RADIOJune 05, 2025

Alan Dershowitz WARNS the Supreme Court may CHANGE free speech

As chaos grows in America, will the Supreme Court soon put “security” over free speech? Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz joins Glenn Beck to explain why he’s concerned and debate the solution. Plus, as a Harvard Law School professor emeritus, Dershowitz explains why he approves of President Trump’s crackdown on Harvard’s government funding.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome, Alan Dershowitz. How are you, sir?

ALAN: I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm good. So did I get this right?

You're talking about now, that the Supreme Court might start leaning towards security over free speech in the coming years.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, never -- it does. I pride myself on never making predictions based on what I want to happen.

That's what -- that's what others on the left do. And that's why they're always wrong. I make predictions based on my analysis of trends.

This is not a trend I approve of. But it's a trend I see coming.

GLENN: Right.

ALAN: I see it coming in the area of defamation. I see it coming in the area of incitement.

I think the Brandenburg decision was written.

During a time of relative calm. And we weren't seeing the incitements of violence that we saw, that probably led to the burning of Jews. In Boulder Colorado. And the shooting of these two innocent people in Washington, DC.

And the kinds of things.

Look, I -- I have a lot of --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Yeah. You just said, and I find this amazing.

You said -- you just said, it happened in a time of relative calm. It was 1969 that this case came down in the Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken.

Which is not really a calm year.

But can you explain what the Brandenburg case is, or was?

ALAN: Sure.

Brandenburg was a Nazi, who was making horrible, horrible speeches. But he wasn't inciting anybody directly. And the Nazis in those days had no influence, and no power. They weren't getting people to do things.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: The people that were creating problems that were during the Vietnam War.

The people on the left.

I represented a lot of them. And I represented people who disrupted the Democratic convention in 1968.

The Chicago -- other people like that. And I saw with my own eyes. That some of these people who started as disrupters, and violent confrontationists. And people pushing and shoving.

And, you know, breaking property and stuff like that. Ultimately, became murderers, like Captain Houdini, who ended up being responsible for the killing of two policemen. Or the weatherman, who planted bombs, and killed people. And then their leaders became, you know, prominent spokesmen of the left. Professors at various places.

So I saw that, and what I was seeing now, is a different kind of quantity.

What we're seeing, with the globalize the intifada. And Palestine will be free from the river to the sea. Those are calls for violence.

The Brandenburg case, they're protecting speech. I think they should still be protected speech.

But my view, my prediction is that when the next case comes to the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court, I think they may take a more security-oriented point of view, and say, wait a minute.

The incitement does not have to be so direct, it could be a little bit more direct.

And let the jury decide that issue. So I'm concerned about that. In my book, the preventive state. I have a whole chapter on free speech. And how free speech can sometimes cause violence.

And, but that it's not proper to deny free speech, in order to prevent.

We have to pick better ways of preventing violence. And in the preventative state, we come up with better ways than constraining free speech.

GLENN: Because I -- I really, I'm really with you on this. This really disturbs me.

When I read this article from you yesterday. This story from you yesterday, I needed to talk to you. This is horrible. This goes beyond cancel culture.

This is now the government, being able to come in and say, nope!

Right, that's really bad.

ALAN: Yeah. Look, there are so many mechanisms we use that have an effect on free speech. Even deportation.

Deportation obviously denies the deported person, the right to speak freely in this country.

Now, of course, under the Constitution, a citizen has the most free speech rights. A green card holder, the second most -- visa holders, almost no free speech rights. They can be deported, if they say things that are contrary to the interests of the United States. They're just guests in our country.

And so, you know, I think we're going to see a lot -- lots of movement in this area, because we're going to see a lot more violence. Let me tell you what happened to me.

The take before the killings in the District of Columbia. One Christian boy and Jewish women who were killed, working for the embassy. The day after that, I was getting an honorary degree in college at Florida. The security people in college came up to me. We're terrified. It might be a copycat attempt to kill you.

Because you're a prominent spokesman for pro-Israel points of view. And so they created a whole security thing around me, where they created an escape plan.

They have policeman, with machine guns. And with bullet-proof glass. To protect me.

And I have redoubled my security. And I think we're going to see more copycat crimes. I think Hamas wants to see violence in the United States. That's their goal to get more people to kill Jews, Christians, and others in the United States.

And I think they're probably going to succeed unless there's some preventive steps they're taking. Now, the preventive steps should not include diminutions of free speech under the Constitution.

GLENN: I -- I tell you, I -- you know, I see what the government is doing, and how AI is -- and Silicon Valley is playing a big role with the Pentagon and CIA.

And everything else. And I am really, really concerned. If there is another big event like a 9/11.

I fear Americans are just going to run to that kind of stuff. And then we're in a trap. And I don't think we'll get out of.

JOSH: Yeah. That's what history shows.

I show, that there's a common phenomenon. We underreact, and we don't prevent.

We didn't prevent Pearl Harbor. We didn't prevent 9/11. Israel didn't prevent October 7th. Then what happened?

After we failed to prevent Pearl Harbor, we put 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, in order to prevent them from doing it again. They never would have done it again.

We overreacted. After 9/11, we created the Patriot Act, which gave the government too much power, to prevent a recurrence of that.

And, you know, the reason we disagree with Israel. But a lot of people think Israel, for failure. From October 7th.

Which they could have done. They had the intelligence. May have overreacted. In Gaza.

I'm not agreeing with that. I'm just telling you, historically, there's a phenomenon, it starts with underprediction.

And ends up with overreaction to the event.

That was not predicted and prevented.

That's one of the thesis of my book.

GLENN: So what -- what should we expect?

And how do we prepare ourselves, so we don't go down that road?

JOSH: Well, first of all, we do a lot more preparation and prevention. We try desperately to use what the resources are available. I'll give you an example.

The young man who burned those people in Boulder, Colorado.

He was here illegally. He had overstayed his visa. There's nothing wrong with using artificial intelligence and computer technology to keep track of people who stay here illegally.

And once he overstayed his visa. Action could have be taken.

And maybe this crime could have been prevented. So I think there are preventive steps that are consistent with the Constitution and free speech.

That can be taken, to avoid the cataclysmic events. Give you another horrible example, that we're working on right now.

Should the United States and Israel bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? We know they're playing to create an atomic bomb.

And we know in the 1930s, if France and England had prevented Germany from building up its army, it would have saved 50 million lives.

We must know it then.

Are these the crimes of preventive decisions, but there's no free lunch!

Every preventive decision entails some diminution of liberty. And, you know, Benjamin Franklin was correct, when he said those who would deny essential liberties to secure a little bit more security, deserve neither.

But the question is, can we deny a little bit of nonessential liberty, to prevent major cataclysmic events. Give you appear example. Before 9/11. We arrested ten people, and prevented 9/11. And the people arrested. And spent two months in jail.

That's probably a trend that was worth it.

GLENN: What are nonessential liberties?

ALAN: Well, there's a continuum. Obviously, free speech is the most essential liberty. Privacy is a matter of degree. And, you know, keeping track of people who are here illegally, does in some way, invade their right of privacy.

But in a small way.

Because they really don't have a right to be there at all.

Liberty is a continuum.

And we have to make sure that we don't go after fundamental liberties, as I think, look, what could be worse than putting 110,000 Japanese-Americans in camps, and denying them their right to earn a living?

We did that for three years.

And the Supreme Court. The liberal justices -- Earl Warren was the governor of California at the time. He was on the Supreme Court.
They all agreed with that, only a couple of justices.

Justice Jackson didn't agree with it.

But Americans were outraged at Pearl Harbor, as they were outraged at 9/11.

When you were outraged.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: You don't think terribly.

GLENN: I know. I know. And that's a little terrifying. Just looking at what's coming around the world. And then seeing the growth of AI and what can be done.

It's a little frightening, that we will jump immediately to, yes.

We need a super, duper Patriot Act.

That it's --

ALAN: Yeah. That's right. We need a super, duper Patriot Act that denies free speech. That's the first thing. People hate free speech. The vast majority of Americans, even though they claim the First Amendment, believe in free speech for me, but not for thee. When I taught my class on the First Amendment, I would ask my students, how many people believe free speech for everybody?

Everybody would raise their hand, and then I would say, well, what about pornography? Some hands went down.

What about anti-Semitism?

Some hands would go down. What about bigotry against Catholics? Some hands would go down. By the end of the class, no hands were up. Everybody had an exception.

GLENN: Hmm. Alan, hold on for one minute. I want to talk to you a little bit about Harvard and what's going on there, and what do you think is coming for Harvard and out of all of this.

In 60 seconds, back with Alan Dershowitz in just a second.

The sponsor is Good Ranchers.

When was the last time you looked forward to dinner?

And I don't mean out of habit. I mean, actually felt exited like you used to, when steak night meant something. When the smell hit the pan, and people drifted in the kitchen, without being called.

It's amazing what good meat can do. Good fish. Good chicken.

Good Ranchers is not just about buying American. You're supporting US farmers and ranchers. It's about making food mean something again!

Because we have forgotten, you know, what chicken is supposed to taste like.

Or how a burger used to taste. When you were sure you were eating American beef, and it was all natural.

This is a wake-up call.

Everything Good Ranchers sells, is 100 percent American. No import. No mystery. Just high quality beef, chicken, and seafood, delivered straight to your door.

Right now, when you subscribe, they're offering free meat for life. Choose from ground beef, wild caught salmon, bacon or seed-oil free Chicken Nuggets. You'll get that bonus in every box for as long as you stay subscribed.

So visit GoodRanchers.com. Use the promo code Beck. Unlock your free meat for life.

Plus, get $40 off.

It's GoodRanchers.com. GoodRanchers.com. American meat delivered.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So, I mean, you were the youngest full professor at Harvard, at the law school. You're an emeritus now at Harvard. What do you see happening to Harvard and this -- this war, this battle between the Trump administration and Harvard?

ALAN: Look, it started with the people in government administration.

Harvard started on its decline, probably more than a decade ago. By adopting DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Which lowered standards for emission. Lowered standards for faculty.

And turned us into a mediocre university. We are a mediocre university, Harvard.

The Latin term shouldn't be veritas. It should be mediocritas. We technically have lowered our standards.

This is not about Jews, or about Israel. This is about lowering the standards for DEI. We also adopted a content called intersectionality, which says that the world is divided into two groups. The oppressors. Those are Americans, white, Jews. And the oppressed. People of color. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That's permeated the faculty.

Third, we've created these crazy departments of gender studies. Of Critical Race Theory. Of southeast Asian this. And these programs are nonacademic.

They are political.

They have agendas.

And they have destroyed the university.

And so I think we need to fundamentally root out, these hard left political, nonacademic courses.

And, of course, there's anti-Semitism as well.

And so I generally support Harvard a kick in their rear end.

I have a new book coming out in the summer, that's called Trump to Harvard. Go Fund Yourself.

And it lays out, how it's important to have targeted defunding. Schools like the Divinity School. The school that teaches Christianity has become the cesspool of anti-Semitism.

The public health department. A cesspool of anti-Semitism. Human rights has become a place of human wrong. So there's a lot of work to be done. It should be targeted. We shouldn't be denying visas to everybody. We should be denying them to those who would come in and cause terrible disruptions on the campus. So there's a lot of work to be done. And the president of Harvard is food. I assume he's trying his best.

But there are hard left people on the faculty. Who care more about promoting their progressive agendas. Then about teaching students.

You know, 60 years at Harvard. I never once expressed a personal vie in class. Never once. They didn't know what my views were on capital punishment, on Israel. You name it. None of it. I never expressed a personal view in class. My job was not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think. If they were conservative, I wanted them to go as a smart conservative. If they were liberal, I wanted them to be a better liberal.

So that's my job. But that's not what's going on at Harvard today. Today, it's becoming a place of indoctrination and propaganda.

GLENN: What do you say to -- there's this big thing going around now. You know, I was just a year away from curing, you know, tuberculosis, and the government pulled all of its funding out of my Harvard research.

ALAN: Terrible.

GLENN: And now these children are all going to do. How do you respond to that?

ALAN: Yeah. First, A, it's an overstatement. Harvard has $53 billion that can at that it can devote to curing cancer. But clearly, I mean, for example, one of the first reactions when they cut off the funds from Harvard research was one of the researchers made an announcement that said, oh, my God. The mice will now die.

We can't afford to feed a mice. You know how much it costs to feed a mice? Eleven cents a day to feed a mouse.

So a lot of overstatement, but I do think we have to have all the targeting. And we should not be cutting back on research at all.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz. I would love to do a podcast with you, on about the preventive state. You're always right on top of it. Thank you so much, Alan Dershowitz. Again, the name of the book is The Preventive State. Harvard law school professor ameritas and host of the Dershow.

EXPOSED: Tim Walz's shocking ties to radical Muslim cleric

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is directly connected in more ways than one to a radical Muslim cleric named Asad Zaman. Zaman's history and ties are despicable, and despite Walz's efforts to dismiss his connection to Zaman, the proof is undeniable. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to connect the dots on this relationship.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Glenn Beck Exposes TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS Infiltrating the Democrat Party

Is there a sinister GOP plan to SELL national parks?

Is Sen. Mike Lee pushing a sinister plan to sell our national parks and build “affordable housing” on them? Glenn Beck fact checks this claim and explains why Sen. Lee’s plan to sell 3 million acres of federal land is actually pro-freedom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me give you a couple of things, from people I generally respect.

Chris Rufo, I really respect.

I'm totally against selling this land.

Nobody is going to build affordable housing deep in the Olympic Peninsula, which is one of the most beautiful places in the country.

I agree, it's in Washington State. It's on the coast. And it's a rain forest.

I want my kids hiking, fishing, and camping on those lands, not selling them off for some tax credit scam. This is a question I want to ask Mike Lee about.

That's really good. Matt Walsh chimes in, I'm very opposed to the plan. The biggest environmentalist in the country are and always have been, conservatives who like to hunt and fish.

We don't just call ourselves environmentalists, because the label has too much baggage.

And the practice always just means communist. Really, we are naturalists in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and that's why most of us hate the idea of selling off federal lands to build affordable housing or whatever. I want to get to affordable housing here in a second.

Preserving nature is important. It's a shame we haven't -- that we've allowed conservation to become so left-wing coated. It never was historically.

No, and it still isn't.

You're right about one thing, Matt. We are the best conservatives. We actually live in these places. We use these places. We respect the animals. We respect the land. We know how the circle of life works. So I agree with you on that.

But affordable housing. Why do you say affordable housing or whatever?

Are you afraid those will be black people? I'm just playing devil's advocate? Are you just afraid of black people? You don't want any poor people in your neighborhood or your forest?

That's not what they mean by affordable housing.

And I know that's not what you mean either.

But what -- what we mean by affordable housing is, if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states. You can't live in a house, in some of these states, you know. Close to anything, for, you know, less than a million dollars. Because there's no land!

There's plenty of land all around.

Some of it. Let's just talk about Utah.

Some of it is like the surface of the moon!

But no. No. No.

Not going to hunt and fish on the surface of the moon. But we can't have you live anywhere.

I mean, you have to open up -- there is a balance between people and the planet. And I'm sorry. But when you're talked about one half of 1 percent, and we're not talking about Yellowstone.

You know, we're not. Benji Backer, the Daily Caller, he says, the United States is attempting to sell off three million acres of public land, that will be used for housing development through the addition of the spending bill.

This is a small provision to the big, beautiful bill that would put land in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado. Idaho. New Mexico. Oregon. Utah. Washington, and Wyoming at risk.

Without so much as a full and fair debate by members of both sides of the political aisle.

You know, I talked -- I'll talk to him about this.

The irony is, the edition of this provision by Republican-led Senate goes entirely against conservation legacy of a conservation. President Trump made a promise to revive this legacy.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

More about Teddy Roosevelt.

Then let me give you this one from Lomez. Is Mike Lee part of a sinister plan to sell off federal land?

This plan to sell off public lands is a terrible proposal that doesn't make any sense under our present circumstances and would be a colossal political blunder. But I'll try to be fair to base Mike Lee.

And at least have him explain where this is all coming from.

Okay. I will have him do that in about 30 minutes.

Let me give you just my perspective on this.

I'm from the West. I love the west.

I don't hike myself.

I think there's about 80 percent of the people who say, I just love to hike. And they don't love to hike. They never go outside.

I'm at least willing to admit. I don't like to hike. But I love the land. I live in a canyon now. That I would love to just preserve this whole canyon in my lifetime. I'm not going to rule from the grave. But in my lifetime, to protect this, so it remains unspoiled. Because it is beautiful!

But we're talking about selling 3 million acres of federal land. And it's becoming dangerous.

And it's a giveaway. Or a threat to nature.

But can we just look at the perspective here?

The federal government owned 640 million acres. That is nearly 28 percent of all land in America!

How much land do we have?

Well, that's about the size of France.

And Germany. Poland.

And the United Kingdom, combined!

They own and hold pristine land, that is more than the size of those countries combined!

And most of that is west of the Mississippi. Where the federal control smothers the states.

Okay?

Shuts down opportunity. Turns local citizens into tenets of the federal estate.

You can't afford any house because you don't have any land!

And, you know, the states can't afford to take care of this land. You know why the states can't afford it?

Because you can't charge taxes on 70 percent of your land!

Anyway, on, meanwhile, the folks east of the Mississippi, like Kentucky, Georgia. Pennsylvania.

You don't even realize, you know, how little of the land, you actually control.

Or how easy it is for the same policies, to come for you.

And those policies are real.

Look, I'm not talking about -- I'm disturbed by Chris Rufo saying, that it is the Olympic forest.

I mean, you're not going to live in the rain forest. I would like to hear the case on that.

But we're not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that.

We're talking about less than one half of one percent of federal land. Land that is remote.
Hard to access. Or mismanaged. I live in the middle of a national forest.

So I'm surrounded on all sides by a national forest, and then BLM land around that. And then me. You know who the worst neighbor I have is?

The federal government.

The BLM land is so badly mismanaged. They don't care what's happening.

Yeah. I'm going to call my neighbor, in Washington, DC, to have them fix something.

It's not going to happen.

If something is wrong with that land, me and my neighbors, we end up, you know, fixing the land.

We end up doing it. Because the federal government sucks at it.

Okay.

So here's one -- less than one half of 1 percent.

Why is it hard to access that land?

Well, let me give you a story. Yellowstone.

Do you know that the American bison, we call it the buffalo.

But it's the American bison.

There are no true American bison, in any place, other than Yellowstone.

Did you know that?

Here's almost an endangered species.

It's the only true American bison, is in Yellowstone.

Ranchers, I would love to raise real American bison.

And I would protect them.

I would love to have them roaming on my land.

But you can't!

You can't.

Real bison, you can't.

Why? Because the federal government won't allow any of them to be bred.

In fact, when Yellowstone has too many bison on their land, you know what the federal government does?

Kills them. And buries them with a bulldozer. Instead of saying, hey. We have too many.

We will thin the herd.

We will put them on a truck. Here's some ranchers that will help repopulate the United States with bison. No, no, no. You can't do that.

Why? It's the federal government. Stop asking questions. Do you know what they've done to our bald eagles.

I have pictures of piles of bald eagles.

That they'll never show you.

They'll never show you.

You can't have a bald eagle feather!

It's against the law, to have a feather, from a bald eagle!

If it's flying, and a feather falls off, you can't pick it up. Because they're that sacred.

But I have pictures of piles of bald eagles, dead, from the windmills.

And nobody says a thing.

Okay.

But we're talking about lands.

States can't afford to manage it.

Okay. But how can the federal government?

Now, this is really important.

The federal government is, what? $30 trillion in debt or are we 45 trillion now, I'm not sure?

Our entitlement programs, all straight infrastructure, crumbling.

And yet, we're still clinging to millions of acres of land, that the federal government can't maintain. Yeah, they can.

Because they can always print money.

We can't print money in the state, so we can't afford it.

Hear me out. The BLM Forest Service, Park Service, billions of dollars behind in maintenance, roads, trails, fire brakes.

Everything is falling apart..

So what's the real plan here?

Well, the Biden administration was the first one that was really open about it, pushing for what was called 30 by 30.

They want 30 percent of all US land and water, under conservation by 2030.

But the real goal is 5050.

50 percent of the land, and the water, in the government's control by 2050.

Half of the country locked up under federal or elite approved protection.

Now, you think that's not going to affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze, cattle. Harvest, timber, just live free. You won't be able to go on those. It won't be conservatives, who stop you from hunting and fishing.

It will be the same radical environmental ideologues, who see the land, as sacred, over people!

I mean, unless it's in your backyard. Your truck. Or your dear stand, you know, then I guess you can't touch that land.

Here's something that no one is talking about, and it goes to the 2030.

The Treasury right now, and they started under Obama, and they're still doing it now.

Sorry, under Biden.

And they're doing it now. The Treasury is talking about putting federal land on the national ballot sheet. What does that mean?

Well, it will make our balance sheet so much better.

Because it looks like we have so much more wealth, and we will be able to print more money.

Uh-huh. What happens, you know. You put something sacred like that, on your balance sheet, and the piggy bank runs dry.

And all of the banks are like, okay.

Well, you can't pay anymore.

What happens in a default?

What happens, if there's catastrophic failure. You don't get to go fish on that land. Because that land becomes Chinese.

You think our creditors, foreign and domestic, won't come knocking?

What happens when federal land is no longer a national treasure, but a financial asset, that can be seized or sold or controlled by giant banks or foreign countries.

That land that you thought, you would always have access to, for your kids, for your hunting lodge, for your way of life.

That is really important!

But it might not be yours at all. Because you had full faith in the credit of the United States of America.

So what is the alternative?

Dershowitz SLAMS ‘expert’ lies in explosive trans surgery debate

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries for minors. But famed attorney Alan Dershowitz explains to Glenn why “it should have been unanimous.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, how are you?

ALAN: I'm doing great, how about you?

GLENN: It has been a really confusing week. I'm losing friends, I think, because I stand with Israel's right to defend themselves. And I'm pointing out, that while I don't want a war, Iran is a really bad place.

And then I see, the Supreme Court comes out best interest there are three justices are like, I don't know. I think children, you know, can change their identity before we even let them drive or carry a gun. Or enlist in the military.

It's insane!

ALAN: It is insane. Especially since the radical left said that -- 17 and a half-year-old -- voluntary sex with their boyfriend. That would be sexist, that would be horrible.

But they can consent to have an abortion. They can consent to have radical surgery, that can't be reversed.

By the way, the decision is like six to two and a half. Elena Kagan, my former colleague at Harvard, didn't reach the merits of whether or not a state could actually ban these operations on a minor. She got involved in whether or not you need super, duper scrutiny, or just super scrutiny, a kind of, you know, a very technical thing.

But she didn't rule on whether under any kind of scrutiny, the state could do that. So definitely, two of them said that the state could do it, but not necessarily a third one.

GLENN: Okay.

Can you break this argument down? And why it should have been unanimous?

ALAN: Oh, it should be unanimous. There's no question.

States under the Constitution, have the authority to decide medical issues. States decide a whole range of medical issues. I remember when I was a young professor, there was an issue of whether or not one twin could be operated on to remove a kidney, to be given to another twin.

And, you know, that case went all the way through -- the federal government never got involved in that. That was up to the state of Massachusetts. They made interesting decisions.

Some states go the other way.

Half the countries of Europe go one way. The other half go the other way. And just as Justice Brandeis once said that things are the laboratories of Constitutional experimentation.

They have the right to do things their own way. And then we'll see over time. Over time, I predict that we will find that this kind of surgery, is not acceptable scientifically for young people.

And the New York Times had an absurd op-ed yesterday. By the mother of a transgender person.

And it never mentioned. It originally said that the person was now 18 years old.

And the decision does not apply to anyone who is 18.

You know, just wait. Don't make irreversible decisions while you're 12 years old. Or 13 years old.

Because we know the statistics show, that some people, at least, regret having made these irreversible decisions, particularly. Yeah.

GLENN: So why is it -- why is it that the state. Why wasn't the argument, you can't do this to children?

ALAN: Well, you know, that's the question.

Whether or not if the state says, you can do it to children, that violates the Constitution. I think states are given an enormous amount of leeway, this. Deciding what's best for people.

You leave it to the public.

And, you know, for me, if I were, you know, voting. I would not vote to allow a 17-year-old to make that irreversible decision. But if the state wants to do it. If a country in Europe wants to do it. All right!

But the idea that there's a constitutional right for a minor, who can't -- isn't old enough to consent to a contract, to have sex, is old enough to consent to do something that will change their life forever, and they will come to regret, is -- is absurd.

GLENN: So I don't know how you feel about Justice Thomas. But he -- he took on the so-called experts.

And -- and really kind of took him to the woodshed. What were your thoughts on that?

ALAN: Well, I agree with that. I devoted my whole life to challenging experts. That's what I do in court.

I challenge experts all the time. But most of the major cases that I've won, have been cases where experts went one way, and we were -- persuaded a jury or judge. That the expert is not really an expert.

Experts have become partisans, just like everybody else.

And so I'm glad that expert piece is being challenged by judges.

And, you know, experts ought to challenge judges, judges challenge experts. That's the world we live in. Everybody challenges everybody else. As long as all of us are allowed to speak, allowed to have our point of view expressed, allowed to vote, that's democracy.

Democracy does not require a singular answer to complex medical, psychological, moral problems. We can have multiple answers.

We're not a dictatorship. We're not in North Korea or Iran, where the ayatollah or the leader tells us what to think. We can think for ourselves, and we can act for ourselves.

GLENN: Yeah. It's really interesting because this is my argument with Obamacare.

I was dead set against Obamacare. But I wasn't against Romneycare when it was in Massachusetts. If that's what Massachusetts wants to do, Massachusetts can do it. Try it.

And honestly, if it would work in a state, we would all adopt it.

But the problem is, that some of these things, like Romneycare, doesn't work. And so they want to -- they want to rope the federal government into it. Because the federal government can just print money. You know, any state wants to do anything.

For instance, I have a real hard time with California right now.

Because I have a feeling, when they fail, we will be roped into paying for the things that we all knew were bad ideas.

Why? Why should I pay for it in Texas, when I know it wouldn't work?

And I've always wanted to live in California, but I don't, because I know that's not going to work.

ALAN: Yeah. But conservatives sometimes take the opposite point of view.

Take guns, for example.

The same Justice Thomas says that I state cannot have the authority to decide that guns should not be available in time square.

Or in schools. There has to be a national openness to guns. Because of the second apple.

And -- you can argue reasonably, what the Second Amendment means.

But, you know, conservatives -- many conservatives take the view that it has to be a single standard for the United States.

It can't vary in their decision how to control -- I'm your favorite --

GLENN: Isn't that -- doesn't that -- doesn't that just take what the -- what the Bill of Rights is about, and turns it upside the head?

I mean, it says, anything not mentioned here, the states have the rights.

But they -- they cannot. The federal government cannot get involved in any of these things.

And these are rights that are enshrined.

So, I mean, because you could say that, but, I mean, when it comes to health care, that's not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights.

ALAN: Oh, no.

There's a big difference, of course.

The Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms.

The question is whether it's interpreted in light of the beginning of the Second Amendment. Which says, essentially, a well-regulated, well-regulated militia. Whether that applies to private ownership as well.

Whether it could be well-regulated by states.

Look, these are interesting debates.

And the Supreme Court, you know, decides these.

But all I'm saying is that many of these decisions are in some way, influenced by ideology.

The words of the Constitution, don't speak like, you know, the Ten Commandments and God, giving orders from on high.

They're often written in ambiguous terms. Even the Ten Commandments. You know, it says, thou shall not murder. And it's been interpreted by some to say, thou shall not still, the Hebrew word is (foreign language), for murder, not kill. And, of course, we know that in parts of the Bible, you are allowed to kill your enemies, if they come after you to kill you, rise up and kill them first.

So, you know, everything -- human beings are incapable of writing with absolute clarity, about complex issues.

That's why we need institutions to interpret them. The institutions should be fair.

And the Supreme Court is sometimes taking over too much authority, too much power.

I have an article today, with gay stone.

Can had starts with a quote from the book of Ruth.

And it says, when judges rule the land, there was famine.

And I say, judges were not supposed to ever rule, going back to Biblical times.

Judges are supposed to judge.

People who are elected or pointed appropriately. Are the ones supposed to rule.

GLENN: Quickly. Two other topics. And I know you have to go.

If I can get a couple of quick takes on you.

The Democrats that are being handcuffed, and throwing themselves into situations.

Do you find that to be a sign of a fascistic state or a publicity stunt?

ALAN: A publicity stunt. And they would knit it. You know, give them a drink at 11 o'clock in the bar. They will tell you, they are doing this deliberately to get attention.

Of course, a guy who is running behind in the mayor race in New York, goes and gets himself arrested. And now he's on every New York television station. And probably will move himself up in the polls.

So no.

Insular -- I don't believe in that. And I don't believe we should take it -- take it seriously.

GLENN: Last question.

I am proudly for Israel.

But I'm also for America. And I'm really tired of foreign wars.

And I think you can be pro-Israel and pro-America at the same time.

I don't think you can -- you don't have to say, I'm for Israel, defending themselves, and then that makes me a warmonger.

I am also very concerned about Iran. And have been for a very long time.

Because they're Twelvers. They're Shia Twelvers. That want to wash the world in blood. To hasten the return of the promised one.

So when they have a nuclear weapon. It's a whole different story.

ALAN: No, I agree with you, Tucker Carlson, is absolutely wrong, when he say he has to choose between America first or supporting Israel. Supporting Israel in this fight against Iran, is being America first.

It's supporting America. Israel has been doing all the hard work. It's been the one who lost its civilians and fortunately, none of its pilots yet.

But America and Israel work together in the interest of both countries.

So I'm -- I'm a big supporter of the United States, the patriarch. And I'm a big supporter of Israel at the same time.

Because they work together in tandem, to bring about Western -- Western values.

GLENN: Should we drop a bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should.

GLENN: Our plane drop the bomb?

ALAN: Yes, we should. And without killing civilians. It can be done. Probably needs four bombs, not one bomb. First, one bomb to open up the mountain. Then another bomb to destroy what's going on inside.

And in my book The Preventive State, I make the case for when preventive war is acceptable. And the war against Iran is as acceptable as it would have been to attack Nazi Germany in the 1930s. If we had done that, if Britain and France had attacked Nazi Germany in the 1930s, instead of allowing it to be built up, it could have saved 60 million lives. And so sometimes, you have to take preventive actions to save lives.

GLENN: What is the preventive state out, Alan?

ALAN: Just now. Just now.

Very well on Amazon.

New York Times refuses to review it. Because I defended Donald Trump.

And Harvard club cancelled my appearance talked about the book. Because I haven't been defending Harvard. I've been defending President Trump's attack. By the way, they called Trump to Harvard: Go fund yourself.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay.

Let's -- I would love to have you back on next week. To talk about the preventive state. If you will. Thank you, Alan. I appreciate it. Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law school, professor emeritus, host of the Dershow. And the author of the new book that's out now, The Preventive State.

I think that's a really important topic. Because we are -- we are traveling down the roads, where fascism, on both sides, where fascism can start to creep in. And it's all for your own good.

It's all for your own protection. Be aware. Be aware.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE