch got elected probably bashing your dad.

VOICE: He says it. He came from Washington to counteract my dad's vote. Orrin Hatch did. Ended up cutting every deal in the world because he knew it was going to pass if Ted Kennedy signed off on it and he was sponsor of it, then, boom, everyone else would say, well, jeez, if Warren and Ted are for it, then bang. What a revolutionary concept.

GLENN: Yeah, truly what a revolutionary concept. I won't ask you to comment on Orrin Hatch, but just this idea that you go and you cut every deal --

PAT: With who should be your sworn ideological enemy. Someone who is diametrically supposedly opposed to everything you stand for and believe in and you ran against him in your initial campaign for the Senate, and then you work with him on every single bill.

GLENN: How do we as people balance this, Mike? Because there are things that I will work together, across the aisle, even across ideology in some regard, if we happen to agree on one thing, I'll go ahead and say I agree with this one thing and this one thing only. But that's not what happens in Washington.

MIKE: No. It's not. And, you know, I listened to this quote, this recording from Mr. Kennedy. And he's talking about something. But in one sense, it's already happening. He's referring to it as if never happened. He's referring to it as if Democrats and Republicans never come together and never learn about each other's life stories and interests and passions. Never try to resolve something under mutually agreeable terms. This happens all the time. Every single day.

GLENN: That's the problem.

MIKE: You won't agree on every single issue with your ideological opposite. So, look, I run bills all the time. And I refer to these in my book. Bills that I've run with guys like Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin, who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum for me. But sometimes we agree, and when we do, we can get something done. But that's very different than saying we have to agree at the outset to agree, regardless of the issue, because sometimes we don't agree. And when you try to say that we'll come to an agreement on this issue, no matter what, whether it's in a situation like with this Iran deal, where we say we'll get an agreement with Iran or whether you're talking about something within the United States Senate. That's where bad legislation comes from.

GLENN: Go ahead.

MIKE: Something done, regardless of what that something is.

GLENN: Let's talk about two things. We're talking to senator Mike Lee. His new book "Our Lost Constitution". Let's talk about two things. The president is saying, let's get something done with Iran. And going around Congress as well and cutting what everyone believes now, at least our allies believe -- even France says, is not a good deal. Will Congress just allow this to happen?

MIKE: No. No. I don't think so. And, first of all, we don't know, what, if anything, is going to come out of this. First of all, we're being told all of a sudden, oh, a deal is just around the corner. It doesn't materialize. Then they announce something. What they're announcing instead is a framework rather than a deal itself. It's not clear they will come out with any deal at all. I think they're using the worst negotiation tactic possible which is saying we want a deal. Suggesting almost that a bad deal is almost better than no deal at all, which is usually a guarantee that you'll get the worst deal possible.

But, no, I don't think you'll just have Congress just capitulating to it, no matter what. Assuming they do get some kind of an agreement, I think you'll have a heavy weigh-in by Congress. If what the president ends up negotiating is tantamount to a treaty, it would of course be subject to the treaty ratification provisions of the Constitution, which would require a two-thirds super majority vote in the Senate. It's also possible that both houses of Congress could weigh in on one side or another of this deal. But it's hard to predict exactly what the response will be before we even know what the deal is or whether we'll have one at all.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep