The Constitution Stops Globalism Dead in Its Tracks

The real problem facing America has nothing to do with globalization or globalists. It has nothing to do with nationalism or internationalism. Our real problem is ideas in direct conflict with the Constitution: socialism, communism and progressivism. These misleading labels basically mean the same thing --- total and complete government control.

Many people are asking the wrong questions to resolve our problem.

"I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better? The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer?" Glenn said Thursday on radio.

The Constitution is the framework that outlines and defines what our government can and cannot do.

"The Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry, or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous. The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks," Glenn explained.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these equally insightful questions:

• How do we get beyond personalities and talk about the issues?

• Why did Lenin coin the term 'democratic socialist'?

• How is the Constitution like a combustion engine?

• What does 'Nature's Law' mean?

• Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution?

• How did the words in the Declaration of Independence help free slaves?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about -- we had a guy call us a few minutes ago. And he wanted to give me a lesson on the reason why the Republicans are great -- or I think he may have said Donald Trump. But we weren't talking about Donald Trump. We were talking about the left and right. Let's get beyond people. And he said, "Because they are now nationalists." And the real problem is globalization and globalists. No, that's not the real problem.

And there are a lot of people right now that are being convinced that the argument is between nationalism and internationalism or globalism.

And you can look at it that way. Two people that did look at it that way were Stalin and Hitler. He was a nationalist, and Stalin was an internationalist. They both believed in giant government state control. One said, "We're going to do this through the international community, and we're going to lead the international community and anybody who gets in our way, we're going to kill." And Hitler and Mussolini thought, "We're going to do this for the good of our own nation because our nation is so great. And we'll just do that. And it will spread to other nations. And we'll bring it to those other nations, whether they like it or not."

Nationalism and internationalism is not our problem. Our problem is socialism, communism, or progressivism. That is the idea that is in direct conflict with the other idea of the Constitution.

A lot of people who were progressives don't like the idea that -- that they would be labeled, along with socialists -- not so much anymore -- or communists. But socialism, if you know your history, your was only -- I'm sorry. Progressivism was only labeled that because they didn't agree with the one thing of -- of -- of communists. And that is, revolution.

Socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. And it lead to it.

If you don't believe me, read the words of Lenin before he got into office and they had the bloody revolution. He knew people were afraid of communists. And so he is the man, Lenin, that coined the term "democratic socialist." We're not communists. We're democratic socialists. The people will vote. And they'll vote for socialism. And they did.

And then they're free to say they're communists. Now, this is, again, all earlier 20th century. But you have to know the roots of it. And Theodore Roosevelt was a nationalist and a socialist. Believed in big government progressivism. Woodrow Wilson was even more. And he was an internationalist. League of Nations. United Nations.

I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better?

The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer? Because the Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous.

The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks. The Constitution is the reason we didn't have a set flag. We didn't -- listen to me, we didn't have a set flag, I believe until Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. It may have even been Wilson. You could arrange the stars any way you want. Why?

Because we won't so damn jingoistic. We believed in the concept of the flag, and it meant more than the flag itself. And it was Wilson, I believe, that went in and said, "No, we have to nationalize everything and federalize. And now here's exactly how you treat the flag." It was Wilson that gave us that, who gave us the -- the Star-Spangled Banner. FDR. We are defending these things as if they came from the Founders, when the Founders themselves didn't establish a national anything.

They respected everyone to rule themselves under the Constitution. Now, progressives will always say, "Well, the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Constitution." You need to understand that the Declaration of Independence has everything to do with the Constitution.

Without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution can be anything anyone wants.

For instance, let me give you an example because I know progressives hate the Declaration of Independence. They hate it. It has nothing to do with it.

It is something for that time and that time only. Why would they be against that? Why would they be against that?

Because the Declaration of Independence is what freed the slaves, not the Constitution. The Constitution gave the ability to free the slaves. But it was the Declaration of Independence that did free the slaves. Because the argument was -- in our own documents, it says, "All men are created equal."

That was the argument. So let me show you.

I want you to think about the Constitution. Because everybody says, "God's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere in the Constitution." Of course, it's not.

The Constitution is nothing more than an engine. You know our Constitution is the most reused Constitution in the world. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution has been used by more countries than any other document to establish governance in the history of the world.

But wait a minute. All the countries are not like America. How come?

Because the Constitution is the combustion engine. That's all it is. But I can make a truck, using that engine, and I can make a sports car using that engine.

What do you want the engine to do? Do you want it to just run some belts, to run a turbine, to put some lights on? Do you want to use it for an aircraft? Do you want to use it for a race car? Do you want to use it for a crane to help build buildings?

It is the framework. It is the principles, the framework that helps you do whatever it is you want to do.

The Bill of Rights, that's something separate. The Bill of Rights is something entirely different from the Constitution. What rights are in the Constitution? Well, actually none. They're found in the Bill of Rights, which is just as separate, came years -- in fact, I think it was Connecticut, wasn't it, or one of the states that wasn't until 1939 that they ratified the Bill of Rights.

It came years later. Separate, yet part of it. And without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't work.

Well, it works. It will create all kinds of stuff. But it won't create things with rights.

So let me take you back to the first document. Because the first document tells you what we're building. The Constitution tells you how to build it. The Declaration of Independence tells you what we're building.

There's seven things in just the opening two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence that tell you everything you need to know about America.

One: The opening -- can you read the opening line, when in the course of human events, Pat. It becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have tied themselves to another people.

PAT: That have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them.

GLENN: Okay. What does that mean? Separate, but equal station? They're going to assume -- what they're saying is, there comes a time -- if we're going to disband ourselves from a government, a king, somebody else that's ruling over us, we -- it's -- the only right thing to do is to state why. Why are we doing this?

We need to tell the world, and we need to really remind ourselves why we're doing this. And assume the separate, but equal stations.

So they're saying, "We're not better than the king of England." But he's not better than we are. It immediately establishes humility for our nation. We're not better than everyone else. Our Declaration of Independence says the separate, but equal station. Nobody is the boss of us. And we're not the boss of you.

But there's a more important thing that I haven't addressed in that line. And that is this: The separate, but equal station, which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them. We'll come back to that.

Then the next paragraph is -- this is why -- this is why we're breaking away from the king. Okay? Because -- listen. We think that things are pretty clear. Let me state it this way: We hold these truths to be self-evident. We think everybody knows this. But nobody has ever said it before, let alone write it down.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and I'm going to use the original word, property. Why would I use that? Because pursuit of happiness -- replace the word property -- because they felt if they put property in there, then the left -- or, I'm sorry -- then the South would say, "Well, it's in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to property, and slaves are our property."

And then we would have had the argument, are they property, or are they men? And that would have slowed everything down. So don't give them the tool of saying that they're property.

So they changed it to something enigmatic: The pursuit of happiness. Meaning, your right to go and be your own businessperson and do what you feel and follow your spirit and go paint a cloud.

Life, liberty, and property. Here's another important part: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. And that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to those ends -- which ends? Destructive of which ends?

It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Now, let me go back.

They have certain unalienable rights, meaning God gave them these rights, and nobody can change them. Unalienable or inalienable. Whichever word you choose to use is -- it means you cannot change them. No one can change them. They are universal. They are -- they are the laws of nature and nature's God.

What does nature and nature's God mean?

Let's use the Second Amendment. That's not a law of God. Where in the Bible does it say you have a right to have guns, you have a right to protect yourself?

I guess you could read it through that, but it's really clear in the laws of nature.

In fact, you could use the laws of God to say, "Well, maybe you don't because he says thou shall not murder, and you can use a gun to murder." So they want to be very specific.

The laws of nature. That's the first one. Can you find that right in nature? Yeah. Nobody is going to say to me, but they'll say it about humans all the time.

Nobody is going to say, if I walk into a cave with a bear and I just want to go hug the little baby bear and the bear mom kills me, nowhere -- nowhere in the press are they going to say, "Oh, my gosh, we should destroy that bear. That bear is evil. We should declaw all bears."

They'll say, "That stupid guy went into a cave, and the bear -- the mama bear thought he was threatening the children. Of course, she tore him apart." That's the Second Amendment. Nature's law gives you the right to self-protect and to protect your family and your home.

Featured Image: The exterior of the National Constitution Center displays the opening words of the United States Constitution. (Photo Credit: Jeffrey M. Vinocur)

Glenn Beck: Adam Schiff is a LIAR — and we have the proof

Image source: Glenn Beck Program on BlazeTV

On the radio program Wednesday, Glenn Beck didn't hold back when discussing the latest in a long list of lies issued by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during the Democrats' ongoing endeavor to remove President Donald Trump from office.

"I'm going to just come out and say, Adam Schiff is a liar. And he intentionally lied. And we have the proof. The media being his little lapdog, but I'll explain what's really going on, and call the man a liar to his face," Glenn asserted. "No, I'm not suggesting he's a liar. No, I'm telling you, he's a liar. ... Adam Schiff is a lying dirtbag."

A recent report in Politico claimed Schiff "mischaracterized" the content of a document sent to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as evidence against President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial. Read more on this here.

"Let me translate [for Politico]," Glenn said. "House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lied about a text message exchange between two players in the Ukrainian saga. And we know it, because of the documents that were obtained by Politico."

A few of the other lies on Schiff's list include his repeated false claims that there was "significant evidence of collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia leading up to the 2016 presidential election, his phony version of President Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine, and his retracted claim that neither he nor his committee ever had contact with the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower. And the list just keeps getting longer.

Watch the video below for more details:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed recent reports that former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, wasn't the only family member to capitalize on his connections to land an unbelievably lucrative job even though he lacked qualifications or experience.

According to Peter Schweizer's new book, "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite," Joe Biden's younger brother, Frank, enjoyed the benefit of $54 million in taxpayer loans during the Obama administration to try his hand at an international development venture.

A lawyer by training, Frank Biden teamed up with a developer named Craig Williamson to build a sprawling luxury resort in Costa Rica, which claimed to be on a mission to preserve the country's forests but actually resulted in the decimation of thousands of acres of wilderness.

The then-vice president's brother also reportedly earned hundreds of thousands of dollars as the front man of a for-profit charter school company called Mavericks in Education.

The charter schools, which focused on helping at-risk teens, eventually failed after allegations of mismanagement and a series of lawsuits derailed the dubious business venture.

Watch the video below to get Glenn's take on these latest revelations in the Biden family corruption saga:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Ryan: Bernie at the disco

Photo by Sean Ryan

Saturday at El Malecón, we waited for the Democratic socialist. He had the wild white hair like a monk and the thick glasses and the booming voice full of hacks and no niceties.

Photo by Sean Ryan

The venue had been redecorated since we visited a few nights before when we chatted with Castro. It didn't even feel like the same place. No bouncy castle this time.

Photo by Sean Ryan

A black curtain blocked the stage, giving the room a much-needed depth.

Behind the podium, two rows of mostly young people, all holding Bernie signs, all so diverse and picturesque and strategic.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Lots of empty seats. Poor showing of Bernie fans for a Saturday afternoon. At one point, someone from Bernie's staff offered us seats in the audience, as if eager to fill up those seats however possible.

There were about 75 people in the dancehall, a place built for reunions and weddings and all those other festivities. But for a few hours on Saturday, August 10, 2019, it turned serious and wild for "Unidos Con Bernie."

Photo by Sean Ryan

People had been murmuring about Sanders' speech from the night before at Wing Ding. By all appearances, he had developed a raving lust to overthrow Trump. He had even promised, with his wife just out of view, that, were he elected, he'd end white nationalism in America. For good.

El Malecón lacked its previous air of celebration. It had undertaken a brooding yet defiant spirit. Media were sparse. Four cameras faced the podium. Three photographers, one of whom had been at nearly all the same events as us. A few of the staffers frowned at an empty row of chairs, because there weren't that many chairs to begin with.

At the entrance, Bernie staff handed out headsets that translated English to Spanish or Spanish to English, depending on who the speaker was. The translators stood behind the bar, 20 feet from the podium, and spoke into a lip-ribbon microphone.

Bernie's staff was probably the coolest, by far. As in, they looked cool and acted stylishly. Jeans. Sandals. Careworn blazers. Tattoos. One lad had a black Levi's shirt with lush crimson roses even though he wasn't a cowboy or a ranch-hand. Mustaches. Quirky hats. A plain green sundress. Some of them wore glasses, big clunking frames.

Photo by Sean Ryan

The outfits were distinctly Bernie. As Bernie as the tie-dyed "BERNIE" shirts for sale outside the club. Or later, at the Hilton, like a Grateful Dead cassette stand.

Immigration was the theme, and everyone in the audience bore some proof of a journey. Because America offers life, freedom, and hope.

Sanders' own father emigrated from Poland to America at 17, a high school dropout who could barely speak English. As a Jew, he'd faced religious persecution.

Within one generation, Bernie Sanders' father contributed to the highest stratum of American society. In one generation, near hopelessness had transformed into Democracy, his son a congressman with a serious chance at the presidency.

Photo by Sean Ryan

That's the beauty of America. Come here broken and empty and gutted and voiceless. And, within your lifetime, you can mend yourself then become a pillar of society. Then, your son can become the President of the United States of America!

Four people gave speeches before Sanders. They took their time, excited and nervous. They putzed. Because how often do you get to introduce a presidential frontrunner?

All the native English speakers jammed their earpieces when the woman with the kind and dark energy took the stage.

Photo by Sean Ryan

She mumbled in Spanish and did not look up and said that, when her parents died, she couldn't go home for the funeral. She fought back tears. She swallowed hard to shock herself calm. And the room engulfed each silence between every word.

It felt more like a therapy session than a political rally. A grueling therapy session at that. Was that what drew people to Bernie Sanders, that deep anguish? That brisk hope? Or, rather, the cessation of it, through Sanders? And, of course, the resultant freedom? Was it what gave Sanders a saintlike ability to lead people into the realm of the confessional? Did he have enough strength to lead a revolution?

Photo by Sean Ryan

While other frontrunners hocked out money for appearances, like the studio lights, Sanders spent money on translators and ear-pieces. The impression I got was that he would gladly speak anywhere. To anyone. He had the transitory energy you can capture in the writings of Gandhi.

Photo by Sean Ryan

I'm not saying he's right or wrong — I will never make that claim, about any of the candidates, because that's not the point of this, not the point of journalism, amen — what I'm saying is he has the brutal energy of someone who can take the subway after a soiree or rant about life by a tractor or chuck it up with Sarah Silverman, surrounded wherever he goes.

Without the slightest fanfare, Sanders emerged from behind the black curtain. The woman at the podium gasped a little. The room suctioned forward when he entered. In part because he was so nonchalant. And, again. That magnetism to a room when a famous or powerful or charming person enters. Not many people have it. Not many can keep it. Even fewer know how to brace it, to cull it on demand. But several of the candidates did. One or two even had something greater.

Photo by Sean Ryan

I'll only say that Bernie had it with a bohemian fervor, like he was a monk stranded in a big city that he slowly brings to God.

"We have a President who, for the first time in my lifetime, who is a President who is a racist," he shouted. "Who is a xenophobe and anti-immigrant. Who is a sexist. Who is a religious bigot. And who, is a homophobe. And, what is very disappointing is that, when we have a President, we do not necessarily expect to agree with him, or her, on every issue. But we do believe that one of the obligations is to bring people to-geth-ah. As Americans."

Photo by Sean Ryan

After listening silently for several minutes, the audience clapped. Their sweet response felt cultish. But, then again, what doesn't feel cultish these days? So this was cultish like memes are cultish, in a striving-to-understand kind of way.

"The essence of our campaign is in fact to bring people together," he said. "Whether they're black, or white, or latino, or Native American, or Asian-American. We understand that we are Americans."

At times, this meant sharing a common humanity. Others, it had a slightly more disruptive feel. Which worked. Sometimes all we want is revolution. To be wild without recourse. To overthrow. To pass through the constraints of each day. To survive. The kind of rowdy stuff that makes for good poetry but destroys credit lines. Sanders radiated with this intensity, like a reclusive philosopher returning to society, from his cave to homes and beds and fences and maybe electricity.

Photo by Sean Ryan

But, as he says, his revolution would involve healthcare and wages and tuition, not beheadings and purges and starvation.

Seeing the Presidential candidates improvise was amazing. They did it constantly. They would turn any of their beliefs into a universal statement. And Sanders did this without trying. So he avoided doing the unbearably arrogant thing of pretending to speak like a native Guatemalan, and he looked at the group of people, and he mumbled in his cloudy accent:

"My Spanish — is not so good."

Photo by Sean Ryan

This is the same and the opposite of President Trump's Everyman way of speaking English like an American. Of speaking American.

Often, you know what Sanders will say next. You can feel it. And, anytime this happened, it brought comfort to the room.

Like, it surprised no one when he said that he would reinstate DACA on his first day in office. It still drew applause.

But other times, he expressed wild ideas with poetic clarity. And his conclusions arrived at unusual junctures. Not just in comparison to Republicans. To all of them. Bernie was the Tupac of the 2020 election. And, to him, President Trump was Suge Knight, the evil force behind it all.

"Donald Trump is an idiot," he shouted.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Everybody loved that. Everybody clapped and whooped and some even whistled like they were outside and not in a linoleum-floor dancehall.

"Go get 'em, Bernie," someone in the back shouted.

This was the only Sanders appearance with no protestors.

"Let me say this about the border," he shouted. And everybody listened to every thunking syllable. He probably could have spoken without a mic. Booming voice. Loud and clear. Huddling into that heavy Vermont slug accent.

They'll say many many things about Bernie. One being, you never had to lean forward to hear him. In person, even more so. He's less frail. More dynamic.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Despite the shoddiness of the venue, there was a sign language interpreter. Most of the rallies had a designated interpreter.

"If you work 40 hours a week you shouldn't be living in poverty," he shouted, provoking chants and applause from the audience, as if he were talking about them. Maybe he was.

An anecdote about the people at an emergency food shelf blended into the livable wage of $15 an hour. He shifted into his spiel about tuition-free college and pointed at the audience, "You're not doing well," then at the kids behind him, "they are." He craned his head sideways and back. "Do your homework," he told said.


Half of the kids looked like they hadn't eaten in days. Maybe it was their unusual situation, a few feet from Bernie Sanders at a stucco community center.

Before the room could settle, Sanders wove through a plan for how to cancel debt.

Did he have a solution?

Tax Wall Street, he shouted.

Photo by Sean Ryan

And he made it sound easy. "Uno dos trey," he said. "That's my Spanish for today."

A serious man, he shoved through his speech like a tank hurtling into dense jungle. He avoided many of the typical politician gimmicks. Proof that he did not practice every expression in front of a mirror. That he did not hide his accent. That he did not preen his hair. That he did not smile for a precise amount of time, depending on the audience. That he did not pretend to laugh.

Photo by Sean Ryan

He laughed when humor overtook him. But it was genuine. With none of the throaty recoil you hear in forced laughter.

"I want everyone to take a deep breath," he said. And a palpable lightness spread through the room, because a deep breath can solve a lot of problems.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Then he roused some more. "Healthcare is a human right," he shouted. "A human privilege," he shouted. He told them that he lives 50 miles from the Canadian border in Burlington, Vermont, and healthcare works better up north.

Each candidate had a bad word, and Sanders' was "corporate."

Photo by Sean Ryan

At every speech, he mentioned "corporate media" with the same distrust and unpleasantness that conservatives derive from the term "mainstream media." Another would be "fake news," as popularized by Sanders' sworn enemy. Either way it's the same media. Just different motivations that irk different people.

But the discrepancies varied. Meaning two opposing political movements disliked the same thing, but for opposite reasons.
It sounded odd, Sanders' accusation that the media were against him. The media love Bernie. I can confirm this both anecdotally and judiciously. Yes, okay, in 2016, the media appeared to have sided with Hillary Clinton. As a result, Sanders was publicly humiliated. Because Clinton took a mafioso approach to dealing with opponents, and Sanders was her only roadblock.

Imagine if a major political organization devoted part of each day to agitating your downfall. And then you fail. And who's fault is it?

Sanders wanted to know: those negative ads targeting him, who paid for them?

Photo by Sean Ryan

Corporations, of course. Corporations that hated radicals like him. And really was he so radical? He listed off the possibilities: Big pharma, insurance companies, oil companies.

Because he had become a revolutionary, to them. To many.

He said it with certainty, although he often didn't have to say it at all. This spirit of rebellion had become his brand. He would lead the wild Americans into a utopia.

But just as quickly, he would attack. Trump, as always, was the target.

He called Trump the worst president in American history.

"The fates are Yuge," he shouted.

The speech ended as informally as it had begun. And Sanders' trance over the audience evaporated, replaced by that suction energy. Everyone rushed closer and closer to the man as Neil Young's "Keep on Rockin in the Free World" blared. Sanders leaned into the podium and said, "If anyone wants to form a line, we can do some selfies."

Photo by Sean Ryan

It was like meeting Jesus for some of the people.

There he was, at El Malecón. No stage lights, no makeup, no stylist behind the curtain. Just him and his ideas and his erratic hand commotion.

Then a man holding a baby leaned in for a photo. He and Sanders chatted. And, I kid you not, the whole time the baby is staring at Bernie Sanders like he's the image of God, looking right up at him, with this glow, this understanding.

Bernie, if you're reading this, I'd like to suggest that — if this election doesn't work for you — you could be the next Pope.

New installments come Mondays and Thursdays. Check out my Twitter. Email me at

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Monday, Harvard Law professor and lawyer on President Donald Trump's impeachment defense team Alan Dershowitz explains the history of impeachment and its process, why the framers did not include abuse of power as criteria for a Constitutional impeachment, why the Democrats are framing their case the way they are, and what to look for in the upcoming Senate trial.

Dershowitz argued that "abuse of power" -- one of two articles of impeachment against Trump approved by House Democrats last month -- is not an impeachable act.

"There are two articles of impeachment. The second is 'obstruction of Congress.' That's just a false accusation," said Dershowitz. "But they also charge him, in the Ukraine matter, with abuse of power. But abuse of power was discussed by the framers (of the U.S. Constitution) ... the framers refused to include abuse of power because it was too broad, too open-ended.

"In the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution, it would lead presidents to serve at the will of Congress. And that's exactly what the framers didn't want, which is why they were very specific and said a president can be impeached only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," he added.

"What's alleged against President Trump is not criminal," added Dershowitz. "If they had criminal issues to allege, you can be sure they would have done it. If they could establish bribery or treason, they would have done it already. But they didn't do it. They instead used this concept of abuse of power, which is so broad and general ... any president could be charged with it."

Watch the video below to hear more details:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.